AG Redevelopment latest

[Harry]

28 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

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.

[beaverface]

38 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

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.

I'm not saying the club do anything, I'm just saying there are options open to them so that nothing is blocked.

If the club wants to hang around and wait for the JR to be thrown out, that's fine - it's their call.

I'm just merely pointing out there are other ways to get what they want if they so desired - it's a just a balance of how much they want it versus going through the JR process and waiting on the outcome\or the time for it to conclude.

[bcfc01]

The club/developer and the Council have done everything 100% correctly including bending over backwards to appease ETM. 

Whilst some people may think it is acceptable or expedient to bow to these opportunists, most right minded people will applaud the club/developers and Council for telling them to stuff it where the sun don't shine. That is the right and proper thing to do.

[Full nelson]

4 minutes ago, bcfc01 said:

The club/developer and the Council have done everything 100% correctly including bending over backwards to appease ETM. 

Whilst some people may think it is acceptable or expedient to bow to these opportunists, most right minded people will applaud the club/developers and Council for telling them to stuff it where the sun don't shine. That is the right and proper thing to do.

ETM still win if JR is granted, which will run on for ages and then AG will just pull the project.

I guess they're in a no lose situation. 

[bcfc01]

Just now, Full nelson said:

ETM still win if JR is granted, which will run on for ages and then AG will just pull the project.

I guess they're in a no lose situation. 

I very much doubt any of that will happen.

[WarksRobin]

5 minutes ago, Full nelson said:

ETM still win if JR is granted, which will run on for ages and then AG will just pull the project.

I guess they're in a no lose situation. 

Not if the JR fails and costs are awarded against them, which seems a distinct possibility

[bcfc01]

5 minutes ago, WarksRobin said:

Not if the JR fails and costs are awarded against them, which seems a distinct possibility

They are quite a profitable family company.

Turnover 20m + 

6.5m Gross Profit

2.6m Operational Profit

2.3m Nett Profit

Makes you wonder why they want someone else to fund the roof over their compound.

[Ivorguy]

As a Bristolian living in a different part of the country for over half a century, this has all the marks to me, as an historian, of a typical Little Bristol attitude which we have seen too much of in our city’s story.

[TheReds]

1 hour ago, bcfc01 said:

They are quite a profitable family company.

Turnover 20m + 

6.5m Gross Profit

2.6m Operational Profit

2.3m Nett Profit

Makes you wonder why they want someone else to fund the roof over their compound.

How much of that is from the Council?

Because surely when those contracts are up the Council won't be renewing them?

[bcfc01]

18 minutes ago, TheReds said:

How much of that is from the Council?

Because surely when those contracts are up the Council won't be renewing them?

The only info I can see on the Council site for EMT are highways contracts (not sure if its the same company).

Those contracts total 3.84m

https://www.data.gov.uk/dataset/7f137232-b58e-4e08-ab5a-99d74644398c/bristol-city-council-contracts-over-5000

But ETM Recycling have/had a 3 year contract with Ashton Gate Ltd https://www.recyclingbristol.com/case-studies/ashton-gate-stadium/

Wonder if that contract has recently ended and not been renewed ?

Yes, I have a lot of time on my hands today....trying to look busy as Mrs working from home and I can't be arsed with the numerous DIY jobs that need doing.

 

[Harry]

27 minutes ago, TheReds said:

How much of that is from the Council?

Because surely when those contracts are up the Council won't be renewing them?

Any idea when their contract with Ashton Gate is up? 
I looked on their website last week and they had a lucrative 3 year contract with Ashton Gate, but the website looked very out of date (still mentioning covid delays, pah!). 
 

I think there’s something more deviant with this. 
I wonder if the 3 year contract was coming to an end and Ashton Gate have decided not to renew it, so ETM and gone down the childish route and said “ok, if you won’t renew the contract we’ll eff up your plans”. 
 

There definitely looks to be something very petty about this and I willing be surprised if it was something like the above. 

