oafcprozac Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 Been sent home from Uni as some tit demolishing Oxford Tower has cut through a large power cable. Anyhow received a letter from Jim Bennett re: the amended application (had a series of lettrs from this guy, must be because I signed a petition or summat), so Block A reduced to 3 storey, 4 Storey Central Section to Block A Block B Northern Section reduced to 6 storey, southern section now 8 storey Block C 7 storey section increased to 8 storey Amended drawings now on the council's website. Now this may be all well and good but what have we done to convince the Planning Clowns (sorry committee) that their Traffic fears will be alleviated? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jorvik_latic Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 Been sent home from Uni as some tit demolishing Oxford Tower has cut through a large power cable. Anyhow received a letter from Jim Bennett re: the amended application (had a series of lettrs from this guy, must be because I signed a petition or summat), so Block A reduced to 3 storey, 4 Storey Central Section to Block A Block B Northern Section reduced to 6 storey, southern section now 8 storey Block C 7 storey section increased to 8 storey Amended drawings now on the council's website. Now this may be all well and good but what have we done to convince the Planning Clowns (sorry committee) that their Traffic fears will be alleviated? Amended drawings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amsterdam_Blue Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 I'm confused? I thought the reason the application was rejected was down to traffic problems and not the height of the buildings we were erecting? Does this mean the application is going to be knocked back again by the sordid 7? Or is this the TTA saying "there you go, here's our comprimise, we'll lower the height of the buildings" thus allowing said councillors to go back on their original decision which has been slated and grant us permission to build allowing them to save face? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 I'm confused? I thought the reason the application was rejected was down to traffic problems and not the height of the buildings we were erecting? Does this mean the application is going to be knocked back again by the sordid 7? Or is this the TTA saying "there you go, here's our comprimise, we'll lower the height of the buildings" thus allowing said councillors to go back on their original decision which has been slated and grant us permission to build allowing them to save face? Guessing that Bashforth and Co got slaughtered behind closed doors for using the traffic argument, and that one isn't going to see the light of day again. Re-submitting the plans completely unchanged would put some of the councillors between a rock and a hard place, whereas making some changes to the height to take account of specific concerns about the view can be presented as a compromise. It's the same number of flats, so if it makes them happier then why not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senor_Coconut Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 If those plans get approved I won't post another 'negative' post for a year. Sadly, the same objections will be there, number of cars, not fitting in with the other houses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amsterdam_Blue Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 If those plans get approved I won't post another 'negative' post for a year. Sadly, the same objections will be there, number of cars, not fitting in with the other houses. MODS, is this comment legally binding? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 If those plans get approved I won't post another 'negative' post for a year. Sadly, the same objections will be there, number of cars, not fitting in with the other houses. Well then, this thread might be getting Pinned on the 11th Dec then I really don't think we'll hear much more about the number of cars. That was Bashforth's hobby horse (or Trojan horse more like), he was foolish to use that as his main basis for rejection as the argument to the contrary is spelt out in black and white. Had him and his mates gone all out about the apartments being unsuitable to the area they could at least be consistent, whereas it wasn't the main objection at the time and we've made amendments anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senor_Coconut Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 (edited) Absolutely, I will stand by my word. If we've ordered another traffic report and it comes back the same as the other two, Bashford and the others have already said they don't believe a word of it. And haven't various councillors said that the number of flats were the problem and if reduced it would go through? Edited November 27, 2007 by Senor_Coconut Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 Absolutely, I will stand by my word. If we've ordered another traffic report and it comes back the same as the other two, Bashford and the others have already said they don't believe a word of it. And haven't various councillors said that the number of flats were the problem and if reduced it would go through? All stuff that was dealt with in the Planning process though, and there has been a certain level of publicity and correspondance pointing out that there are no valid grounds therein to reject. It would take some serious front for them to pull the same trick again. For starters they would get savaged if we did proceed to appeal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 I think there is no reason this shouldnt go through... We are paying for another traffic report produced by another independent party which will hopfully confirm the last two reports The tall appartments are now the opposite side of the stadium, the ones near the bungolows are four stories in height Fingers crossed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sheridans_world Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 Out of interest, where has it been reported that we have commisioned another report? