bristolcitysweden Posted December 16, 2010 Report Share Posted December 16, 2010 The council are looking for a compromise. As the stadium itself will only take up 1/3 of the site it shoulden't be a problem if our opponents only could accept the stadium "Council leader Barbara Janke, Labour leader Helen Holland and Conservative leader Geoff Gollop said they had asked the applicants for town green status and the landowners to consider whether both the football stadium and using part of the site for recreation was possible." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-12009162 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevep38 Posted December 16, 2010 Report Share Posted December 16, 2010 This could be a good thing, the only thing i can see backfiring is if the tvg lot wont accept any compromise or even talk about it. We all know that they are only doing this to stop the stadium. I wonder also if the council is leaning towards this tvg thing now as we no longer have the world cup as leverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garlicbread Posted December 16, 2010 Report Share Posted December 16, 2010 The council are looking for a compromise. As the stadium itself will only take up 1/3 of the site it shoulden't be a problem if our opponents only could accept the stadium "Council leader Barbara Janke, Labour leader Helen Holland and Conservative leader Geoff Gollop said they had asked the applicants for town green status and the landowners to consider whether both the football stadium and using part of the site for recreation was possible." http://www.bbc.co.uk...ristol-12009162 all well and good....the only snag is that the nimbys clearly arent into having land for recreation (they dont use the 'village green' now)....they just dont want a stadium anywhere nearby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnM Posted December 16, 2010 Report Share Posted December 16, 2010 The only way this stands any chance is if an experienced and independent mediator (similar to ACAS) is appointed to manage the meeting of the two parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolcitysweden Posted December 16, 2010 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2010 Any party not willing to compromise are also asked to justify their decision according to the news on BBC Radio Bristol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CotswoldRed Posted December 16, 2010 Report Share Posted December 16, 2010 Ditto the above points. They don't want a stadium. There is no middle ground on this point is there? Its either built or it isn't. There is no compromise for these Nimby's, there never is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fireman Sam Posted December 16, 2010 Report Share Posted December 16, 2010 This could be a good thing, the only thing i can see backfiring is if the tvg lot wont accept any compromise or even talk about it. We all know that they are only doing this to stop the stadium. I wonder also if the council is leaning towards this tvg thing now as we no longer have the world cup as leverage. The Long Ashton Parishman was asked does he want a Stadium Built there? As he keeps moving the goalposts. He replied after hesitation, "NO I DO NOT!" So how is mediation going to work???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargent Pepper Posted December 16, 2010 Report Share Posted December 16, 2010 After reading the statement on our site I take this to mean "we have the evidence to blow tvg application out of the water so save a bit of face and come to the table" I hope I'm right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted December 16, 2010 Report Share Posted December 16, 2010 Hold on, why's some ****** from Long Ashton getting involved? This could be a good thing, but I can't help but think the NIMBYs will have certain agitators on their ear telling them to say no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slartibartfast Posted December 16, 2010 Report Share Posted December 16, 2010 Hold on, why's some ****** from Long Ashton getting involved? This could be a good thing, but I can't help but think the NIMBYs will have certain agitators on their ear telling them to say no. If they refuse to compromise, surely the council (who will make this ruling) will see the ***** for what they really are and give US the ruling, citing that the VG rule wasn't put in place to block legitimate building. Here's hoping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolcitysweden Posted December 16, 2010 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2010 I think they now have to grab the hand that has been outstretched from the first day the stadium was discussed. If not they will be blatantly penetrated and lose the case. They simply have no choice. The stadium only take up 1/3 of the land so exactly where would you like it to be situated on the site? A compromise from our side could be to dig down the lower tier of the stadium. With economic help from the council of course. This has been the solution in Stockholm in one case were there was a concern that the stadium would stand out to much compared to the neighbourhood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CotswoldRed Posted December 16, 2010 Report Share Posted December 16, 2010 A compromise from our side could be to dig down the lower tier of the stadium. We're already doing this aren't we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC&T Board