AG Redevelopment latest

[CyderInACan]

FFS 

[Full nelson]

I hate this city, Nothing gets done. I can see why SL is fed up with this place. Get out Steve while you still got sanity. 

[Tinmans Love Child]

6 hours ago, Johnny Musicworks said:

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/ashton-gate-sporting-quarter-hold-8761331?utm_source=linkCopy&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar
 

All on hold again !

I hope this waste company havnt waited until now to take legal action deliberately as it will have more potential for compensation.  I can see where they are coming from if they haven't been considered in the planning, but it feels like timing is key with this legal action.  

[1960maaan]

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.

[exAtyeoMax]

4 minutes ago, Tinmans Love Child said:

I hope this waste company havnt waited until now to take legal action deliberately as it will have more potential for compensation.  I can see where they are coming from if they haven't been considered in the planning, but it feels like timing is key with this legal action.  

Yes. Is it Bristol City council being incompetent? I wouldn’t think the waste company would be trying it on, they are trying to protect their business.

[exAtyeoMax]

2 minutes 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.

I thought they had? I might have misread the first link posted above.

perhaps their legal team just realised they could apply for the correct legislation to prevent complaints/closure?

[Bristol Rob]

1 hour ago, CyderInACan said:

FFS 

So a landfill site, that the locals claimed (and won) the right to call a village green is now on hold because of a waste management company who want to be able to process waste.

 

[RedRoss]

Very disappointing news but they do have a point. Inevitably new residents will complain and that could close their business unless something is worked out now i.e the roof or something else.

Just seems strange timing for this to come up after being accepted.

[Silvio Dante]

I was worried for a few minutes then I read who was representing ETM - Sutherlands.

I had dealings with Sutherlands a few years back over the potential redevelopment of a pub in Yate. Their work was shoddy, based on conjecture that could easily be disproven and riddled with errors. On the application they authored there were over 20 proveable errors even before you got to matters of opinion. Unsurprisingly the development didn’t go ahead. This, similarly, appears to be based on conjecture only and any decent property professional - even if not a lawyer - should be able to rip it apart easily if the work is at the standard I’ve seen before.

[1960maaan]

45 minutes ago, exAtyeoMax said:

I thought they had? I might have misread the first link posted above.

perhaps their legal team just realised they could apply for the correct legislation to prevent complaints/closure?

No, you were right  I skimmed that first time round.

It does say that the potential problems were dealt with and plans amended so the nearest houses would be OK.
How I read the article, all the concerns were dealt with before Planning was granted. I wonder if they are trying it on a little, often building delays cost the developer money and I wonder if they are trying to squeeze out a new roof for free. 
Does feel like a bit of a punt, but I have no confidence in BCC.

[exAtyeoMax]

2 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

No, you were right  I skimmed that first time round.

It does say that the potential problems were dealt with and plans amended so the nearest houses would be OK.
How I read the article, all the concerns were dealt with before Planning was granted. I wonder if they are trying it on a little, often building delays cost the developer money and I wonder if they are trying to squeeze out a new roof for free. 
Does feel like a bit of a punt, but I have no confidence in BCC.

They also said that they wanted to go 24 hour? Perhaps they want some kind of compo to get a roof? 

[Redtucks]

34 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

So a landfill site, that the locals claimed (and won) the right to call a village green is now on hold because of a waste management company who want to be able to process waste.

 

Just about to post similar. It's either a landfill site or a village green FFS.

It can't be both can it???

 

[bcfc01]

3 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

No, you were right  I skimmed that first time round.

It does say that the potential problems were dealt with and plans amended so the nearest houses would be OK.
How I read the article, all the concerns were dealt with before Planning was granted. I wonder if they are trying it on a little, often building delays cost the developer money and I wonder if they are trying to squeeze out a new roof for free. 
Does feel like a bit of a punt, but I have no confidence in BCC.

Agree with that, a punt to get a roof over the premises.

But it seems like the Council are on firm ground here and should dismiss the claim and, if it comes to it, go to court.  Or, if time is important, the developers could offer to part-pay for a roof over their premises which would probably mean some cut backs elsewhere in the overall development.

Either way, it doesn't appear to be a show stopper.

[Sleepy1968]

6 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

I wonder if they are trying to squeeze out a new roof for free. 
Does feel like a bit of a punt, but I have no confidence in BCC.

That was my thought as well. Its a roof over their entire yard they want isn't it.

The noise and dust impact will have been considered in the planning, and mitigation ready to be put in place, so this is clearly a cash grab.

I walk around that field every now and again, and walk around the perimeter metro line probably 3 times a week. Never noticed an issue with noise or dust. In fact anyone living on a busy road would be impacted by noise far more than by ETM.

[Odd socks]

Funny that I thought ETM where in bed with the council, they seem to get a lot of the road contract work given out by the council.  They have almost Two Years to complete some road works on Hengrove way. 

[EmersonsKev]

My punt is they are a former supplier of Bristol Sport with beef over losing a contract.  There site is at the bottom of an industrial estate flanked by David Lloyd and a Car Auction.  Seems all very fishy to me!

