Town Green Compromise

[CotswoldRed]

Well.... Where I used to live, a new road was built within 20 yards of our back boundary. We received compensation as did everyone else in our street. Many other streets were in our position and every house close to the road received compensation. Artificial light,noise,fumes etc and house prices are taken into consideration. If I remember rightly the only thing you can't claim for is loss of view.

Oh I appreciate there are examples, especially near major roads, but in this and most cases they are entitled to diddly.

[Barrs Court Red]

Would love the media to pick up this land grab. As much as I don't like the redtops, they'd slaughter these peasants

[BCAGFC]

Morality yes, certainly no argument. Just unsure about it on legal grounds.

But the TVG law is not being used as it was supposed to in this case.

The law was brought in to stop developers buying land and building anywhere but the idea was to protect the land BEFORE it was bought.....not after as in our case.

Technicalities I know but all the same, this is the loophole they are using.

BCAGFC

[Warwickshire Red]

All this talk of mediation and the potential fall back legal action got me thinking. A while back SL and other City officials went to Westminster to get MP support for the stadium bid which was cross-party. I seem to recall some comments that it was acknowledged that the 100 years+ legislation in place relating to town and village greens is in need of updating as it wasn't designed to prevent lawful development and circumvent planning permission.

No doubt SL and his lawyers will have considered every option but did wonder if SL had explored the idea of getting any MP's on-side for a potential Private Members Bill (or even Government Bill) to change the law so that it can't be used to prevent lawful development such as our stadium which has planning consent.

It's highly unlikely I know, especially as it'd be low priority for the Government and any BCC decision likely to be made first anyway but theoretically could be done and would be fantastic to pull the rug from under the feet of the NIMBYs. Anyway, back to reality. (Fyi don't see anything in current bills http://services.parliament.uk/bills/).

[Nibor]

All this talk of mediation and the potential fall back legal action got me thinking. A while back SL and other City officials went to Westminster to get MP support for the stadium bid which was cross-party. I seem to recall some comments that it was acknowledged that the 100 years+ legislation in place relating to town and village greens is in need of updating as it wasn't designed to prevent lawful development and circumvent planning permission.

No doubt SL and his lawyers will have considered every option but did wonder if SL had explored the idea of getting any MP's on-side for a potential Private Members Bill (or even Government Bill) to change the law so that it can't be used to prevent lawful development such as our stadium which has planning consent.

It's highly unlikely I know, especially as it'd be low priority for the Government and any BCC decision likely to be made first anyway but theoretically could be done and would be fantastic to pull the rug from under the feet of the NIMBYs. Anyway, back to reality. (Fyi don't see anything in current bills http://services.parliament.uk/bills/).

The legislation that's being abused here is far more recent. It was updated twice by the last government causing this particular problem IIRC.

A private member's bill or some other means of encouraging this to be fixed might be possible in time but changes would not be retrospective, so the shit legislation has already done its damage I'm afraid.

I do hope they fix it though, it is one really shitty piece of lawmaking amongst many that the last government saddled us with (and I am more a labour supporter than any other).

Just ask an accountant about tax law since '97, they'll either cry if they've had to study lots of it or grin if they haven't knowing it's given them a job for life.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

The legislation that's being abused here is far more recent. It was updated twice by the last government causing this particular problem IIRC.

A private member's bill or some other means of encouraging this to be fixed might be possible in time but changes would not be retrospective, so the shit legislation has already done its damage I'm afraid.

I do hope they fix it though, it is one really shitty piece of lawmaking amongst many that the last government saddled us with (and I am more a labour supporter than any other).

Just ask an accountant about tax law since '97, they'll either cry if they've had to study lots of it or grin if they haven't knowing it's given them a job for life.

Amongst many others, am I right in saying the last government passed more new laws than any other government in history?.

[Fiale]

But the TVG law is not being used as it was supposed to in this case.

The law was brought in to stop developers buying land and building anywhere but the idea was to protect the land BEFORE it was bought.....not after as in our case.

Technicalities I know but all the same, this is the loophole they are using.

BCAGFC

Just so people are aware, TVGs have been used against the NHS, MoD, Forestry Commission.

for example £10 million public money lost

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/value_of_nhs_property_warneford

Dear Ms Lobo,

Thank for your two emails. Which helpfully and clearly reply to my

two FOI requests.

At this stage I just note that as a result of Warneford Meadow

being registered as a town or village green its value to the NHS

has dropped from £11 million in 2007 to £500 thousand in 2010 - a

loss of some £10.5 million.

The helpful detail will take a little time to digest. So I may well

take up your invitation to contact you if I have any queries.

Yours sincerely,

Christopher Whitmey

The MoD has some £18 billion worth of land Assets. With TVG that value is likely to be around 10-20% of that. With a lot of land and property being owned by the Government/councils/public we are looking at tens of billions of lost public money the way the system is being abused.

Another £30 million of public money lost

Leading campaigner Terry Adams, 73, of Elverston Close, Laindon, has now lodged an application to Essex County Council for village green status for the entire site.

