Nuno Gomes Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 The media suggest today that a compromise may be reached between City and the Ashton Gate residents but can they? I am not clear who 'owns' the decision and therefore who has the right to put it to one side. An Independent Inspector has listened to the evidence and come to a decision. Even if the residents agree to some compromise surely that evidence and the recommendation from it remains? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dollymarie Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 If the landowner (Steve Lansdown) and the petitioners (the 19 activists) can reach an arrangement/agreement, then the activists can drop their town green application without anyone else having to get involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stick Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 The inspector made a recommendation. It's up to BCC to ratify it. If an agreement can be reached I assume the council say it's not a village green (which most sane people agree it's not) and the residents don't challenge the decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portland Bill Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 On htv news tonight a bloke from the Avon Wildlife trust ( i think that was the name but stand to be corrected) said that he felt a compromise was close. It seemed fairly positive. That's the way I saw it anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
screech Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 So heres the bit I don't understand. There are 19 residents who want a village green, say the club come to a compromise with them and they drop the application, what is to stop another application going in from another group of residents? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 The inspector made a recommendation, not a decision. The council aren't bound by it and are in fact bound by a rather loose law that merely describes the minimum criteria for land to be considered for registration as a town green. The law does not require a specific process or mandate how the decision should be made, and there are other duties such as proportionality and fairness in the execution of public office. If a compromise can be reached, excellent. If not, it is up to the council to make a decision and even then such a decision can be challenged through a judicial review and appealled right to the top of the legal system ultimately in either the Lords or the new Supreme Court. The terms of compromise offered can and will be a factor in both the decision and any subsequent appeal. Ask yourself this: Is it reasonable, fair and proportional for the entirety of a 42 acre site to be registered as a town green with the backing of a handful of local residents when there is documentary evidence the whole of the site does not meet the criteria and an overwhelming local support for the alternative? Given that the law is so loose here I think the compromise is the best option for those seeking to register the site as a town green. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcfcas1 Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 The inspector made a recommendation, not a decision. The council aren't bound by it and are in fact bound by a rather loose law that merely describes the minimum criteria for land to be considered for registration as a town green. The law does not require a specific process or mandate how the decision should be made, and there are other duties such as proportionality and fairness in the execution of public office. If a compromise can be reached, excellent. If not, it is up to the council to make a decision and even then such a decision can be challenged through a judicial review and appealled right to the top of the legal system ultimately in either the Lords or the new Supreme Court. The terms of compromise offered can and will be a factor in both the decision and any subsequent appeal. Ask yourself this: Is it reasonable, fair and proportional for the entirety of a 42 acre site to be registered as a town green with the backing of a handful of local residents when there is documentary evidence the whole of the site does not meet the criteria and an overwhelming local support for the alternative? Given that the law is so loose here I think the compromise is the best option for those seeking to register the site as a town green. Spot on. The biggest hurdle was last nights result. The fact that the Sainsburys applictaion has gone through suggests the council are behind our plans, which means the chips are very much stacked against those opposing the stadium and pushing for the village green. I firmly believe their application will soon be thrown out by BCC. Bring on the new stadium, 2013, amazing news, exciting times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 The tg is still the biggest hurdle, it could drag on for years and end up as political fodder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Red Planet Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 The inspector made a recommendation, not a decision. The council aren't bound by it and are in fact bound by a rather loose law that merely describes the minimum criteria for land to be considered for registration as a town green. The law does not require a specific process or mandate how the decision should be made, and there are other duties such as proportionality and fairness in the execution of public office. If a compromise can be reached, excellent. If not, it is up to the council to make a decision and even then such a decision can be challenged through a judicial review and appealled right to the top of the legal system ultimately in either the Lords or the new Supreme Court. The terms of compromise offered can and will be a factor in both the decision and any subsequent appeal. Ask yourself this: Is it reasonable, fair and proportional for the entirety of a 42 acre site to be registered as a town green with the backing of a handful of local residents when there is documentary evidence the whole of the site does not meet the criteria and an overwhelming local support for the alternative? Given that the law is so loose here I think the compromise is the best option for those seeking to register the site as a town green. After last night, I am confident that BCC will do the right thing and reject this application. Must admit, having been very critical of the council, I was impressed with the way the democratic process was handled last night (and of course the decision). It did help that we had an excellent Chairperson who was quoted on RB today as saying she found that meeting "stressful". Well if so, it did not show. Of all the "For" presentations last night, for me the most persuasive theme was " our city is under-achieving compared with other UK cities in terms of modern sports and leisure facilities" - a point made by several of our speakers. I really think that message got home to them and if so, the whole Village Green stuff will soon be consigned to history. Incidentally it was great to hear SL say that the contractors are ready to move in this summer and get things under way. I have always been in favour of the new stadium, so I can't wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cider red Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 Exciting times ahead! I get the feeling that we are hopping over the tg hurdle as aposed to falling into it. Hopefully we can sort things out on the pitch as well and kick on next season. Just looking at brightons stadium makes me think of what we could have in a couple of years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrizzleRed Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 The councillors did do well last night and showed what a shambles the last one was and why it was right to shift some out. Well done to all of them, even the ones who voted against, for at least appearing to keep an open mind and voting how they viewed it on the night. This lot did seem to realise the importance of the decision they were making, which was a major step forward from the last fiasco. The best part last night imho was they clearly proved that they haven't now lost interest in the new stadium following the failed World Cup bid. So onwards and