[beaverface]

1 hour ago, Ivorguy said:

As a Bristolian living in a different part of the country for over half a century, this has all the marks to me, as an historian, of a typical Little Bristol attitude which we have seen too much of in our city’s story.

Its what I've been attempting to say further up, if the club want it, then JFDI !! Something other City's within the Country do.

I know its sly, underhand, and just not cricket, but sometimes if you want something done, get on with it! We're all laughing at Rovers and their lack of planning for the South Stand, but at least they're taking the bull by the horns.

TBH, I'm non-plussed either way as I won't be buying a flat at Ashton Gate or watching the basketball. I only go to watch City. Personally, I'd be happy if Wickes was knocked down and a nice boulevard was put up with a decent club shop, snacks bars, coffee shops and outdoor space, but money talks and so a profit needs to be squeezed from every single avenue.

[Harry]

3 minutes ago, bcfc01 said:

 

But ETM Recycling have/had a 3 year contract with Ashton Gate Ltd https://www.recyclingbristol.com/case-studies/ashton-gate-stadium/

Wonder if that contract has recently ended and not been renewed ?

 

This is where my spidy sense is sending me 

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, Full nelson said:

ETM still win if JR is granted, which will run on for ages and then AG will just pull the project.

I guess they're in a no lose situation. 

 

42 minutes ago, TheReds said:

How much of that is from the Council?

Because surely when those contracts are up the Council won't be renewing them?

 

12 minutes ago, bcfc01 said:

The only info I can see on the Council site for EMT are highways contracts (not sure if its the same company).

Those contracts total 3.84m

https://www.data.gov.uk/dataset/7f137232-b58e-4e08-ab5a-99d74644398c/bristol-city-council-contracts-over-5000

But ETM Recycling have/had a 3 year contract with Ashton Gate Ltd https://www.recyclingbristol.com/case-studies/ashton-gate-stadium/

Wonder if that contract has recently ended and not been renewed ?

Yes, I have a lot of time on my hands today....trying to look busy as Mrs working from home and I can't be arsed with the numerous DIY jobs that need doing.

 

Yep, the impact on them might be contracts not being renewed.

[bcfc01]

11 minutes ago, Harry said:

This is where my spidy sense is sending me 

Me too, it wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility, its a family firm based in Hartcliffe not a corporate outfit.

 

[TheReds]

25 minutes ago, Harry said:

Any idea when their contract with Ashton Gate is up? 
I looked on their website last week and they had a lucrative 3 year contract with Ashton Gate, but the website looked very out of date (still mentioning covid delays, pah!). 
 

I think there’s something more deviant with this. 
I wonder if the 3 year contract was coming to an end and Ashton Gate have decided not to renew it, so ETM and gone down the childish route and said “ok, if you won’t renew the contract we’ll eff up your plans”. 
 

There definitely looks to be something very petty about this and I willing be surprised if it was something like the above. 

I hope Lansdown is having some quiet conversations with the Council, where he is offering to pay off ETM but only on the basis that the Council never renew any contracts with them ever. 

[W-S-M Seagull]

2 hours ago, bcfc01 said:

They are quite a profitable family company.

Turnover 20m + 

6.5m Gross Profit

2.6m Operational Profit

2.3m Nett Profit

Makes you wonder why they want someone else to fund the roof over their compound.

I thinks it's more to do with the fact that they don't want the houses there full stop because then they'd not be able to work outside of their permitted hours.

[Full nelson]

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

I thinks it's more to do with the fact that they don't want the houses there full stop because then they'd not be able to work outside of their permitted hours.

Bully boy tactics then. Rule and law breakers by the sound of it.

[Harry]

This must be the first time in history that a company has been worried in advance about noise complaints from neighbours. 
They are either the most caring and considerate company, or there is something that has prompted their action.

One thing is for certain - they’re not doing this for the benefit of their future neighbours. 
There surely isn’t another company in the land that would be concerned about noise complaints before anyone has even moved in. 

