I will be there CD. As far as I can see all the relevant reports are now in and there is no good reason to delay the hearing of the application.
Sad act that I am, I have been following this in some detail. From memory there have been 4 objections. They are based on increased traffic, light and noise pollution, spoilt views and the effects on wildlife.
All of these bar the noise pollution and spoilt views are covered in either the club's submissions or the reports gathered from the relevant agencies or organisations:
Traffic - There will be far fewer cars at matches than the estimated 1000 cars visiting the Car Boot sale. As the Car Boot sale would end before the stadium comes into use, then the overall effect is a traffic reduction.
Wildlife - Apart from the provision of a track for a certain species of lizard, there is no real impact on animal life and the provision of more trees will improve the area for all wildlife.
Light Polution - New modern floodlights will reduce the light spill considerably as they are more directional.
Noise Pollution - New directional loudspeakers, and careful system design ensure that the sound is heard only within the ground.
Spoilt Views - This objection was from a householder that lives about 500 metres away. It is unlikely to be considered reasonable.
a huge presence of Support in the public seats at the meeting on 17th could be just what tilts the decision our way-it is vital we do all we can and this one of the factors within our control-it could be critical.
Post by Heyshamdolphin on Mar 17, 2011 11:56:40 GMT
MUST publicly acknowledge the generosity of towncrier's comments in the discussion about small grounds on the footballgroundguide site above. It doesn't make up for you-know-who refusing us a ground share but that's not your fault either so THANKS TC! COYD
It's interesting to note that the majority of signatories on that petition don't live in Bearwood - I've noticed Christchurch, Wimborne, various areas across Poole and Bournemouth including (ironically) a few not far from Branksome Rec who I can only guess are BRAG members who must just have it in for the club!
Also in my opinion (I'm guessing here as I know only 1 is for certain as I know the family) I would suggest that a number of them are school children. Not sure if a child can object to a planning proposal?
Perhaps there is one local objector who has taken it upon himself to have all his friends and family (and kids friends too) sign his petition after failing to find much in the way of objection locally?
This report states 'We conclude that the proposed redevelopment of the site in accordance with the above recommendations will result in a neutral impact, or betterment, on existing or future ‘on-site’ and ‘off-site’ flood water levels.'
Please can someone explain why it was stated that this had not been done?
Post by John Anderson on Mar 19, 2011 10:38:21 GMT
Dave2. The claim is that they cannot officially "start" the application until all relevant documents are received from the applicant (PTFC or its agents). The PBC planning dept did not ask for a FRA until it was pointed out by the Environment Agency that one was required.
Technically the date of the consultation period began once this document was received (2nd February). So May 4th became the new application Target Determination Date.
Thanks Brian for your acknowledgement. As to the turn down of ground share I struggle with the U turn and understanding why offer was withdrawn. Would have been great for me to see good footie at least twice a week half a mile form me house.
Regarding Flood Assessment, isn't Bearwood considerably up hill from the Stour flood plain?