AG Redevelopment latest

[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.

[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.

[Harry]

45 minutes ago, Mad Cyril said:

 

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

Oh come one now. 
Surely this wonder of the world in Broadmead is up there with the best in modern architecture. 
 

[elhombrecito]

27 minutes ago, Harry said:

Oh come one now. 
Surely this wonder of the world in Broadmead is up there with the best in modern architecture. 
 

You're aware it no longer exists, right?

[Davefevs]

16 minutes ago, elhombrecito said:

You're aware it no longer exists, right?

Only in polyester these days!

[Harry]

5 hours ago, elhombrecito said:

You're aware it no longer exists, right?

Ah ok. No I wasn’t. 
Thankfully I don’t ever have a need to venture down that way any more. 
But still - she was a beauty. On a par with the suspension bridge without doubt 

[phantom]

Not that I could ever imagine this happening in Bristol but I was really surprised by this story (apologies for the publication) 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/24389652/live-next-stadium-homeless-christmas/

[Full nelson]

It would be very Bristol/SL when the time comes to knock down the houses along the park, we find out that they all have some protection orders on them. 

[exAtyeoMax]

On 11/10/2023 at 15:48, Davefevs said:

Only in polyester these days!

and my mug… 

[Peter1450]

On 10/10/2023 at 20:09, 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.

Exactly this , always being overtaken by an ETM skip lorry at 4.30 in the morning on my way to work, not sure you’d be happy having a skip loaded/unloaded outside a property at that hour !

[fgrsimon]

So roughly how long would the JR take to be completed?

[Kid in the Riot]

2 hours ago, fgrsimon said:

So roughly how long would the JR take to be completed?

It'll either be chucked out by the judge in a few weeks, or accepted to go to  hearing which would take months, maybe years.

[Ashtongreight]

1 hour ago, Kid in the Riot said:

It'll either be chucked out by the judge in a few weeks, or accepted to go to  hearing which would take months, maybe years.

Sounds likely if it doesn’t get thrown out by the judge it’ll be dropped. Unlikely SL will want to wait years. As the original plan was amended to allow for ETM’s concerns you’d think it’ll be kicked out, but who knows nothing about planning in Bristol seems driven by logic.

[1960maaan]

8 hours ago, Ashtongreight said:

Sounds likely if it doesn’t get thrown out by the judge it’ll be dropped. Unlikely SL will want to wait years. As the original plan was amended to allow for ETM’s concerns you’d think it’ll be kicked out, but who knows nothing about planning in Bristol seems driven by logic.

It seems ETM have gone all in with the hope that the potential added costs of delays, mean they stump up for the roof. I don't think he will. 
ETM's objections are the same ones as were turned down before, chancers.

[Full nelson]

5 hours ago, 1960maaan said:

It seems ETM have gone all in with the hope that the potential added costs of delays, mean they stump up for the roof. I don't think he will. 
ETM's objections are the same ones as were turned down before, chancers.

If it does go to JR I think AG and SL will just give up on it. ETM win. Bristol as a city will lose again, but I guess we're good at losing in this city. 

[1960maaan]

Just now, Full nelson said:

If it does go to JR I think AG and SL will just give up on it. ETM win. Bristol as a city will lose again, but I guess we're good at losing in this city. 

I don't think ETM want that win. I have heard rumours they are flouting their contract agreements, exceeding noise levels and working over hours . I think they may be scrutinised a lot closer if an agreement isn't forth coming. They would like the roof paid for, they want to go 24 hours apparently and extend the contract. I don't see this as a good way of doing it. 
I really hope something happens, I'm fed up of progress being held up by spurious claims. 

[marmite]

1 minute ago, 1960maaan said:

I don't think ETM want that win. I have heard rumours they are flouting their contract agreements, exceeding noise levels and working over hours . I think they may be scrutinised a lot closer if an agreement isn't forth coming. They would like the roof paid for, they want to go 24 hours apparently and extend the contract. I don't see this as a good way of doing it. 
I really hope something happens, I'm fed up of progress being held up by spurious claims. 

This is Bristol. Its what happens here  unfortunately. 

[Full nelson]

8 minutes ago, marmite said:

This is Bristol. Its what happens here  unfortunately. 

Aye!! A city that rates itself so badly but never achieves anything.

[Ashtongreight]

2 hours ago, 1960maaan said:

It seems ETM have gone all in with the hope that the potential added costs of delays, mean they stump up for the roof. I don't think he will. 
ETM's objections are the same ones as were turned down before, chancers.

Or that it’ll go to a JR, which could take months or years and hoping Bristol Sport will pull out altogether. More houses around them would prevent them extending in the future. It would also highlight any flouting of existing agreements. 

[Guest]

19 hours ago, Kid in the Riot said:

It'll either be chucked out by the judge in a few weeks, or accepted to go to  hearing which would take months, maybe years.

Cutting to the chase how do I(we) find out when the judge will sit?

[Bristol Rob]

1 hour ago, Countryfile said:

Cutting to the chase how do I(we) find out when the judge will sit?

Likely after someone says "all rise".

[Hxj]

3 hours ago, Countryfile said:

Cutting to the chase how do I(we) find out when the judge will sit?

Unless you are 'in the know' you will need to check the following on a regular basis: Royal Courts of Justice daily cause list 16 October 2023 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)