Land Deal Imminent At Ashton Vale

[Frenchay Red]

Another thought has occured to me, (thats' two in two days :-) !).

If the one half of the site has or will have TVG status, does that not mean that development work of any kind will not be allowed to take place?

If that is the case then haven't the NIMBYS come off worse if the stadium were to be allowed to be built on the other half, as it will be that half only under consideration for development.

The other half, as a TVG will be protected, and therefore won't have any proper landscapping work carried out, and all the other "wildlife park" measures, which were down to be done as part of the overall scheme won't go ahead either, as it will be a TVG, and such works aren't allowed on a village green, are they?

Curiouser and curiouser!

[petelekg]

Interesting info on A. Butchers site

By Anthony Butcher | 14th June, 2012

Agreement was finally reached over the Ashton Vale judicial review the day before it was due to be heard in court. A last minute deal has been struck to end the judicial review in which BCC has agreed to pay £58,196 in costs to SAVE and to quash the decision not to register part of the land as a town green.

Although the reports in the media have suggested that the issue must now be sent back to the inspector, this doesn’t actually appear to be part of the agreement (certainly not the one submitted to the court).

The questions this mess raises are:

1) Why did BCC try to fudge the decision in the first place, instead of doing it properly?

2) Having been caught out fudging it, why didn’t they just admit it and rectify the problem?

3) Why did they waste in excess of £100k (I presume) of tax payers’ money defending the decision only to drop it the day before the hearing?

4) Is there going to be an enquiry into who is responsible for this significant waste of public money?

[BS15_RED]

I heard Crispin in the radio this morning, he said that the Nimby's find the idea of the whole process going back to square one "unacceptable", does he know that they won't have a cat in hell's chance if it does? I hate that man with a passion, hearing his meddling cockney tones makes me evil. When we do get the go ahead for the Vale, I've written a poem about him that I'll post on here.

[NOTR]

I think the best thing to do now is for nobody on here or at the club to say one more word on the matter,this will drive the nimby's mad,just let the club get on with things behind the scenes.

[Nibor]

- BCC made an error in only passing half of the site as a TVG. This went against the inspectors report, and was used by the TVG people as a legal (correct) point that the council had not followed procedure.

No. The error was in the boundaries used in the registration. It was a small technical error that was not arguable and would have seen the JR refer it back to the council.

The grounds of not following the inspector's advice were very, very sketchy as there is case law on this that can be used to argue those grounds.

When it goes back to the PROW committee they can and probably will appoint a new inspector to run a public inquiry. If we can sort our shit out and get the right outcome from that to get a different recommendation it should be game over. It won't stop another attempt at judicial review though because these cretins will do anything to hamper development.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

I heard Crispin in the radio this morning, he said that the Nimby's find the idea of the whole process going back to square one "unacceptable", does he know that they won't have a cat in hell's chance if it does? I hate that man with a passion, hearing his meddling cockney tones makes me evil. When we do get the go ahead for the Vale, I've written a poem about him that I'll post on here.

i'm not surprised, he has already said he doesn't want TVG, he just wants to stop the stadium and now he has to tell another inspector how important the TVG really is, no wonder he is mad.

[NOTR]

i'm not surprised, he has already said he doesn't want TVG, he just wants to stop the stadium and now he has to tell another inspector how important the TVG really is, no wonder he is mad.

I'm sure that all the main VG'ers have at one time or another said that the aim was to stop the stadium,I am also certain this has all been documented by the club.

[Rich]

This extract from the original report: which refers to "use" of all 42 acres.

I think the stadium is slipping away from us and would be amazed is a new inspector found any different despite the blind faith shown by so many that SL (and his money) will prevail. SL himself has said they're looking at other sites and at redeveloping AG as back up....................that's a shift for him so even he accepts it might not happen.

she says in her report: “I find that the whole of the Application Land (the 42-acre site) was extensively used throughout the critical 20-year period by local people for informal recreation.

“I base that finding on the oral evidence of the 22 witnesses called by the applicants (the residents) who all appeared to me to be honest witnesses. They did not give me the impression of exaggerating their personal use of the Application Land.”

She says the whole site was “patently an attractive place for recreation”.

She says: “It was open, peaceful and for the majority of the time unoccupied, allowing local residents ‘free rein’.

“It offered variety; open elevated grassland for e.g. walking, flying kites, kicking a football around, flying remote control planes, or hitting golf balls; vegetation which provided e.g. shelter for wildlife to spot, opportunities for den-making and playing hide-and-seek, and blackberries to pick; brooks, ditches, ponds and at times a ‘lake’ to e.g. fish or look for tadpoles in, watch birds on, or (very occasionally) ice-skate on.”

She also acknowledged that TIPPING DID OCCUR DURING THE 20 YEAR PERIOD but found it did not mean that recreation as defined by the (then) TVG guidelines did not take place

As in

It will be hard for many people to believe that a former landfill site where the new stadium would be built manages to pass this test.

But Miss Crail is unequivocal in her report: “In the ordinary way, one would not expect to find people indulging in sports and pastimes anywhere near a landfill site.

“But this was no ordinary landfill site.

“As recognised by the local planning authority, because of its proximity to housing it was not a location where tipping would have been allowed had ordinary planning controls applied.

“Local residents still needed to walk their dogs and local children still wanted somewhere to play.

“Given those factors and the background of previous recreational users, I find it credible that during the landfill period, people did continue to walk round and play on the untouched and restored parts of Field 1 (the landfill site) and in the other fields.

“I also find it entirely credible that as soon as Field 1 was fully restored and grassed, recreational use of the whole of it was resumed.

“I can see no reason why it would not have been. Indeed, there are several factors which support the probability of that having been the case.”

