red man dan Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 http://www.bristol247.com/2011/03/04/stephen-coombes-ashton-gate-decision-a-victory-for-democracy-and-common-sense/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matty-H Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 Good piece. Unfortunately the common sense required to overturn the VG recommendation will likely result in a legal process lasting many years. I doubt we'll see work start on the stadium for another 5 years yet at least Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJC Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 Dont really fancy getting involved in a debate when ive clearly presented my opinion, but if anyone fancies giving the 'response' section to this some balance then please, ha ha, be my guest! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slave to the rhythm Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 Good piece. Unfortunately the common sense required to overturn the VG recommendation will likely result in a legal process lasting many years. I doubt we'll see work start on the stadium for another 5 years yet at least But why? Can't the Council simply vote to not accept the recommendation that the landfill site covered with dogsh*t be regarded as a village green and then we can build on it? Why another 5 years' wait? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 But why? Can't the Council simply vote to not accept the recommendation that the landfill site covered with dogsh*t be regarded as a village green and then we can build on it? Why another 5 years' wait? Because the AV residents seem to indicate they would launch an appeal. That would trigger a full blown public enquiry that could last years. As say the last high profile TVG feud lasted nearly 5 years. I don't believe its as simple as the council just saying no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCAGFC Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 But why? Can't the Council simply vote to not accept the recommendation that the landfill site covered with dogsh*t be regarded as a village green and then we can build on it? Why another 5 years' wait? This is the crux of the matter, it was just a recommendation by a biased barrister who was hoodwinked by people who basically told porkies or at least WILDLY exaggerated at the enquiry. Do the council HAVE to accept the recommendation or can they turn it down?, obviously they would have to have a good reason and obviously the NIMBYs would appeal but surely they can say "the benefits outweigh the negatives" in this case. Especially as we have proved beyond doubt that the NIMBYs are abusing the legal system/law just to block the stadium.. BCAGFC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOTR Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 This begs the question,why did BCC employ a barrister whose specialises in getting town green status granted?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCAGFC Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 This begs the question,why did BCC employ a barrister whose specialises in getting town green status granted?. Probably the same person who picked the 'unbiased' panel for the first Sainsburys application. Think everyone would be very interested to know who it was.......Lib Dem by any chance?. BCAGFC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 This begs the question,why did BCC employ a barrister whose specialises in getting town green status granted?. It maybe that she's the only person who specialises in this area - she has NEVER *EVER* recommended anything but in favour of the applicants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slave to the rhythm Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 It maybe that she's the only person who specialises in this area - she has NEVER *EVER* recommended anything but in favour of the applicants. Great, she was REALLY unbiased then. If this does go through the legal process, I am sure that the landowner will win, but will it take so long that he'll lose interest in the meantime? Also, if this really does take another 5 years to be resolved, will the planning permissions currently obtained re the stadium and Sainsburys need to be renewed? In other words, will we all have to go through all of this for a second time if a certain amount of time elapses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
citybs3 Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 Because the AV residents seem to indicate they would launch an appeal. That would trigger a full blown public enquiry that could last years. As say the last high profile TVG feud lasted nearly 5 years. I don't believe its as simple as the council just saying no. im an AV resident and want the stadium so why cant my view cancel out theirs???! it really makes me mad that a few people can hold back so much progress for the city of bristol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJC Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 im an AV resident and want the stadium so why cant my view cancel out theirs???! it really makes me mad that a few people can hold back so much progress for the city of bristol See this confuses me. How can the will of 19 people overshadow that of a local community? Clearly onus is on the word 'local' there and to what extent that stretches but if, for arguments sake, and im not suggesting this is the case, those 19 people are part of a minority of residents who oppose the stadium, how can their will, the will of the minority, outweigh the majority? Have I missed something, has Ashton Vale en masse being consulted? A localised referendum perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
citybs3 Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 See this confuses me. How can the will of 19 people overshadow that of a local community? Clearly onus is on the word 'local' there and to what extent that stretches but if, for arguments sake, and im not suggesting this is the case, those 19 people are part of a minority of residents who oppose the stadium, how can their will, the will of the minority, outweigh the majority? Have I missed something, has Ashton Vale en masse being consulted? A localised referendum perhaps? ive not been consulted personally by anyone official from the council. someone did come round our house asking us to join the anti-stadium people (obviously i told him where to go), and we've had flyers put through the letterbox from bcfc trying to engage the local community. i dont know loads of people in AV but neighbours ive spoke to generally seem not that bothered either way. its probably about 20 dead against it, but there a quite a few season ticket holders who i regularly see walking back after the game so id say those for the stadium would outweigh those against. i reckon its more the people from long ashton who are holding things back - i think i lot of them see themselves as posher as us city scum and building a stadium would a) ruin their view of a unused field, and b) start to bring long ashton into the rest of the city of bristol, which is something most of them would be ashamed to be part of! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJC Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 BUT, I wouldn't fancy going through the courts if there was any chance whatsoever that I could end up owing tens of thousands if I lost the case. And thats the crux of it - if the stadium is to go ahead, they will want compensation for the decrease in value of their properties and the loss of amenities (real or perceived) and inconvenience, to cut through the deadlock. In that respect, an offer of a managed evironment of 14 acres (I think that's what's on offer) is reasonable, but I've no idea of what compo has been offered, if any. But some compo is reasonable and if that isn't on the table, then the land owners are being intransigent. If the residents are asking a ridiculous sum, then they are being intransigent. There must be a compromise there somewhere.. Absolutely I agree, excellent post with foundations completely in common sense. The home owners should be given assurances that any devaluation of their property as direct result of the development would be compensated. Alternatively of course the developer, if wishing to be pedantic, could suggest an increase in value as a result, being a comfortable stones throw from an incredibly desirable, well maintained wetlands site and state of the art arena, could be claimable. Im very sure that isnt the case, but the bottom line is the residents are due compensation IF they suffer as a result of the development. No-one can or should deny them that, that is their right, the problem lies when they choose to abuse that right and act in a purely disruptive manner, which unfortunately would appear to be the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 But to be fair, if someone was building a gurt big stadium in my back yard, I would fight tooth and nail to stop it being built and use everything at my disposal to stop it. Well quite. Personally I think they're being somewhat unreasonable but yeah, working on the basis that they have no interest in football, not massively keen on lots more traffic etc in the area, then there's a fair chance that people will put up objections. In a way, if not for the fact it is such a nuisance people against overwhelming odds successfully (so far) resisting an unwanted and unwelcome (in their eyes) development is from their perspective, a fine example of local democracy in action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dastardly and Muttley Posted March 5, 2011 Report Share Posted March 5, 2011 Well quite. Personally I think they're being somewhat unreasonable but yeah, working on the basis that they have no interest in football, not massively keen on lots more traffic etc in the area, then there's a fair chance that people will put up objections. In a way, if not for the fact it is such a nuisance people against overwhelming odds successfully (so far) resisting an unwanted and unwelcome (in their eyes) development is from their perspective, a fine example of local democracy in action. But democracy is not about a minority winning agaist overwhelming odds, it's about acting upon the general consensus of the population. The wishes of the few should not overrule the majority consensus. By all means, AV residents are fully entitled to their opinion and the fact that their has been citywide debate about this issue is excellent, but democracy in action is not a petition by 19 people holding up a development of benefit to the entire region. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.