 

 

[bcfcshorey]

16 minutes ago, EmersonsKev said:

My punt is they are a former supplier of Bristol Sport with beef over losing a contract.  There site is at the bottom of an industrial estate flanked by David Lloyd and a Car Auction.  Seems all very fishy to me!

 

 

Yeah, I'm pretty sure they sponsored the Dolman Stand after it was redone.

[phantom]

39 minutes ago, bcfcshorey said:

Yeah, I'm pretty sure they sponsored the Dolman Stand after it was redone.

[Bristol Rob]

1 hour ago, EmersonsKev said:

My punt is they are a former supplier of Bristol Sport with beef over losing a contract.  There site is at the bottom of an industrial estate flanked by David Lloyd and a Car Auction.  Seems all very fishy to me!

 

 

Obviously, it could be that they have a genuine concern about the viability of their business and they're worried about their employees, but as has been the case with a number of things on OTIB of late, that doesn't fit the sensationalist agenda!

(That isn't a comment to the quoted post, just that a number of posters seem to have developed a deep paranoia that everything must have an agenda or a sinister undertone to it).

[EmersonsKev]

13 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Obviously, it could be that they have a genuine concern about the viability of their business and they're worried about their employees, but as has been the case with a number of things on OTIB of late, that doesn't fit the sensationalist agenda!

(That isn't a comment to the quoted post, just that a number of posters seem to have developed a deep paranoia that everything must have an agenda or a sinister undertone to it).

I totally get your point, however the plans and subsequent planning applications have been years in the making.  There has been ample opportunities to increase and voice concern.

 

The position of the business within an industrial estate and timing of "legal action" makes me feel uneasy about the motive.  I am not trying to sensationalise, just merely pointing out that a long term supplier/sponsor would wish to voice its concerns in such a manner.

[1960maaan]

9 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Obviously, it could be that they have a genuine concern about the viability of their business and they're worried about their employees, but as has been the case with a number of things on OTIB of late, that doesn't fit the sensationalist agenda!

(That isn't a comment to the quoted post, just that a number of posters seem to have developed a deep paranoia that everything must have an agenda or a sinister undertone to it).

Of course you could be absolutely right, but it wouldn't be the first business or person to use development to squeeze money from someone. I mentioned the possibility of it being a "punt" because of how I read the article.

“During the application process the proposal has been amended so that the developed area at the northern eastern corner of the site has been reduced, leaving an exclusion area adjacent to the ETM waste processing site,” the report stated. “This area of land is within the 55Db range of noise associated with the current operation at the ETM site and therefore has been omitted from the extent of Class C3 development. This is considered necessary to mitigate the potential impacts of noise disturbance on any future dwellings in this part of the site,” they added.

To my inexperienced eyes, that sounds like concerns have been listened to and addressed. 
Yes they may have genuine worries, and I hate people who move somewhere and then complain about things that were there decades before, but as long as long as BCC have been genuine and above board then it does seem odd . 

[W-S-M Seagull]

4 hours ago, RedRoss said:

Very disappointing news but they do have a point. Inevitably new residents will complain and that could close their business unless something is worked out now i.e the roof or something else.

Just seems strange timing for this to come up after being accepted.

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. 

3 hours ago, exAtyeoMax said:

They also said that they wanted to go 24 hour? Perhaps they want some kind of compo to get a roof? 

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. 

[TV Tom]

14 minutes 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. 

Personally i don't think anyone should give in to them, they want a roof but want someone else to pay for it, sounds like a certain football team north of the river

[W-S-M Seagull]

3 minutes ago, TV Tom said:

Personally i don't think anyone should give in to them, they want a roof but want someone else to pay for it, sounds like a certain football team north of the river

Absolutely agree. They are pure chancers. But the choice is to either pay it or wait for a long process to be completed which will see costs rise even more than the cost of the roof. Those cost rises could put the entire project in jeopardy. So best off to try and make a deal with them about the roof. 

[phantom]

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

Absolutely agree. They are pure chancers. But the choice is to either pay it or wait for a long process to be completed which will see costs rise even more than the cost of the roof. Those cost rises could put the entire project in jeopardy. So best off to try and make a deal with them about the roof. 

Surely the other choice is we fight it?

[Bristol Rob]

Just now, phantom said:

Surely the other choice is we fight it?

It's the council they have the objection with, not use.

[W-S-M Seagull]

6 minutes ago, phantom said:

Surely the other choice is we fight it?

But look how that ended last time? 

These JR proceedings can drag on for years. 

Best off to just make a deal to make it go away.

[TV Tom]

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

But look how that ended last time? 

These JR proceedings can drag on for years. 

Best off to just make a deal to make it go away.

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

[Always red]

Oh Great! What with CEO going, this planning issue and no home win yet we've had more positive times. Still, by 2145 tonight...

COYR's 

[phantom]

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

But look how that ended last time? 

These JR proceedings can drag on for years. 

Best off to just make a deal to make it go away.

Aren't we essentially being blackmailed then?

I wonder if ETM actually want us to sort it all out or not?