Jump to content

BRFCS

BY THE FANS, FOR THE FANS
SINCE 1996
Proudly partnered with TheTerraceStore.com

Brockhall STC - planning permission application ?


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, tomphil said:

If a lot of them are Rovers Trust members though...... 🤔

I join in the Rovers Trust/AgeUK zoom meeting (for ancient fans) every week, and nothing has been mentioned on there. Although, admittedly, that sort of thing is not really the object of the meetings

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, renrag said:

I join in the Rovers Trust/AgeUK zoom meeting (for ancient fans) every week, and nothing has been mentioned on there. Although, admittedly, that sort of thing is not really the object of the meetings

That’s the Community Trust. Different entity that is run by the club.

Rovers Trust is an independent supporters trust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, J*B said:

How on earth anyone can vote ‘for’ with such a lack of information available is beyond me. A 14% swing between for and against is frightening. But hey - we’ve seen what happens when you put things to the public in this country. 

I’d say that’s actually pretty high numbers against for a Twitter poll.

You only need to look at where the votes went in the legends 11 poll the club ran a while back to see how much recency bias and shallow knowledge exists on that platform.

If/when Rovers Trust poll their paid up members I guarantee the results would be very different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Labour would win every election by a landslide if it was conducted just with regular Twitter users.

Totally unrepresentative and means bugger all, so I’m not worried about that poll at all. In fact considering how uber positive Twitter is in regards to the club these days, the fact that only 4/10 are in favour isn’t particularly impressive for Waggott...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I don't understand is how ANYONE can vote 'for' without having full details of what is proposed.

Against, yes. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. 

Don't know, again, fair enough. Not enough info to say yes or no.

But how the hell can you say yes until you see detailed plans & confirmation that this meets Cat 1 standards!

FWIW, I'm against it, BUT, if by some minor miracle they're able to put everything we need onto one site then fair enough, I might change my stance. However, without building upwards, I can't see how this can possibly happen & there's not a cat in hell's chance of being able to that in the RV.

So, thank you for your time, but it's a no from me.

Edited by windymiller7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, windymiller7 said:

What I don't understand is how ANYONE can vote 'for' without having full details of what is proposed.

Against, yes. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. 

Don't know, again, fair enough. Not enough info to say yes or no.

But how the hell can you say yes until you see detailed plans & confirmation that this meets Cat 1 standards!

FWIW, I'm against it, BUT, if by some minor miracle they're able to put everything we need onto one site then fair enough, I might change my stance. However, without building upwards, I can't see how this can possibly happen & there's not a cat in hell's chance of being able to that in the RV.

So, thank you for your time, but it's a no from me.

The screening application referred to a new facility of "similar scale" to the existing STC on roughly the same footprint as the existing Academy building so as not to drastically reduce the outdoor pitch space any further. The specification for the facilities inside the proposed new build was also almost identical to that of the existing STC.

Fast forward to when the plans were uncovered by an Eagle eyed fan and everyone started kicking off about the potential loss of Cat 1 status and Waggott suddenly starts talking in the LT about a 2 storey build being necessary to maintain Cat 1 status.

Forgive me if I'm wrong but as far as I can remember the existing STC is on one floor only (not 2 floors) so a 2 storey build is not what it says on the plans. And bear in mind you need a very high roof for an indoor pitch, the existing STC is still roughly 14m in height at just the one floor.

A move to the new site would also seemingly only leave us with 4 full size outdoor pitches.

Make of the above what you will, I certainly know what my view is.

If I'm factually incorrect with any of the above, I'm happy to be corrected.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • K-Hod pinned this topic
  • Moderation Lead
1 hour ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Should this thread not be pinned whilst the proposals are still live?

Fair one, thought it already was tbh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Thanks.

When is the next stage in the planning process does anyone know?

I was just about to ask the same question.

The Brockhall Village and Old Langho Residents’ Action Group have in excess of 400 signatures of villagers opposed to the plans, a Go Fund Me Page and committed people running it.

Best of luck to them in their endeavours. They are the best chance of opposing this.

The Club in their response to the Villagers actions say ''If approved, the residential development would come with a comprehensive package of investment into community services and infrastructure, as is a required part of the planning process."