[Antman]

3 minutes ago, Harry said:

This must be the first time in history that a company has been worried in advance about noise complaints from neighbours. 
They are either the most caring and considerate company, or there is something that has prompted their action.

One thing is for certain - they’re not doing this for the benefit of their future neighbours. 
There surely isn’t another company in the land that would be concerned about noise complaints before anyone has even moved in. 

Taking pre emptive action merely protects their interests.

By way of an comparison, a friend of mine runs a business in the docks in Bristol, adjacent to him was a derilict site that was then bought and developed into an intensive residential development, they (developers) then started campaigning to have his business closed in advance of selling the units, despite him being there for some years -  fortunately the council told them to eff off.

remember the hoo haa over the flats near the Fleece and Firkin - again, a development attempting to close an established business because of potential noise concerns - even though they knew that 'noise' existed before building was started.

It's all part of the useless planning system i'm afraid. it seems now pre emptive action is part and parcel of strategies to block what might become a threatening development. (if residents do complain)

clearer advice and legal positions need to be established.

I'm surprised this wasn't signed off in advance, and as some have pointed out, is this a reactive grievance to something thats happened recently. (lost contracts)

[Antman]

Just now, Antman said:

Taking pre emptive action merely protects their interests.

By way of an comparison, a friend of mine runs a business in the docks in Bristol, adjacent to him was a derilict site that was then bought and developed into an intensive residential development, they (developers) then started campaigning to have his business closed in advance of selling the units, despite him being there for some years -  fortunately the council told them to eff off.

remember the hoo haa over the flats near the Fleece and Firkin - again, a development attempting to close an established business because of potential noise concerns - even though they knew that 'noise' existed before building was started.

It's all part of the useless planning system i'm afraid. it seems now pre emptive action is part and parcel of strategies to block what might become a threatening development. (if residents do complain)

clearer advice and legal positions need to be established.

I'm surprised this wasn't signed off in advance, and as some have pointed out, is this a reactive grievance to something thats happened recently. (lost contracts)

too add, the situation isn't helped by the way central government can effectively over rule local authorities. so there is no certainty anymore.

 

[phantom]

2 hours ago, bcfc01 said:

The only info I can see on the Council site for EMT are highways contracts (not sure if its the same company).

Those contracts total 3.84m

https://www.data.gov.uk/dataset/7f137232-b58e-4e08-ab5a-99d74644398c/bristol-city-council-contracts-over-5000

But ETM Recycling have/had a 3 year contract with Ashton Gate Ltd https://www.recyclingbristol.com/case-studies/ashton-gate-stadium/

Wonder if that contract has recently ended and not been renewed ?

Yes, I have a lot of time on my hands today....trying to look busy as Mrs working from home and I can't be arsed with the numerous DIY jobs that need doing.

 

 

1 hour ago, Harry said:

This is where my spidy sense is sending me 

My initial reaction was I wondered what the timing between us offering a sweetener and them becoming the waste contractor / Dolman Stand sponsor was 

[IAmNick]

2 hours ago, Harry said:

This must be the first time in history that a company has been worried in advance about noise complaints from neighbours. 
They are either the most caring and considerate company, or there is something that has prompted their action.

One thing is for certain - they’re not doing this for the benefit of their future neighbours. 
There surely isn’t another company in the land that would be concerned about noise complaints before anyone has even moved in. 

Reading between the lines on the statement and from various comments I've seen around, it sounds to me like there's a reasonable chance ETM are operating outside of their agreed hours or noise levels.

"Our application to Bristol City Council proceeded on this basis and made the entirely legitimate assumption that ETM would operate in accordance with its own planning permission, environmental permit and trading licences."

"Bristol City Council has already confirmed that providing ETM stays within permitted noise levels, it wouldn’t be too noisy for anyone living in the proposed new homes."

If it's been confirmed it's fine provided they stay within permitted noise levels, and obey their permits then why are they worried? Unless they aren't doing those things.

I think that's probably what they're really worried about - they're not operating in the way they should, and more houses nearby will bring too much attention to it and they'll have to change their business to some degree which with affect their bottom line.