Members Blagdon red Posted December 16, 2010 SC&T Board Members Report Share Posted December 16, 2010 We're already doing this aren't we? Yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calculus Posted December 16, 2010 Report Share Posted December 16, 2010 The council are looking for a compromise. As the stadium itself will only take up 1/3 of the site it shoulden't be a problem if our opponents only could accept the stadium "Council leader Barbara Janke, Labour leader Helen Holland and Conservative leader Geoff Gollop said they had asked the applicants for town green status and the landowners to consider whether both the football stadium and using part of the site for recreation was possible." http://www.bbc.co.uk...ristol-12009162 Whistling in the dark, I'm afraid, and a sign of how desperate the council are becoming. The residents don't want to compromise and they don't need to. All they need to do is say no and make the council decide. If the council go against their advisor and deny the TVG application then it more than likely it will go to judicial review, which would almost certainly find for the residents. Stupid and unfair it might be but that's the law and the worst of it is it won't cost the residents a penny - all funded by the council unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolcitysweden Posted December 16, 2010 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2010 We're already doing this aren't we? If so dig it down even more or build it entirely under ground level with a glass roof so that it can be used all year around. Conference facilities etc. can be built beside or around the glass roof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC_Red Posted December 16, 2010 Report Share Posted December 16, 2010 If so dig it down even more or build it entirely under ground level with a glass roof so that it can be used all year around. add millions more to the costs? good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolcitysweden Posted December 16, 2010 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2010 add millions more to the costs? good idea. The council need to contribute if not the housing, conference facilities, hotels etc. cover the extra cost. A hughe hole can't be that expensive. and I have not been on the Swedish vodka Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC_Red Posted December 16, 2010 Report Share Posted December 16, 2010 The council need to contribute if not the housing, conference facilities, hotels etc. don't cover the extra cost. A hughe hole can't be that expensive. and I have not been on the Swedish vodka extra excavation extra engineering to have it underground extra reinforcement so the stands support a roof extra engineering for a sliding roof extra cost of a roof. it would run to millions. The council wont contribute. If you think they will you've been on something stronger than vodka. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolcitysweden Posted December 16, 2010 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2010 extra excavation extra engineering to have it underground extra reinforcement so the stands support a roof extra engineering for a sliding roof extra cost of a roof. it would run to millions. The council wont contribute. If you think they will you've been on something stronger than vodka. In Stockholm the council stand the whole cost and then lease the stadium out to the clubowner long time. You forgot extra income Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC_Red Posted December 16, 2010 Report Share Posted December 16, 2010 In Stockholm the council stand the whole cost and then lease the stadium out to the clubowner long time. You forgot extra income we want to own not rent. rent is dead money and means you have no asset. extra income from what? people who enjoy living underground? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted December 16, 2010 Report Share Posted December 16, 2010 Whistling in the dark, I'm afraid, and a sign of how desperate the council are becoming. The residents don't want to compromise and they don't need to. All they need to do is say no and make the council decide. If the council go against their advisor and deny the TVG application then it more than likely it will go to judicial review, which would almost certainly find for the residents. Stupid and unfair it might be but that's the law and the worst of it is it won't cost the residents a penny - all funded by the council unfortunately. Thankfully it's not quite that clear cut, there are options open to the council - this is one of them - and many reasons a judicial review can go against the applicants since this is common law and there are precedents which could be used. In particular I believe there is one on dogwalking not being considered recreation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolcitysweden Posted December 16, 2010 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2010 we want to own not rent. rent is dead money and means you have no asset. extra income from what? people who enjoy living underground? Conference facilities, housing etc. could be built around the glass roof. Concerts, exhibitions, car show etc. all year around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrizleCiderArmy Posted December 16, 2010 Report Share Posted December 16, 2010 If they refuse to compromise, surely the council (who will make this ruling) will see the ***** for what they really