The club also say that, as with any planning application of this type, there would also be a series of financial contributions the club would make on receipt of planning permission.

https://www.lancs.live/news/lancashire-news/campaigners-say-blackburn-rovers-development-19953691

So plenty of Jam promised ...... for tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Since when is 4 out of 10 people in favour a majority? 

Voluntary polls on Twitter are notoriously unreliable and worthless, we’ve no idea who is voting and what their connection to Rovers is - see any poll on who will be getting voted for in elections and who actually wins as further evidence of the pointlessness of social media polling to gauge sentiment.

Twitter is skewed to a younger, more tech savvy demographic than our support base (certainly our paying customer base), so it’s entirely unrepresentative, as unrepresentative as any other social media platform.

 


 

Edited by Mattyblue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, JoeH said:

Does that vote perhaps suggest that contrarian view is actually what's been so far perceived on the message-board as the majority view?

I think it shows that the residents in the Village are concerned about their Village and its future.

That article is a little old so now maybe more have signed as against?

I don't know how many people live at the Village but assume those 400+ are adults?

It is not, unfortunately, necessarily representative of how Rovers fans think.

However the Village opinion will at least be listened to.

Edited by AllRoverAsia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, AllRoverAsia said:

I think it shows that the residents in the Village are concerned about their Village and its future.

That article is a little old so now maybe more have signed as against?

I don't know how many people live at the Village but assume those 400+ are adults?

It is not, unfortunately, necessarily representative of how Rovers fans think.

However the Village opinion will at least be listened to.

Rovers are saving their trump card - Mrs Desai in a heart felt video message promising to respect the legacy of Brockhall village.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JoeH said:

Does that vote perhaps suggest that contrarian view is actually what's been so far perceived on the message-board as the majority view?

🙄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JoeH said:

Does that vote perhaps suggest that contrarian view is actually what's been so far perceived on the message-board as the majority view?

Yes, maybe it does. 

That being the case you could potentially try to win hearts and minds on here seeing as we're such a tough crowd and not representative of the majority view. Outline all the positives and we'll go from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, AllRoverAsia said:

The club also say that, as with any planning application of this type, there would also be a series of financial contributions the club would make on receipt of planning permission.

https://www.lancs.live/news/lancashire-news/campaigners-say-blackburn-rovers-development-19953691

So plenty of Jam promised ...... for tomorrow.

I noticed that when the article was first published - one man's 'jam" is another man's bribe. Says it all when an attempt has to be made to pay off the villagers to accept it and the application can't be left to stand or fall purely on its merits.

So basically almost everyone could receive some benefit from this tawdry scheme, developers, planners, PR agencies, local residents and anyone else in between. 

Everyone that is apart from the Club who would lose a substantial part of their infrastructure which we then can't fall back on in future if really needed  when we no longer have multi billionaire owners.

And for the present, said owners seemingly face having to shell out yet again to fund (at the very best) facilities similar to what we have now, only far less of them and which could end up putting paid to Cat 1 status for good.

Sounds like much of our transfer business over the last ten years, everyone gets a piece of action along the way and the Club end up getting shafted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, LDRover said:

Yes, maybe it does. 

That being the case you could potentially try to win hearts and minds on here seeing as we're such a tough crowd and not representative of the majority view. Outline all the positives and we'll go from there.

I'll start!

"Under one roof"

(Which will probably result in loss of Cat 1 status)

ermmmm....................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, perthblue02 said:

Rovers are saving their trump card - Mrs Desai in a heart felt video message promising to respect the legacy of Brockhall village.

And also sack the current leader of the planning department, replace him with the tea lady, as she wants to make sure, everything is top notch. 

Edited by lraC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LDRover said:

Yes, maybe it does. 

That being the case you could potentially try to win hearts and minds on here seeing as we're such a tough crowd and not representative of the majority view. Outline all the positives and we'll go from there.

It is a bit strange we aren't over run with pro sell, upgrade, it's a flawless plan posters ?

If the feeling was so strong in favour of it all i'd expect some more on stating the case. Rather than just the odd one's who seem to always just echo what Waggot has said.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

I'll start!

"Under one roof"

(Which will probably result in loss of Cat 1 status)

ermmmm....................

Anybody watched or remember the Pheonix NIghts episode with Jim Bowen in ?

'Everythin under one roof Brian it's the future'

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • J*B unpinned this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.