This would ensure no homes are ever built there, forcing Basildon Council to find somewhere else in the borough that could be sold off to fund its new £38million Sporting Village, in Gloucester Park, Basildon

just do a search and you can see so much money being thrown down the drain with these applications - The Government need to repeal it NOW and go back tot he drawing board at a future date.

[sh1t_ref_again]

Just been looking up a defra study on town greens, what was interesting most of the TVG for large areas where refused, also only 1/3 were sucessful when trying to be used against planning.

What I found interesting was the conditions to apply

a significant number of; the inhabitants of any locality, or neighbourhood within a locality; indulgence in lawful sports and pastimes; on the land; as of right; for a period of at least 20 years

I am not sure where the 19 people who have taken the action live, but would that be a significant number?

Could not find out what qualifys as a significant number, the as of right is a mindfiled, which is not the same as used it because I could.

Sevral had failed due to "failure to show qualifying use", people had walked around tracks or paths, which shows a right of way rather than a qualifying use.

[Nibor]

Amongst many others, am I right in saying the last government passed more new laws than any other government in history?.

I'm not sure about in general but I wouldn't be surprised if that was true for tax law.

[Geoff65]

[SC_Red]

[sh1t_ref_again]

You would have thought that it should be relative to the size of the propossed green - as 19 on a tiny square is significant, but 19 on 42 acres will get lost.

law & ass come to mind

[westonred]

[Geoff65]

19 isn't the number when it comes to being significant, it's the number of people who knew that others were using the area to walk the dogs,activities etc... and thought that there was nothing wrong with it, add to that the number of people who were actually on the land and weigh that up in your mind as to whether you think that enough people thought it was ok and decide whether it is significant. That's how the law is being interpreted at the moment due to the law lord deciding to change a simple meaning into the above!

[QuedgeRed]

Also with all that concrete going down, what is it going to do in terms of water table as its already a 'flood plain' afaik and how will that effect the stadium the new pitch and so on? No point moving if we are going to play on a bog or prone to floods, ask Gloucester City how that worked out for them :/

Over 2 months of rain fell in 14 hours like stair rods. Basically sheer volume of water and drainage systems just not being able to cope. On that very day I was half way up one of the highest points in the City, Robinswood Hill, and surface water was gushing out of sewers to a height of about 3 feet having lifted the manhole covers!

Most of the problems involved Electricity stations having to be shut down in case they were breached (which didn't actually happen - it was very close) and the contamination of drinking water supply that meant the City went without tap water for approximately 2 weeks.

[Dollymarie]

I can't explain it properly (don't have the technical know how) but rest assured the drainage issues are being work out as part of the construction.

[QuedgeRed]

Dude, Fieldings was always flooded, used to play there for a bit. Meadow Park could not have flood insurance which is why Gloucester City had to move. Its flooded badly from memory in 1990, 2000 and then issues with drainage and stuff way before the 2007 flood thing.

Gloucester has become more widely known due to flooding in recent times because of the unprecedented rainfall it received back in July 2007.

Small parts of Gloucester (mainly fields) that are in the immediate vicinity of the River Severn flood almost every year. This is common so is not widely reported. It happens due to the Severn bursting it's banks. It still occurs because of insufficient river defenses compounded by spring tides that are able to breach the weirs near the Docks.

Neither of the above examples match the scenario in Ashton Vale do they?

Not a very good comparison in my view.

[Bigdave60]

Im sorry, I have no idea what you are getting at.

I lived in Glos for 18 years, so I know what you speak of is true of a fashion, however its negating the point I was making Ashton Vale is a flood plain, liable to be flooded hence the designation. Things such as a water table rise, will cause standing water to remain if it becomes super saturated and has nowhere to run off to. It doesnt have to be necessarily only because a river bursts its banks that places flood. Whacking a load of concrete on it will impact the way water runs off or gets drained away. So with changes to water table and standing water then there is higher possibility of flash floods, continual floods and crap drainage leading to problems with foundations heave landslip and other fun stuff. Afaik there are already concerns with Ashton Vale because it is tidal and the risk of tidal back flow is high

I used Glos City because the flooding has been problematic for the club. flooding on a regular basis will make our new ground unfit for purpose if not built correctly, hence the comparison ( I understand Glos City are looking at coming back to Meadow Park with flood defences built in). No point having a new stadium if you cant play in it because the pitch is flooded, the car park and surrounding area is flooded because the water table and drainage has been altered to such an extent that it messes things up. This was one of the main causes of why the flash flooding didnt disperse from Gloucester iirc. As for Mythe, that was bound to be flooded. I know from the people who were present during the extensive renovation rebuilding during the early1990's that it was a disaster in waiting because they would turn up to a flooded site each morning! So I wasnt exactly surprised when it did over flow

So yeah I consider it important like, if we dont get that sorted their could be problems so I asked. Haywain for a few pints?

I am not an expert in this matter, but the insertion of a wild life lake can retain a great deal of flood water. The excess is pumped off over a time period.

[Rich]

Im sorry, I have no idea what you are getting at.

