AG Redevelopment latest

[Bridgy boy]

Judicial Review is an incredibly expensive process I really have my doubts that this will proceed further providing Bristol City Council maintain their position. I totally get ETM's concerns but providing these were fully addressed during the planning process, which BCC claim they were, they I cannot see on what grounds a JR will suceed. 

[Full nelson]

48 minutes ago, Clevedon Red said:

This has got echoes of the village green debacle all over again. 

Only under SL' watch!

[Harry]

https://www.recyclingbristol.com/case-studies/ashton-gate-stadium/
 

So, ETM have a contract with Ashton Gate for waste disposal. 
This website looks a bit out of date but I wonder if this 3 year contract is coming to an end. 
Bye bye contract….. 

[Red Army 75]

 

[Davefevs]

ETM chancing their arm based on this.

[TBW]

So are we all review bombing ETM then?

[1960maaan]

I was chatting to someone, apparently ETM were trying it on, to try and get the acoustic roof fully paid for . 
I did wonder if ETM might be "outed" as they seem to be playing fast and loose with rules and agreements. Not a great way to act , taking your biggest customer to Court. Specially when I heard they wanted to extend working hours.

[richwwtk]

If it is true that they offered ETM the money for the roof at the start of the process and it was turned down then it would seem they don't have a leg to stand on. And I can't imagine that they would be lying in the statement.

[beaverface]

So, playing devils advocate - what's really changed?

The club offered to make a contribution four years ago, which ETM turned down, but fast forward to now, and ETM they want a contribution which the club were willing to pay at the beginning anyway?

Pain in the ass I agree, but surely if it was something the club were going to do a number of years ago, then get on with it.

Sounds like two parties digging their heels in.

 

[Davefevs]

10 minutes ago, beaverface said:

So, playing devils advocate - what's really changed?

The club offered to make a contribution four years ago, which ETM turned down, but fast forward to now, and ETM they want a contribution which the club were willing to pay at the beginning anyway?

Pain in the ass I agree, but surely if it was something the club were going to do a number of years ago, then get on with it.

Sounds like two parties digging their heels in.

 

The key bit is that City changed their plans to move part of the development further away.

I haven’t got a clue and planning, noise levels etc, but it now appears ETM can’t do their business under the noise levels and want City to pay for a roof.

How about City say “you can have your roof and we’ll go back to our original plans”!!!  No doubt revised plans lost some houses along the way and profit margins as a result.

ETM want their cake and eat it from what I’ve read.

[Silvio Dante]

45 minutes ago, Red Army 75 said:

 

That’s not just coming out punching, that’s coming out prime Mike Tyson.

I said a few pages back that considering the persons involved I expected ETMs case to be shoddy and easily pulled apart. This statement (assuming it’s all correct) validates that. There will be record of when ETM installed their current structure, there will be record of the plans being revised for the housing. Hell, considering how strong they’ve gone on that statement I’m also willing to bet they have a lot of documents around the offer that was turned down.

This has all the hallmarks of a cowboy exercise and frankly, you can colour me unsurprised by that.

[Port Said Red]

1 hour ago, beaverface said:

So, playing devils advocate - what's really changed?

The club offered to make a contribution four years ago, which ETM turned down, but fast forward to now, and ETM they want a contribution which the club were willing to pay at the beginning anyway?

Pain in the ass I agree, but surely if it was something the club were going to do a number of years ago, then get on with it.

Sounds like two parties digging their heels in.

How much was a roof 4 years ago? I'll bet it was significantly less than £1m. Not that this is the main issue, it seems that having been told that an enclosed area was required, they decided to take the cheaper option of wall and a fence and are now regretting wasting (no pun intended) their money.

[BS3City]

So do I continue to abuse ETM drivers as they bully their way up and down Winterstoke Road?

Or do I just laugh at them?

[phantom]

I found this part intriguing, when would have enough people been in contact to warrant this statement...... 

 

[W-S-M Seagull]

2 hours ago, Red Army 75 said:

 

Interesting that they've made reference to the alleged working out of hours...

I somewhat feel ETM have shot themselves in the foot here. We ain't going to pay for the enclosure now and they are now certain to lose us as customers. You really have to wonder why they are pursuing this.

[W-S-M Seagull]

1 hour ago, Silvio Dante said:

That’s not just coming out punching, that’s coming out prime Mike Tyson.