This is complete speculation by the way, but it adds up imo.

[Jerseybean]

EP coverage: https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/sporting-quarter-development-could-abandoned-8818062?utm_source=bristol_live_newsletter&utm_campaign=daily_newsletter2&utm_medium=email

[W-S-M Seagull]

1 hour ago, IAmNick said:

Reading between the lines on the statement and from various comments I've seen around, it sounds to me like there's a reasonable chance ETM are operating outside of their agreed hours or noise levels.

"Our application to Bristol City Council proceeded on this basis and made the entirely legitimate assumption that ETM would operate in accordance with its own planning permission, environmental permit and trading licences."

"Bristol City Council has already confirmed that providing ETM stays within permitted noise levels, it wouldn’t be too noisy for anyone living in the proposed new homes."

If it's been confirmed it's fine provided they stay within permitted noise levels, and obey their permits then why are they worried? Unless they aren't doing those things.

I think that's probably what they're really worried about - they're not operating in the way they should, and more houses nearby will bring too much attention to it and they'll have to change their business to some degree which with affect their bottom line.

This is complete speculation by the way, but it adds up imo.

Thats exactly how I read the statement from AG. 

 

[Coombsy]

If you drive around to the ETM site how are they allowed to operate 

the dust / noise level and  amount of lorries queueing along the road side is unbelievable 

[myol'man]

1 hour ago, Coombsy said:

If you drive around to the ETM site how are they allowed to operate 

the dust / noise level and  amount of lorries queueing along the road side is unbelievable 

Totally agree.

Ashton Vale Road is not a suitable site for this operation. As you say the dust, grime and HGV traffic created just doesn't belong in a light commercial area. Surely the best solution would be for the developers to purchase the ETM site, perhaps creating another access route into the new housing site and then ETM could move out to Avonmouth?

Another point, why are ETM HGV drivers allowed to ignore the Highway Code?

[W-S-M Seagull]

1 hour ago, myol'man said:

Totally agree.

Ashton Vale Road is not a suitable site for this operation. As you say the dust, grime and HGV traffic created just doesn't belong in a light commercial area. Surely the best solution would be for the developers to purchase the ETM site, perhaps creating another access route into the new housing site and then ETM could move out to Avonmouth?

Another point, why are ETM HGV drivers allowed to ignore the Highway Code?

I did hear a rumour that EMT have taken this course of action in order to try and get the council to make land available for them in Avonmouth. 

I don't know how true that is but that outcome would suit all parties, especially if SL was then able to secure the land.

[RedRaw]

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

I did hear a rumour that EMT have taken this course of action in order to try and get the council to make land available for them in Avonmouth. 

I don't know how true that is but that outcome would suit all parties, especially if SL was then able to secure the land.

Would appear a rather counter productive negotiating tactic 

[Mad Cyril]

20 hours ago, Antman said:

Taking pre emptive action merely protects their interests.

By way of an comparison, a friend of mine runs a business in the docks in Bristol, adjacent to him was a derilict site that was then bought and developed into an intensive residential development, they (developers) then started campaigning to have his business closed in advance of selling the units, despite him being there for some years -  fortunately the council told them to eff off.

remember the hoo haa over the flats near the Fleece and Firkin - again, a development attempting to close an established business because of potential noise concerns - even though they knew that 'noise' existed before building was started.

It's all part of the useless planning system i'm afraid. it seems now pre emptive action is part and parcel of strategies to block what might become a threatening development. (if residents do complain)

clearer advice and legal positions need to be established.

I'm surprised this wasn't signed off in advance, and as some have pointed out, is this a reactive grievance to something thats happened recently. (lost contracts)

"I have just bought a house near the airport. The noise coming from the planes is unacceptable and I will be writing to the council to demand the airport is closed down"

If we had a council who threw these sort of demands out from the outset, we will have more businesses needing to object to building anything.

Meanwhile, the last iconic build in Bristol remains the Clifton Suspension Bridge.