I lived in Glos for 18 years, so I know what you speak of is true of a fashion, however its negating the point I was making Ashton Vale is a flood plain, liable to be flooded hence the designation. Things such as a water table rise, will cause standing water to remain if it becomes super saturated and has nowhere to run off to. It doesnt have to be necessarily only because a river bursts its banks that places flood. Whacking a load of concrete on it will impact the way water runs off or gets drained away. So with changes to water table and standing water then there is higher possibility of flash floods, continual floods and crap drainage leading to problems with foundations heave landslip and other fun stuff. Afaik there are already concerns with Ashton Vale because it is tidal and the risk of tidal back flow is high

I used Glos City because the flooding has been problematic for the club. flooding on a regular basis will make our new ground unfit for purpose if not built correctly, hence the comparison ( I understand Glos City are looking at coming back to Meadow Park with flood defences built in). No point having a new stadium if you cant play in it because the pitch is flooded, the car park and surrounding area is flooded because the water table and drainage has been altered to such an extent that it messes things up. This was one of the main causes of why the flash flooding didnt disperse from Gloucester iirc. As for Mythe, that was bound to be flooded. I know from the people who were present during the extensive renovation rebuilding during the early1990's that it was a disaster in waiting because they would turn up to a flooded site each morning! So I wasnt exactly surprised when it did over flow

So yeah I consider it important like, if we dont get that sorted their could be problems so I asked. Haywain for a few pints?

Ashton Vale is not entirely a flood plain. The actual site of the new stadium was once 5metres below it's current level, if I remember correcty.

That land was infilled with builders rubbish and many other horrible things raising it's height and covering a vast area that possibly became wet during bad weather. I don't know if that area previously flooded, but if it did, the displacement of water from this landfil would have presented many problems since. Yet it has not, as the water table has not changed and the ground levels at the stadium site will also not change. as regards to flooding.

The new stadium will not alter this situation. An area to the south, which does flood occasionally is not being built on. This is I believe is to be designated as a wetlands area, There will be catchment ponds for rainwater from the new stadium and other buildings, which releases the water slowly into the water courses.

Since the catastrophic floods of 1968, which saw flooding in Ashton, drainage work was carried out on colliters brook to alliviate flooding and improve the water flow from that area and into the Avon at the Cumberland basin.

The plans including drainage and flooding have been submitted and have passed the inspections from wessex water.

The housing estate of Ashtonvale actually exacerbated the flooding situation when they were built , but the stadium won't.

I hope that has been helpful.

[Nibor]

I believe if you check the council planning site there's a lot of documentation about how the plans cope with this.

[CotswoldRed]

Amongst many others, am I right in saying the last government passed more new laws than any other government in history?.

I'm sure I read somewhere that they'd passed more laws than every other government put together since the war.

[Geoff65]

Yeah you have, been helpful many thanks

Is there any documentation anywhere on line I can read to support this. Environment Agency stuff and so on?

Cheers

http://e2edocs.bristol.gov.uk/WAM/doc/Other-529669.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=529669&appid=&location=VOLUME1&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=1

[Geoff65]

It doesnt say about flood frequency and what not, and how it would need to cope with a 1 in 100 year or whatever the large flood cycle is for the site,but all in all it answers pretty much all of my questions cheers.

this one probably does: http://e2edocs.bristol.gov.uk/WAM/doc/Other-529789.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=529789&appid=&location=VOLUME1&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=1

As an aside they are concerned about the contamination from the tip, now afaik this was part ( by no means the only reason mind) that Celtic moved from Barrowfields and there is amongst some a link to a higher rate of serious diseases of those who played on it for some time. Is that going to be addressed by the club at all? or is it a wait and see?

See this one (I think) http://e2edocs.bristol.gov.uk/WAM/doc/Other-529674.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=529674&appid=&location=VOLUME1&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=1

[Guest]

Spot on Brilliant

Basically if Ive read that right they are redeveloping the floodplain and incorporating porus materials into the build of the stadium

They are aware of the risks of such venture and as long as there is no significant blockage, or vandalism or misuse of the new system then it should be aadequate. It doesnt say about flood frequency and what not, and how it would need to cope with a 1 in 100 year or whatever the large flood cycle is for the site,but all in all it answers pretty much all of my questions cheers.

As an aside they are concerned about the contamination from the tip, now afaik this was part ( by no means the only reason mind) that Celtic moved from Barrowfields and there is amongst some a link to a higher rate of serious diseases of those who played on it for some time. Is that going to be addressed by the club at all? or is it a wait and see?

Cheers

There is a huge storm drain that was built in 1974 which runs from roughly Airport Road and outfalls into the River Avon halfway down Corrination Road. The two previous victorian storm drains, one of which runs from Malago (and exits a few 100 yards away from the new one) are still maintained and thus add further levels of protection. These were built to stop the flooding that occurred in years previously. Sad fact but Bristol has one of the best drainage systems in the UK, mainly thanks to the ability to be able to 'dump it' in the river avon.

Deep below BS3.. http://www.whatevers...und/dreadnaught