Brockhall STC - planning permission application ?

[RevidgeBlue]

10 minutes ago, only2garners said:

But Crystal Palace are currently Cat 2 so presumably wanted the reassurance that their new centre would be good enough for an upgrade. And they may already have planning approval.

Rovers already have Cat 1 status so have no need to incur costs on designing the new centre until the club has secured proof of concept approval. It would be financially daft to do otherwise.

I really don't know where you're coming from on this John, the Cat 1 status relates to the existing SEPARATE facilities. Surely if we have to rebuild a completely new training facility from scratch then the existing classification becomes redundant and we would have to go about obtaining Cat 1 status all over again.

To use an extreme example to prove a point, if the Club sold the STC site, knocked down the original facility where the Academy is now, and  replaced it with a large portakabin, that wouldn't attract Cat 1 status merely because we'd had it in the past would it?

In the current case, we'll give the Club the benefit of the doubt and assume they are going to build what they say they are if both proposals are passed. The screening application refers to a facility of "similar scale" and identical specification m to the existing STC. How can we possibly be sure that cramming everyone into a building the size of the existing STC and losing at least half of our pitch space would meet Cat 1 requirements?

Have the Club told you that they've taken any precautionary steps to try and ascertain whether we would be Cat 1 compliant?

[only2garners]

44 minutes ago, Richard Oakley said:

It seems prudent to ensure that plans to redevelop the site ensure that Cat 1/A is maintained.

Any chance you could post the minutes of the fans forum meeting on the fans forum thread on this blog. Been on the thread and seen the minutes have been linked. Thanks to @Herbie6590 for that.

Richard - as you say Herbie has already put up a link to them on the club site. If I posted them on the FF thread it would be a huge post (they are 5 pages of A4) which would really mess up this thread.

[Richard Oakley]

How much are these specialists like Peacocks costing the club? Are they operating on a no planning application approval/sale, no fee?

It seems a terribly unnecessary expense for an allegedly cash strapped club. 

[only2garners]

6 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

I really don't know where you're coming from on this John, the Cat 1 status relates to the existing SEPARATE facilities. Surely if we have to rebuild a completely new training facility from scratch then the existing classification becomes redundant and we would have to go about obtaining Cat 1 status all over again.

To use an extreme example to prove a point, if the Club sold the STC site, knocked down the original facility where the Academy is now, and  replaced it with a large portakabin, that wouldn't attract Cat 1 status merely because we'd had it in the past would it?

In the current case, we'll give the Club the benefit of the doubt and assume they are going to build what they say they are if both proposals are passed. The screening application refers to a facility of "similar scale" and identical specification m to the existing STC. How can we possibly be sure that cramming everyone into a building the size of the existing STC and losing at least half of our pitch space would meet Cat 1 requirements?

Have the Club told you that they've taken any precautionary steps to try and ascertain whether we would be Cat 1 compliant?

Simon - clearly the work that Palace have done to get their new Cat 1 status would also have to be done by the club as well. But he sensible time to do it will be when they have got past proof of concept and they then engage professionals re the design of the new centre but before they start knocking anything down and building again. Doing all that now just means that they risk wasting money if there are problems with the proof of concept application.

We didn't ask a specific question about getting advance confirmation of retention of Cat 1 status but we will have plenty of time to ask it at subsequent meetings. All I know is as much as anyone else on here given that there have been plenty of public pronouncements i.e. that the club's position is that the most important thing is the retention of Cat 1 status. It's reiterated in the FF minutes.

[RevidgeBlue]

3 minutes ago, only2garners said:

Simon - clearly the work that Palace have done to get their new Cat 1 status would also have to be done by the club as well. But he sensible time to do it will be when they have got past proof of concept and they then engage professionals re the design of the new centre but before they start knocking anything down and building again. Doing all that now just means that they risk wasting money if there are problems with the proof of concept application.

We didn't ask a specific question about getting advance confirmation of retention of Cat 1 status but we will have plenty of time to ask it at subsequent meetings. All I know is as much as anyone else on here given that there have been plenty of public pronouncements i.e. that the club's position is that the most important thing is the retention of Cat 1 status. It's reiterated in the FF minutes.

You can build what you want but you can't magic up space that doesn't exist John.

What if the proof of concept applications both go through but further inquiry reveals that the more restricted site is completely incompatible with Cat 1 Regulations? (Which I think it clearly would be)

Do you actually think the Club would scrap the plans at that stage? Can we afford to take that risk?

[darrenrover]

56 minutes ago, only2garners said:

Simon - clearly the work that Palace have done to get their new Cat 1 status would also have to be done by the club as well. But he sensible time to do it will be when they have got past proof of concept and they then engage professionals re the design of the new centre but before they start knocking anything down and building again. Doing all that now just means that they risk wasting money if there are problems with the proof of concept application.