I said a few pages back that considering the persons involved I expected ETMs case to be shoddy and easily pulled apart. This statement (assuming it’s all correct) validates that. There will be record of when ETM installed their current structure, there will be record of the plans being revised for the housing. Hell, considering how strong they’ve gone on that statement I’m also willing to bet they have a lot of documents around the offer that was turned down.

This has all the hallmarks of a cowboy exercise and frankly, you can colour me unsurprised by that.

That statement would not have been published if they didn't have all the proof as it would open them up to legal action.

[W-S-M Seagull]

6 minutes ago, phantom said:

I found this part intriguing, when would have enough people been in contact to warrant this statement...... 

 

What I find intriguing is I'm sure a higher number of fans have contacted the club about the disappearance of the CEO role and SL seemingly withdrawing his funding and not giving Nige any of the Scott money, yet we recieve no lengthy statement about that...

Yea OK I get that it's Ashton Gate and not Bristol City but still. This new development is being done by Estaben and not AG and I've seen nothing which suggests that once completed ownership will be transfered to AG Ltd yet here we have AG issuing a statement on it. 

Whilst Steve Lansdown remains deadly silent on the footballing issues.

[slartibartfast]

24 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Interesting that they've made reference to the alleged working out of hours...

I somewhat feel ETM have shot themselves in the foot here. We ain't going to pay for the enclosure now and they are now certain to lose us as customers. You really have to wonder why they are pursuing this.

Owned by Slags ?

[Galley is our king]

29 minutes ago, slartibartfast said:

Owned by Slags ?

Ed Martin, born in London, did a degree at the UWE.......

Mmmmmmmm 

[Full nelson]

5 hours ago, Davefevs said:

ETM chancing their arm based on this.

Probably succeed, folk who make decisions are easily bought! 

[Full nelson]

What are the views on here about this development going forward. I can't see it happening purely on the basis I have no confidence in our council or court system. Such a shame! Bristol basketball will be gone within 5 years. Most BBL sides will have their own arenas by then which generates extra revenue the flyers can't. Sheffield sharks predict their revenue will increase between 40-60% when they're in their new home. We're stuck with a school gym with no capacity. 

[CyderInACan]

29 minutes ago, Full nelson said:

What are the views on here about this development going forward. I can't see it happening purely on the basis I have no confidence in our council or court system. Such a shame! Bristol basketball will be gone within 5 years. Most BBL sides will have their own arenas by then which generates extra revenue the flyers can't. Sheffield sharks predict their revenue will increase between 40-60% when they're in their new home. We're stuck with a school gym with no capacity. 

Seems to me that ETM's vexatious potential de-railing of the SQ is doomed to fail. Whether that automatically assumes that the development goes ahead is moot. 

It seems clear that what could be a potentially vital shot in the arm for South Bristol in terms of employment could be equally doomed unless a swift resolution is reached. And it would be obvious where the blame for that would lie. 

[Port Said Red]

12 minutes ago, CyderInACan said:

Seems to me that ETM's vexatious potential de-railing of the SQ is doomed to fail. Whether that automatically assumes that the development goes ahead is moot. 

It seems clear that what could be a potentially vital shot in the arm for South Bristol in terms of employment could be equally doomed unless a swift resolution is reached. And it would be obvious where the blame for that would lie. 

I agree, if they give in to this sort of objection they will open up an avenue for spurious objections on a number of projects across the City. 

I don't see how they can accept " Well we were thinking of changing our working hours, but have no actual costings or feasibility study to show how far down the road we are with it" as a reasonable objection.

[Kid in the Riot]

9 hours ago, Full nelson said:

Probably succeed, folk who make decisions are easily bought! 

What judges? I don't think so mate. 

[Henry]

If it the project fails and that means it’s easily for Lansdown to sell up, I can’t say I’ll be too disappointed 

[beaverface]

15 hours ago, Davefevs said:

The key bit is that City changed their plans to move part of the development further away.

I haven’t got a clue and planning, noise levels etc, but it now appears ETM can’t do their business under the noise levels and want City to pay for a roof.

How about City say “you can have your roof and we’ll go back to our original plans”!!!  No doubt revised plans lost some houses along the way and profit margins as a result.

ETM want their cake and eat it from what I’ve read.

True, but you can't then complain that the City of Bristol isn't interested in moving the City of Bristol forward, and then the club then plays the same card by saying ETM are delaying things. If they want the basketball area badly enough, then the ball is firmly in their court to make it happen.

Pain in the ass, and I'm pretty sure they'll still make a tidy profit from it all. Seems to be pride getting in the way here.

