Jump to content
IGNORED

AG Redevelopment latest

CyderInACan

By CyderInACan
in Football Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

RedRoss

RedRoss

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

But do they? They've only been there for 10 years. Lansdown has owned that land for much longer than that and the plan was always to put houses on that part. 

If they have contracts with the council then they are playing a dangerous game trying to halt such a hugely important development for the City. 

But the developers should just pay for the roof to make this go away in my opinion. 

The situation is what it is now and any delays to the project will see costs rise by more than a cost of a roof so just make a deal for the roof and then get on with the development. 

It doesn't work like that. I've had the neighbouring land the longest and had a plan all along doesn't cut it unfortunately. It's the 'permission' part that you've missed out. Which until recently had passed until now this new legal objection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CyderInACan

CyderInACan

Posted
  • Author
Posted
37 minutes ago, TV Tom said:

I fully get what you're saying but it doesn't sit easy with me just handing over a million, hopefully the council will ignore them on 28th Sept' and see if they will take the risk with the high costs that come with it in taking it to court

Maybe Steve could dip into his "nest egg" and buy ETM off. I know it's not his problem per se. It's a bitter pill to swallow but let's get this back on track ASAP. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bobby girl

Bobby girl

Posted
Posted

ETM have been abusing their contract by working late into the night, they do not have permission to work until midnight. During the day we can hardly hear them but at midnight it is a pain. Having contacted our local Councillor. who contacted them and they denied that they were working, they then went quiet for a week then started up again. My point is if the houses are built they definitely won’t get away with out of hours working. We live local to the sight in case anyone is wondering.

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bcfc01

bcfc01

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, Bobby girl said:

ETM have been abusing their contract by working late into the night, they do not have permission to work until midnight. During the day we can hardly hear them but at midnight it is a pain. Having contacted our local Councillor. who contacted them and they denied that they were working, they then went quiet for a week then started up again. My point is if the houses are built they definitely won’t get away with out of hours working. We live local to the sight in case anyone is wondering.

I think that puts a different perspective on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
exAtyeoMax

exAtyeoMax

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Bobby girl said:

ETM have been abusing their contract by working late into the night, they do not have permission to work until midnight. During the day we can hardly hear them but at midnight it is a pain. Having contacted our local Councillor. who contacted them and they denied that they were working, they then went quiet for a week then started up again. My point is if the houses are built they definitely won’t get away with out of hours working. We live local to the sight in case anyone is wondering.

Has anyone filmed them working out of hours? With evidence they can’t deny it

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tinmans Love Child

Tinmans Love Child

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, 1960maaan said:

While I backed the Fleece when people moved into flats near by, and then tried to get them closed due to noise, this is utter madness. They have halted work for something that hasn't happened and may never happen. I understand concerns, but surely it would be easy to give warnings to prospective buyers of what is in the local area. 
Another thing, why go straight to Court, couldn't they have listed concerns during the Planning process ? To wait until now seems odd.

The Fleece debacle at least led to a change in planning law so the onus is on the builder to soundproof if building near an established music venue

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
1960maaan

1960maaan

Posted
Posted
On 19/09/2023 at 14:15, Bobby girl said:

ETM have been abusing their contract by working late into the night, they do not have permission to work until midnight. During the day we can hardly hear them but at midnight it is a pain.

Interesting strategy from ETM.
Their biggest contract, I understand from this thread, is BCC. 
They are already breaking their contractual agreement. 
They have had their objections , listened to , acted on and turned down.
They then take BCC to court over those same objections ? 

Does sound like they think they will be found out and are taking a punt. 
It comes down to what Lansdown wants to do. Court case , whatever the out come will take ages and cost loads. He  will not be blackmailed so I don't see him paying for the roof, that leaves sell the land and walk away or leave it to BCC to sort. 
I do think it's a risky game, knowing you are at best bending the rules of your biggest customer, then taking them to court. Whatever happens I don't see it ending well for ETM, and it will be their own doing .

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Port Said Red

Port Said Red

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Kid in the Riot said:

This won't necessarily delay the project significantly. The JR will go to a judge who will first decide whether it has any legal merit. If he decides it doesn't then the case will be thrown out in a matter of weeks. 