upwards and lets now move on and put this town green rubbish to bed and get the diggers in! After last night, I am confident that BCC will do the right thing and reject this application. Must admit, having been very critical of the council, I was impressed with the way the democratic process was handled last night (and of course the decision). It did help that we had an excellent Chairperson who was quoted on RB today as saying she found that meeting "stressful". Well if so, it did not show. Of all the "For" presentations last night, for me the most persuasive theme was " our city is under-achieving compared with other UK cities in terms of modern sports and leisure facilities" - a point made by several of our speakers. I really think that message got home to them and if so, the whole Village Green stuff will soon be consigned to history. Incidentally it was great to hear SL say that the contractors are ready to move in this summer and get things under way. I have always been in favour of the new stadium, so I can't wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bard Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 I don't mean to be a party pooper, but I have a bad feeling about what is going on. The leading opponents of Sainsburys seemed a bit too gracious in defeat. It's as if they viewed it as not that important - like they lost the battle but are sure about winning the war. There again, I'm a suspicious so and so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matty-H Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 Somewhat off topic, but the new stdium will be 30k seated. Anyone know if we will lose several thousand to segregation as with AG? If so what would be the effective capacity of a sellout? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 Somewhat off topic, but the new stdium will be 30k seated. Anyone know if we will lose several thousand to segregation as with AG? If so what would be the effective capacity of a sellout? I would have thought that in this day and age that it could be built in such a way so as not to need any extra segregation a la Old Trafford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claverham_Red Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 I would have thought that in this day and age that it could be built in such a way so as not to need any extra segregation a la Old Trafford. Yeah, the same with Arsenal? Don't they have some sort of movable fence (that they move a few blocks for cup games with bigger away followings)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matty-H Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 No idea, hence the question. Assumedly you are correct, but I don't think anyone has clarified this as yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 or we just give a stand to away fans, so we have behind one goal 5k two along the touch lines 10k each and the away stand 5k and install a movable fence in that away stand for overflow simples Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC_Red Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 or we just give a stand to away fans, so we have behind one goal 5k two along the touch lines 10k each and the away stand 5k and install a movable fence in that away stand for overflow simples when you start from a blank piece of paper away fans should be put in an area that gives the visiting team the least possible advantage. we should have home fans behind both goals. away fans should be in the upper tier in the corner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 post is reporting that the residents have walked away as soon as City got the sainsburys vote, The club (according to the post) are happy to take it to court as they feel we have enough to over turn any council vote on the green, one step forward 2 back so fudging frustrating Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 Trouble is taking it to court will be a long process pushing us back another 12 months. Shame as I believe we came close to an agreement. At least we tried. http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/STADIUM-TALKS-COLLAPSE/article-3294030-detail/article.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark43 Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashton Fred Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 Interestingly if you look on Wikipedia it states that recent case law makes it clear that any development that prevents the use of a village green is illegal under etc, etc. BCFC are in no way preventing the use of the land, just a smaller, but still substantial area, will be available for use by the residents. Hopefully a solution will be found and we can move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon uk Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 what kind of solution are they actually after? Is there any suggestion that want a few quid thrown in their pockets to walk away quietly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riaz Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 what kind of solution are they actually after? Is there any suggestion that want a few quid thrown in their pockets to walk away quietly? Someone has suggested on the evening post website that residents want £200,000 compensation each?! on top of a list of other demands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy082005 Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 Someone has suggested on the evening post website that residents want £200,000 compensation each?! on top of a list of other demands. They would probally accept quarter of that each. Even if an offer of £100,000 per house hold was offered, surely this would benefit City finacnially in the long run? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark43 Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 That would still be a lot of money, and what if these (19 people?) were paid, wouldnt their neighbours then expect that they should get the same? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markyou Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 Is there any truth in this:- STOP PRESS The reason the talks have broken down is due to the additional demands that have been made by the residents. Not only do they want to take the 14 acres as Village Green but in addition..... Wait for it........ EACH HOUSEHOLD AFFECTED IS HOLDING OUT FOR £200,000 COMPENSATION . Different sort of green isn't it? Now that's fact. Redfactyman, Snout-in-trough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redcliffe 78 Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 Wasn't from what i have read one of the compromises building them a nice Village Green within the arena on top of this they will have the best sporting facility in the south west the secondary school a stones throw away where I'm sure a lot of there future family will be educated will benefit on there doorstep and they still want money as well. There most probably just holding out to see how much they can get, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CotswoldRed Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 Is there any truth in this:- STOP PRESS The reason the talks have broken down is due to the additional demands that have been made by the residents. Not only do they want to take the 14 acres as Village Green but in addition..... Wait for it........ EACH HOUSEHOLD AFFECTED IS HOLDING OUT FOR £200,000 COMPENSATION . Different sort of green isn't it? Now that's fact. Redfactyman, Snout-in-trough If any of that is true then they have just nailed their true colours to the mast. Its got bugg3r all to do with a point of principle or the wish to retain 'green' space. £200k in the bank account can't be used to walk the dog outside your back door. To55ers. I'd call it blackmail, of sorts. In summary "we had the chance to retain what we believed to be an important part of our community, but we though, *** it, we'll take the cash instead". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havanatopia Posted March 4, 2011 Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 Yeah, the same with Arsenal? Don't they have some sort of movable fence (that they move a few blocks for cup games with bigger away followings)? Correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.