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 (edited) Out of interest, where has it been reported that we have commisioned another report? Was in the MEN i think, not sure 100% where i read it but i defo read it! Edited November 27, 2007 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 Out of interest, where has it been reported that we have commisioned another report? Think it was in the Club report about us re-submitting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sheridans_world Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 OAFC - Resubmit Only says that is it 'clarified' rather than another report being done. The club will not have paid for another report. If another is needed, the council will have to pay for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 (edited) OAFC - Resubmit Only says that is it 'clarified' rather than another report being done. The club will not have paid for another report. If another is needed, the council will have to pay for it. So what does "clarified" mean then ? The councilors didnt think the report had enough detail. I did read the club was having another report drawn up by a independent party. Unless an independent part, maybe the highways agency will be explaning the data or something. Also why would the council have to pay for it ? Edited November 27, 2007 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sheridans_world Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 So what does "clarified" mean then ? The councilors didnt think the report had enough detail. I did read the club was having another report drawn up by a independent party. Les Harrison has stated to Kilburn that the report is correct. The councillors are not qualified to question the report, they have to take it as fact, own experiences aside. No doubt the club have explored this avenue. I think I read that the club was having another report done but I dont think it is being done. Edit: The club have paid for two surveys, both came out with the same answers. The first was found to be unacceptable and the second found the same as the first. This now is taken as fact. It was mentioned at the planning meeting that the councillors wanted another report but Bashforth sort legal advice actually at the meeting and found that the council would have to pay for this. Since Bashforth doesnt hold any purse strings and the legality of the matter is that they have to accept the second report, another cannot be done and OAFC certaintly cannot be asked to pay for it after paying for two already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 (edited) Les Harrison has stated to Kilburn that the report is correct. The councillors are not qualified to question the report, they have to take it as fact, own experiences aside. No doubt the club have explored this avenue. I think I read that the club was having another report done but I dont think it is being done. Well Simon say here that the report has been done! MEN REPORT Simon Corney, one of the 112-year-old club’s owners, said: “We are going to have the same number of flats and houses but have decided to lower the height of some of the residential buildings to appease the residents. There has also been a new independent traffic report that will clear up any issues there. This would make sense to me, to submit the same traffic data could be suicide....remember what we said about giving the councilors room to save face... EDIT: Well there seems to be some confliction.....Simon said a report has been done and this was said days after the event on the 23rd. I just thought they couldnt adjurn the meeting for a second time, although im not disputing your explaination of the cost situation. Since the plan has been rejected submitting a new traffic report should be more than possible. I havent heard anything anywhere to suggest a new report wont be submitted. Edited November 27, 2007 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sheridans_world Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 Well Simon say here that the report has been done! MEN REPORT This would make sense to me, to submit the same traffic data could be suicide....remember what we said about giving the councilors room to save face... EDIT: Well there seems to be some confliction.....Simon said this days after the event. I just thought the couldn adjurn the meeting. Since the plan has been rejected submitting a new traffic report should be more than possible. Ok, fair play but, it doesnt state the club paid for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 (edited) This now is taken as fact. Clearly not if it was rejected...? Edited November 27, 2007 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 Ok, fair play but, it doesnt state the club paid for it. I edited my post to say that but you was too quick :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 Clarification on the Traffic report. It will be reviewed by independent asscessors - source is the chron Got me worried this one a little.......fingers crossed it will be enough... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footy68 Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 Never mind all the technical issues, why are there sperm cells indicated behind the Rocky Road? Look behind the houses at the RRE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
real Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 Never mind all the technical issues, why are there sperm cells indicated behind the Rocky Road? Look behind the houses at the RRE. Because of all the W----ers on carlton way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeylandLatic Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 Clarification on the Traffic report. It will be reviewed by independent asscessors - source is the chron Got me worried this one a little.......fingers crossed it will be enough... I've never really had a good look at these plans, and tbh I very much doubt the residents have. The only 8 story block is on the other side of the stadium to Carlton way so what is the problem? The flats near them are only 4 story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footy68 Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 I'll tee 'em up, you knock 'em down! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.