We didn't ask a specific question about getting advance confirmation of retention of Cat 1 status but we will have plenty of time to ask it at subsequent meetings. All I know is as much as anyone else on here given that there have been plenty of public pronouncements i.e. that the club's position is that the most important thing is the retention of Cat 1 status. It's reiterated in the FF minutes.

Question:

If you have a pint pot, would you not agree that it will only fit a pint of liquid in it? (rhetorical, obviously)

So if you have 18 acres and are compliant to Cat 1 standards, how the fuck do you then fit that into 9 acres and still be Cat 1 compliant? (For the avoidance of doubt, Seniors and Juniors need to be totally detached and separate entities)

I said I wouldn't post any more on here and I won't but there are some that are about to make my already boiling blood, boil over!!

PS, The Moon's made out of cheese, Waggott said it's fecking Stilton, is that what he told you?

Edited March 15, 2021 by darrenrover

[RoversClitheroe]

1 hour ago, darrenrover said:

Question:

If you have a pint pot, would you not agree that it will only fit a pint of liquid in it? (rhetorical, obviously)

So if you have 18 acres and are compliant to Cat 1 standards, how the fuck do you then fit that into 9 acres and still be Cat 1 compliant? (For the avoidance of doubt, Seniors and Juniors need to be totally detached and separate entities)

I said I wouldn't post any more on here and I won't but there are some that are about to make my already boiling blood, boil over!!

PS, The Moon's made out of cheese, Waggott said it's fecking Stilton, is that what he told you?

Darren, I think you could educate and inform rather than how you are approaching it.

Some things you post are great but it's all so cryptic, be straight to the point and informative as it then helps to educate all of us rather than say "my last post" every time.

Cheers

[Sparks Rover]

2 hours ago, darrenrover said:

 

PS, The Moon's made out of cheese, Waggott said it's fecking Stilton, is that what he told you?

Tesco finest actually.  

[darrenrover]

59 minutes ago, RoversClitheroe said:

Darren, I think you could educate and inform rather than how you are approaching it.

Some things you post are great but it's all so cryptic, be straight to the point and informative as it then helps to educate all of us rather than say "my last post" every time.

Cheers

If I were to 'educate', I'd then be accused of being patronising by some. (which I most definitely am not)

I don't disagree with you at all and in the grand scheme of things, I don't want to prejudice any potential good that may come as a consequence of OUR actions. Hence the reason for saying "last post" several times.

I am however, so revved up and angry, particularly at some who purport to have the best interests of BRFC at heart but clearly don't, that temptation has got the better of me and I have felt the need to respond, when in truth, I would probably have been better keeping my gob shut...but I am what I am! 

[RoversClitheroe]

2 hours ago, darrenrover said:

If I were to 'educate', I'd then be accused of being patronising by some. (which I most definitely am not)

I don't disagree with you at all and in the grand scheme of things, I don't want to prejudice any potential good that may come as a consequence of OUR actions. Hence the reason for saying "last post" several times.

I am however, so revved up and angry, particularly at some who purport to have the best interests of BRFC at heart but clearly don't, that temptation has got the better of me and I have felt the need to respond, when in truth, I would probably have been better keeping my gob shut...but I am what I am! 

I personally would love to be educated and I think by educating you would be building a case of support to oppose.

I personally am massively against Waggot, Venus and Mowbray.

[darrenrover]

17 minutes ago, RoversClitheroe said:

I personally would love to be educated and I think by educating you would be building a case of support to oppose.

I personally am massively against Waggot, Venus and Mowbray.

Thanks but bloody hell, please give me a break!?

Over the past 2 or 3 months, how much more could I have put on this site to demonstrate what we feel is going on?

I'm pleased regarding your final sentence: the blind man on a galloping horse agrees with you too!

[Leonard Venkhater]

1 hour ago, RoversClitheroe said:

I personally would love to be educated and I think by educating you would be building a case of support to oppose.

I personally am massively against Waggot, Venus and Mowbray.

I have to say my own education in this matter has been largely made up of things I really did not want to hear!

[47er]

Has anyone asked the club, via Fans Forum, or whatever route, this simple question "If the redevelopment of Brockhall (or sell-off to give it its real name) goes ahead, is Cat 1 status for the Academy guaranteed or is it in jeopardy?

(fans of the Goons will recall Neddy Seagoon replying"I don't want to go abroad!"

If not, why not? I ask the question because I've never seen the answer yet it is at the very heart of our concerns isn't it?