are and give US the ruling, citing that the VG rule wasn't put in place to block legitimate building. Here's hoping. Fingers crossed. Then, hopefully after building the stadium, Steve Lansdown builds a banger racing track and a speedway track at the end of the land nearest to the residents. Let them stick that in there pipe and smoke it. In fact i hope he wacks up a couple of big ugly rusty tower blocks there too just to piss them off more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FanaticRed Posted December 16, 2010 Report Share Posted December 16, 2010 If so dig it down even more or build it entirely under ground level with a glass roof so that it can be used all year around. Conference facilities etc. can be built beside or around the glass roof. We may aswell dissapear into a black whole and let the residents bury us... <laugh> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGPHIL Posted December 16, 2010 Report Share Posted December 16, 2010 Whistling in the dark, I'm afraid, and a sign of how desperate the council are becoming. The residents don't want to compromise and they don't need to. All they need to do is say no and make the council decide. If the council go against their advisor and deny the TVG application then it more than likely it will go to judicial review, which would almost certainly find for the residents. Stupid and unfair it might be but that's the law and the worst of it is it won't cost the residents a penny - all funded by the council unfortunately. I think it was stated earlier in this long drawn out saga, that if either side wanted to appeal after the Council made their decision had to fund their case. In the event that the party appealling lost then they also had to cover the costs of the other side. Must admit not 100% certain on this one, nut sure that what was said somewhere earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fireman Sam Posted December 16, 2010 Report Share Posted December 16, 2010 We're already doing this aren't we? Yes And we let them have it But they still keep asking for more THEY JUST DO NOT WANT IT!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanG Posted December 16, 2010 Report Share Posted December 16, 2010 If they refuse to compromise, surely the council (who will make this ruling) will see the ***** for what they really are and give US the ruling, citing that the VG rule wasn't put in place to block legitimate building. Here's hoping. I think the council know that and are playing a very very clever game to cut down on appeals etc. They've offered to compromise, so if its accepted the ground will go ahead - we'll be happy and the nimbys will also say they have won a minor victory too. If it isn't then the nimbys are seen as obstructive and unreasonable and will be treated as such which will strengthen the councils decision to offer it to us. BUT, If the council don't offer a compromise before making their decision to give it to us then you can guarantee the nimbys will appeal on the basis that they weren't even offered a compromise. This offer can only do the cause good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul G Posted December 16, 2010 Report Share Posted December 16, 2010 In Stockholm the council stand the whole cost and then lease the stadium out to the clubowner long time. You forgot extra income Indeed, and then that extra income could be used to benefit Bristol taxpayers maybe even reducing levels of council tax!!!! Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted December 16, 2010 Report Share Posted December 16, 2010 As an Ashton Vale resident, the TVG app' was put in to stop the stadium and nothing else. This came from a member of the bizzarely run Ashton Vale Heritage Group. She told me that in no uncertain terms they want the stadium, got some great advice and got people to send old photo's of the using the site. Now, this is where it gets interesting as the photo's are from the 80's with the odd photo taken in the 90's and balloon fiesta photo's. There are also photo's taken of ONE family who took a blanket out to sit on and take photo's of them enjoy their one and likely, only day out at the site. More interestingly is, there has never, ever been a residents meet/fiesta/party/community fair in the entire time I have lived at the Vale (over 10 years). I have been to a community fair at Ashton Vale Community Centre at the top of Silbury and I must admit, it was excellent. But they could have held this at the TVG site....or could they????? Yes, animals grazed, people walk dogs and kids do play...at the Wetlands part of the site, which is used a lot in the summer may I add. BUT, this is the part that will be developed and improved, in my opinion, 100%. Will they compromise, maybe...but I doubt it as these people are stubborn, very stubborn and admit they are Nimbys so I expect they won't budge. Unless someone spoke in their ear and said it's in your interest and then maybe, just maybe they might. MM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolcitysweden Posted December 16, 2010 Author Report Share Posted December 16, 2010 Indeed, and then that extra income could be used to benefit Bristol taxpayers maybe even reducing levels of council tax!!!! Just a thought. Without the councils funding we would not see a new stadium in Stockholm. The lease is very beneficial for the lessee. We are not lucky enough to have a Steve Lansdown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.