If that Kid, looking at the story. The fact that it has been noted that there was a potential issue and acceptable changes had been made to the plan to negate that, should mean that it doesn't go anywhere that level.

Also, judging by what @Bobby girl has said, they would have to have built themselves some sort of soundproofing if they were genuinely looking to move to 24hr working, with or without a new development. The cost of that of course would have had to come out of their own pockets.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kid in the Riot

Kid in the Riot

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Port Said Red said:

If that Kid, looking at the story. The fact that it has been noted that there was a potential issue and acceptable changes had been made to the plan to negate that, should mean that it doesn't go anywhere that level.

Also, judging by what @Bobby girl has said, they would have to have built themselves some sort of soundproofing if they were genuinely looking to move to 24hr working, with or without a new development. The cost of that of course would have had to come out of their own pockets.

I haven't got time to look now but as long as the council considered the issue in making their decision then there should be no reasonable grounds for legal challenge.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WarksRobin

WarksRobin

Posted
Posted

I can’t see any merit in their case. To win a JR they will need to show the council failed to follow the correct process, and unless the council failed to consult (unlikely) there is no case to answer. If the firm responded to the consultation and the council took it into account in the officers’ report they have done their job. If the firm did not respond to the consultation that’s their own fault.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
redkev

redkev

Posted
Posted
On 19/09/2023 at 18:17, Slack Bladder said:

Just think they could've had a nice new shiny stadium built over there.

Instead of nice new shiny housing estate

Let’s hope it’s affordable housing ( the whole estate ) and gets full of low life’s and drop outs , see them walk there so called dogs then fxxking Nimbys

  • Sad 1
  • Flames 1
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bobby girl

Bobby girl

Posted
Posted

Redkev that is quite a statement you have made, as you don’t live in the area may I just make it clear a lot of us are lifelong City fans . It was mainly people from Long Ashton and outside who did most of the objections, they also created a terrible atmosphere locally with City fans taking the full brunt of it.

We would rather have houses than some industrial building going there .

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
REDOXO

REDOXO

Posted
Posted

I am sooo confused. Being as I live a long way from Bristol can someone summarize what is going on. 
 

1 Is this the site where the new stadium was going to be built 

2 Was the area completely designated a village green

3 Dies a waste management want to use some or all of the site for a landfill 

4 Are there plans for some or all of the site to have hiusing

 5 Is the site owned by SL

6 Is the site owned by a company owned by SL

7 What is the value of the site if building is to be done

8 Are builders talking about industrial units

9 who are objecting?

9a Residents?

9b BCC

9c SL?

9d The waste company

9e builders

10 Do BCC want to build a council estate/affordable housing

Please someone add other salient information 

Thanks RO!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BS30 City

BS30 City

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Full nelson said:

Going to court! This development will never be built. Joke of a city, with mediocre sport teams at best. The city doesn't deserve good things. 

May as well just start building with no permission like the gas, nothings happened to them! Even putting fans in their new bus stop stand last night 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kid in the Riot

Kid in the Riot

Posted
Posted

Not a surprising development. Bristol CC are just saying that they are prepared to go to court to defend their approval of the application. 

It still may not end up "in court". Assuming ETM aren't bluffing, the JR claim will now be sent to court, and a judge will decide whether or not it will go to a full hearing.

It could be thrown out in a matter of weeks, or worst case, goes to a full hearing and they'll be a delay of many months/years.

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
fisherrich

fisherrich

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Not a surprising development. Bristol CC are just saying that they are prepared to go to court to defend their approval of the application. 

It still may not end up "in court". Assuming ETM aren't bluffing, the JR claim will now be sent to court, and a judge will decide whether or not it will go to a full hearing.

It could be thrown out in a matter of weeks, or worst case, goes to a full hearing and they'll be a delay of many months/years.

SLs “nest egg” could be somewhat smaller if not built?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Full nelson

Full nelson

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Not a surprising development. Bristol CC are just saying that they are prepared to go to court to defend their approval of the application. 

It still may not end up "in court". Assuming ETM aren't bluffing, the JR claim will now be sent to court, and a judge will decide whether or not it will go to a full hearing.

It could be thrown out in a matter of weeks, or worst case, goes to a full hearing and they'll be a delay of many months/years.

Lets hope you're right.

This is BCC after all and everything they touch is a farce, so why would this be different? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...