[only2garners]

47er - that question was not specifically asked at last week’s Forum but Steve Waggott said that the most important criterion for the development was that Cat 1 status was retained. The Forum minutes are on the club website and there is a link on the Forum thread.
One might infer from that that if there was a risk that whatever was done would mean the loss of status then it wouldn’t be done, although many on here would I think not believe that.

[47er]

Just now, only2garners said:

47er - that question was not specifically asked at last week’s Forum but Steve Waggott said that the most important criterion for the development was that Cat 1 status was retained. The Forum minutes are on the club website and there is a link on the Forum thread.
One might infer from that that if there was a risk that whatever was done would mean the loss of status then it wouldn’t be done, although many on here would I think not believe that.

Thanks, I haven't got around to reading those minutes yet. As you suggest I wouldn't be happy with an inference because the element of trust just isn't there.

So we need, imo, categorical answers to 2 questions, the one I've asked "will Cat 1 Status be retained if the sell-off of land goes ahead?" and the question you've raised "if Cat 1 status is not guaranteed will the sell-off still go ahead?"

There is a third question, "why did no-one at the Fans Forum seek these specific guarantees?"

[Sparks Rover]

1 hour ago, 47er said:

Thanks, I haven't got around to reading those minutes yet. As you suggest I wouldn't be happy with an inference because the element of trust just isn't there.

So we need, imo, categorical answers to 2 questions, the one I've asked "will Cat 1 Status be retained if the sell-off of land goes ahead?" and the question you've raised "if Cat 1 status is not guaranteed will the sell-off still go ahead?"

There is a third question, "why did no-one at the Fans Forum seek these specific guarantees?"

I think you will find Tony and Tesco weighing up Blacksnape over the summer for the kids to play on....didn't do me any harm. Up the Blues.! We will soon be finding  better down plezzy literally....

Funked we are.

 

[Mattyblue]

NIMBY’s... Assemble!

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/19162618.villagers-vow-block-housing-plan-blackburn-rovers-site/

[Kamy100]

1 hour ago, Mattyblue said:

NIMBY’s... Assemble!

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/19162618.villagers-vow-block-housing-plan-blackburn-rovers-site/

This is the best way to try and stop this plan, support the villagers, their concerns will havecarry weight with councillors/decision makers than our concerns as fans of the club.

[Mattyblue]

In just one article quoting local village residents, I read more about the potential wrecking of Jack’s legacy than from any of our ‘fan groups’ since this whole swizz began. Obviously there’s self interest there, but striking all the same...

Edited March 16, 2021 by Mattyblue

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

"Mr Allen, who said that villagers and the club have coexisted happily side-by-side for 30 years, added: “A lot of people in the village support the club and they are alienating them. On the footballing side of things there is a feeling of betrayal and the destroying the legacy that Jack Walker left – that is what they are telling me."

[JHRover]

Interesting that there is a suggestion that a large number of residents haven't been contacted about this scheme despite the consultation period ending soon.

Wouldn't be Rovers trying to do the minimum and get this through quickly would it?

Unfortunately I'm not confident that the stuff around Jack Walker's legacy and the betrayal will be relevant to the councils decision. We need to hope that there's a Councillor or two living in Old Langho.

[K-Hod]

2 hours ago, Mattyblue said:

NIMBY’s... Assemble!

https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/19162618.villagers-vow-block-housing-plan-blackburn-rovers-site/

Spare a thought for Dunny, he’ll be so conflicted....

[Mike E]

Was there not a concern that an extra connecting road to the A59 would be needed if more houses were built in the area?

[funny-old-game]

I've copied and pasted this from LT comments section, it make interesting reading if accurate.

(1)

Its not just Brockhall that's affected. Brockhall 'village' is the name of a housing estate within Old Langho. When Brockhall was originally proposed the number of houses allowed was reduced to just over 250 because the roads around Old Langho could not cope with more. It was even indicated in the original permission that a new road was required even for 250 homes.T

That road never materialised and Brockhall is now the home to over 400 dwellings which has built up bit by bit over time. Now there is the proposal for another 170 but still no new road, still no new infrastructure, no new school, doctors etc. On top of the 188 homes just being built at whalley, the area cannot cope.

(2)

At the end of the day RVBC will receive more money in funding.
Housing Delivery Test for 2019:
Ribble Valley - 278% over target

(3)

So the lower site was opened in the early 1990's, it was actually 1994 and the upper site in 2001, some 20 years ago.

Why does the Telegraph not ask questions as to why Waggott is claiming the upper site is over 30 years old and is outdated ?
With residents not being consulted, I think there is some underlying plan here by the Coventry three.

[JHRover]

I can think of an easier solution to stopping this project to a long drawn out and expensive planning battle.

Get rid of Waggott, Mowbray and Venus. 

Do that and this scheme disappears.