You are right, ETM do want their cake and to eat it, but so do City, and although it smarts them, they can still come out of this with the development they want and leave the legacy Lansdown is after.

Ultimately if the club had to pay for the roof to get the development, I still know who will come up smelling of roses, and also, would having a roof on ETM be a bad thing, even if the route taken to get it was underhand? It would be a win for the club, a win for ETM, and a win for the potential residents in the new houses - what's not to like? Aside from pride!

 

[Silvio Dante]

5 minutes ago, beaverface said:

True, but you can't then complain that the City of Bristol isn't interested in moving the City of Bristol forward, and then the club then plays the same card by saying ETM are delaying things. If they want the basketball area badly enough, then the ball is firmly in their court to make it happen.

Pain in the ass, and I'm pretty sure they'll still make a tidy profit from it all. Seems to be pride getting in the way here.

You are right, ETM do want their cake and to eat it, but so do City, and although it smarts them, they can still come out of this with the development they want and leave the legacy Lansdown is after.

Ultimately if the club had to pay for the roof to get the development, I still know who will come up smelling of roses, and also, would having a roof on ETM be a bad thing, even if the route taken to get it was underhand? It would be a win for the club, a win for ETM, and a win for the potential residents in the new houses - what's not to like? Aside from pride!

 

I’d say you’re wrong here. Bristol Sport don’t get the development they want by paying for a roof - they get a revised development with less houses, so don’t make the £ they expected when they put the “roof offer” out and it doesn’t cost pride, it costs a lot of cold hard cash.

The scenarios are simple.

- BS pay for the roof and have development as approved go ahead - BS c£1m out of pocket

- BS pay for the roof on the condition that plans revert to original - delay in planning, reopening of conditions, delay in construction and additional cost - BS likely still very much out of pocket even if permission approved

- No roof paid for and judge kicks out what is clearly a vexatious claim. Small delay, lowest cost (but to BCC and not BS)

It’s not about “pride” - it’s about ETM not wanting houses near to them but also wanting BS to pony up for a roof. The only logical business decision for BS is scenario 3 here.

[Kid in the Riot]

Right, just given the Council's planning report a quick review. In a nutshell:

The impact of the development on ETM in terms of noise and dust is also discussed in great detail on pages 29-34. 

I can't see that procedurally the council have done anything wrong here, in fact they've considered the matter in a lot of detail.

Full report here for anyone interested: 21_03166_P-REPORT_TO_COMMITTEE_-_5TH_OCTOBER_2022-3309739.pdf (bristol.gov.uk)

 

[beaverface]

1 hour ago, Silvio Dante said:

I’d say you’re wrong here. Bristol Sport don’t get the development they want by paying for a roof - they get a revised development with less houses, so don’t make the £ they expected when they put the “roof offer” out and it doesn’t cost pride, it costs a lot of cold hard cash.

The scenarios are simple.

- BS pay for the roof and have development as approved go ahead - BS c£1m out of pocket

- BS pay for the roof on the condition that plans revert to original - delay in planning, reopening of conditions, delay in construction and additional cost - BS likely still very much out of pocket even if permission approved

- No roof paid for and judge kicks out what is clearly a vexatious claim. Small delay, lowest cost (but to BCC and not BS)

It’s not about “pride” - it’s about ETM not wanting houses near to them but also wanting BS to pony up for a roof. The only logical business decision for BS is scenario 3 here.

Depends what their priority is? If its to build an area and legacy, they do get what they want.

If their top priority is to make as much money as possible, then true, it is less favourable.

I suspect even paying for the roof with the revised housing plans they'd still be in profit and have an arena.

The option is there for the club to get on with it straight away, but the alternative is as you say - they wait until the JR is kicked out.

The point I'm really making is that they can get on with it if they truly wanted to.

[Silvio Dante]

45 minutes ago, beaverface said:

Depends what their priority is? If its to build an area and legacy, they do get what they want.

If their top priority is to make as much money as possible, then true, it is less favourable.

I suspect even paying for the roof with the revised housing plans they'd still be in profit and have an arena.

The option is there for the club to get on with it straight away, but the alternative is as you say - they wait until the JR is kicked out.

The point I'm really making is that they can get on with it if they truly wanted to.

So, what you’re saying is that if you were running a project, and had done everything right, including amending your plans to satisfy someone, and those plans had been independently approved through the formal processes,you would then, when a spurious challenge is made, give that person a million quid.

Nobody would do that in business. Not one person. Yes, BS can pay it, but it sets a precedent and is wholly unwarranted.

It’s a nonsensical point.