As I said but you seem to have ignored, the new evidence will have to show significant use of the northern end of the site and by a significant number of people. Just walking around or occasional playing on the tip by kids when the forty tonne diggers are not compacting the landfil, cannot be deemed as substantial use. As I said, the majority of local residents evidence referred to the southern section which backs onto the houses.

[italian dave]

The council are saying they will designate the southern part of the site as town green - SAVE will not challenge this. Providing the council get the designation right this time then there is nothing SL can do about it even if he wants to. The northern part will then be subject to a new public inquiry.

So, the decision is that half is TVG and the other half is not.

The decision that half is not can be challenged by the Nimbys.

The decision that half is TVG cannot be challenged.

Is that right - seems so?

Is that fair -hardly - but then fairness doesn't seem to come into it.

[weeble]

So, the decision is that half is TVG and the other half is not.

The decision that half is not can be challenged by the Nimbys.

The decision that half is TVG cannot be challenged.

Is that right - seems so?

Is that fair -hardly - but then fairness doesn't seem to come into it.

Decisions can be challenged if the procedure is not legally correct. The council's process for not designating the northern part was flawed and could be challenged. If they now designate the southern part correctly it can only be challeneged if they make another procedural error.

[BrizzleRed]

Decisions can be challenged if the procedure is not legally correct. The council's process for not designating the northern part was flawed and could be challenged. If they now designate the southern part correctly it can only be challeneged if they make another procedural error.

........ so if BCC's error on the position of the boundary of the north part of the site allows a challenge from the Nimby's, surely, that mistake must also carry over to the south part of the site, so maybe SL can challenge that as well?

[weeble]

........ so if BCC's error on the position of the boundary of the north part of the site allows a challenge from the Nimby's, surely, that mistake must also carry over to the south part of the site, so maybe SL can challenge that as well?

No point really, all that would happen is the decision would be returned to the council to make sure they got the procedure right. As the inspector and the council have already agreed that the southern part meets town green designation criteria, all that would do is delay the inevitable and if anything assist SAVE in slowing, or from their point of view preferably stopping, the stadium's construction.

[weeble]

[

Why would all of bendy bus/tram routes go via Ashton Vale if they didn't already know the stadium will happen?

Some kind of deal must have been done behind the scenes.

Kick off the new 2015-2016 season home to Villa in our shiny new stadium

The bendy bus route was designed when the previous government looked likely to authorise a 10,000 house urban extension to Bristol in the green belt near Long Ashton. The new coaltion government scrapped that policy leaving the bendybus route without the new town it was designed to serve. While useful for Ashton Vale you wouldn't design a new route for one match every two weeks in the football season.

[BrizzleRed]

No point really, all that would happen is the decision would be returned to the council to make sure they got the procedure right. As the inspector and the council have already agreed that the southern part meets town green designation criteria, all that would do is delay the inevitable and if anything assist SAVE in slowing, or from their point of view preferably stopping, the stadium's construction.

But the government are changing the town green rules, so what may have qualified as a town green under the old system, may not under the new rules.

How sweet would that be if the Nimby's delaying tactics actually bought us enough time for the new rules to come in and allowed us to get this town green decision reversed?

[BrizzleRed]

[

The bendy bus route was designed when the previous government looked likely to authorise a 10,000 house urban extension to Bristol in the green belt near Long Ashton. The new coaltion government scrapped that policy leaving the bendybus route without the new town it was designed to serve. While useful for Ashton Vale you wouldn't design a new route for one match every two weeks in the football season.

I may be mistaken here, but I thought the main purpose of the AV bendy bus was to provide an easier and quicker way of transporting people from the Park & Ride into the centre of town.

There is still talk of extending the ring road from Hicks Gate in Keynsham, through to Aston Vale and linking on to the Long Ashton bypass. If that does happen, you just watch the houses spring up then, just like they did at the Mangotsfield end of that road when it was built.

[havanatopia]

I may be mistaken here, but I thought the main purpose of the AV bendy bus was to provide an easier and quicker way of transporting people from the Park & Ride into the centre of town.

There is still talk of extending the ring road from Hicks Gate in Keynsham, through to Aston Vale and linking on to the Long Ashton bypass. If that does happen, you just watch the houses spring up then, just like they did at the Mangotsfield end of that road when it was built.

Do you think it might then be possible that they build some tower blocks that overlook not only the ground but also those Nimby houses? You can get some super powerful outdoor lights these days.

I hope we never see bendy buses anywhere near the place; horrendous monstrosities. Some new 'London' double deckers made in Belfast would be good though.

[gazareth]

But the government are changing the town green rules, so what may have qualified as a town green under the old system, may not under the new rules.

How sweet would that be if the Nimby's delaying tactics actually bought us enough time for the new rules to come in and allowed us to get this town green decision reversed?

I'd be surprised if the new laws could be applied retrospectively; our case started well before the new laws came in so we may well be stuck with the old ones.

[bcfcbs20]

I spoke to a bloke earlier who has just retired and taking great pleasure in stopping the stadium bid as it gives him something to do. I didn't let on i'm a City fan and some of the rubish he was coming out with was laughable. Basicly he want's the stadium bid stopped at all costs I got the impression that he actually got a hard on knowing only a few of them could stop the project.

[Manon]

Exactly, that's what we're up against. Instead of recognizing how selfish and presynaptic their crusade is, I think they are actually reveling in the power they have and the news it generates.

Wouldn't surprise me if some enjoy reading through these threads each night in delight at the frustration.

Sad, sad people with sad boring lives.

[Portland Bill]

........ so if BCC's error on the position of the boundary of the north part of the site allows a challenge from the Nimby's, surely, that mistake must also carry over to the south part of the site, so maybe SL can challenge that as well?

That's what I was thinking, if the northern boundary is wrong it means the southern boundary must be as well?