Skip to content

TVG change and landowners?-Gov. bonanza for concrete merchants?

September 26, 2011

Actually the new scoop by the Evening Toasters is old news from 25th July 2011 when the consultation started:

Don’t have a clue what this has got to do with Ashton Vale greenbelt TVG. Almost as though some people think that once a game is lost  they can then change the rules to get the result they want. Kind of like rigging elections in a dodgy failed middle eastern dictatorship sort of way.

If the town and village green reforms had been in place at the time, then the residents’ application would have been immediately thrown out. Mr Benyon says: “People need decent homes that are affordable.

“They need local schools, health care facilities and other amenities.

Laughable I know but this is the quote from the environment minister that the Toast thinks is good enough to justify throwing out the AshtonVale TVG!

Don’t remember Lansdown being mad keen on building affordable homes or schools on his greenbelt. The healthcare facilities plans are dubious and as for the other amenities? There’s already a stadium well suited to the type of football being played and we don’t need more drive-thru burger bars and car parks.

So thats a massive fail again on any revised charter for concreting the greenbelt.

  1. Thomas S permalink
    September 26, 2011 12:02 pm

    http://????????? – The original file of the applicants response

  2. Father Abraham permalink
    September 26, 2011 2:42 pm

    Thomas S,

    The applicants response to the new evidence is already available to download in the top right hand corner of this website so not quite sure why you have made it available a second time?

  3. September 26, 2011 11:25 pm

    Yes the TVG applicants response is still available in the pages above right as a pdf download.
    ThomasS link is pdf cast. same document..
    Recommended reading for the full facts on Ashton Vale TVG.
    Gives an insight into why judicial review of the PROW committee decision is essential.

  4. Thomas S permalink
    September 27, 2011 8:48 am

    Different file. Oopsy.

  5. Pedant permalink
    September 27, 2011 9:40 am

    Shame the BEP cannot get its basic facts right. I’m sure Caroline Spelman (SoS) is pleased to hear that Richard Benyon is in charge of Defra!

  6. Father Abraham permalink
    September 27, 2011 6:25 pm

    Thomas S,

    No, both files show the response by the applicants to the additional evidence submitted by the landowners after the inspector had produced her report.

  7. Thomas S permalink
    September 28, 2011 6:52 am

    Open it in Adobe Reader and there’s more there that you can’t see…. 😉

  8. Father Abraham permalink
    September 28, 2011 8:08 am

    Thomas S

    I have opened it in Adobe Reader. I read the document and it says the same as the document already available from this site.

    If there is something different about the two documents, why don’t you simply say what it is instead of all this childish nonsense?

  9. Thomas S permalink
    September 28, 2011 9:11 am

    Look at what you cannot see for it is beneath the covers.

  10. September 28, 2011 9:34 am

    Thomarse S is spamming. Ban to follow.

  11. Father Abraham permalink
    September 28, 2011 10:47 am

    Thomas S

    So, you are complaining about the leaking of a file which was badly redacted by leaking the file again! Until you publicised this document I had no idea of its existence, and even after I downloaded it and read it, I still had no idea how to reveal the names of those private individuals. But now you have told me how to find that information out.

    You’re a prat, arent you?

    If you had any concerns for safeguarding the identity of those whose details were incorrectly redacted you would remove the file not publicise it.

    What a complete and utter tosser you are…..

  12. Thomas S permalink
    September 28, 2011 11:18 am

    Just showing that some people aren’t as bright as they might think…

  13. bobs permalink
    September 28, 2011 11:19 am

    Do we see Thomas S’s actions as part of the general BCFC campaign ?

    1. Ole on OTIB produces a map identifying the homes of all the objectors to the supermarket application, inclduing those whose details were not publically available

    2. The BEP lists the names and addresses of the Councillors who voted against the supermarket, leading to a campaign of threats and abuse leading to the withdrawal of all those councillors from the planning committee

    3. BCFC provide a list of key TVG people they want spied on by local supporters. Key TVG people then all have bricks through their windows or tyres slashed

    4. Guy Price sends an email out to Long Ashton season ticket holders with list of home addresses and phone numbers of LAPC councillors.

    And BCFC then wonder why (a) the objection to their plans strengthens with time and (b) their home gates keep decreasing.

    Not nice people.

  14. September 28, 2011 11:24 am

    The idiot is on a mission to intimidate. IP address has been recorded. Best drop the subject ThomasS, you’re not helping your club.

  15. bobs permalink
    September 28, 2011 11:26 am

    The club is not helping his club

  16. Richard Lane permalink
    September 28, 2011 9:18 pm

    You are having a laugh aren’t you?
    Why have you printed these allegations?
    1. Ole printed details which were all available in the public domain, how do you think he got those details?
    2. The BEP did not, as far as I remember, print the addresses of councillors, it printed all the councillors names from the committee including those that voted in favour, you are trying to say they targeted certain councillors which they did not. As stated before the councillors addresses are in the public domain, their addresses are easily available. I will agree that the voting probably lead to some idiots emailing them with abusive messages. We all know how brave people get behind a computer, don’t we.
    3. BCFC did not provide a list of people to spy on by local supporters. Provide the proof.
    4. If as you say the contact details of councillors was provided for people to act on,what is wrong with that? As before they are all available to the public but generally the public are not interested in local parish meetings, this message to local supporters and local residents, highlighted something they might want to do something about. Are you saying the opposition wouldn’t use such tactics? Or that they are not entitled to have representation at their local parish council meeting, because they are football supporters? Because you can bet your sweet fanny, those councillors advocating this spending, did not advertise their actions.

    Everything you alledge has been carried out by those opposing the plans in the first place. Tesno provided all the details of councillors and MPs for their supporters to target, as did Basics and Stop Sainsbury’s. They even printed letters and provided the relevant contact details to send the letters to. There has been a joined up campaign from groups regionwide in opposing the plans on so say greenbelt land instigated by dear old Ron Morton and the SOGS, who have joined forces with anyone that can benefit them. They even opposed the supermarket plans within Bristol because it might finance the stadium.
    The TVG applicants had the benefit of analysing and attempting to publicly discredit witnesses statements (something the landowners did not do), some accusations having to be withdrawn. The claims made from the outset are lies, distortions and exagerations on all aspects of the developments, they have been initiated by those in opposition from the word go. You only have to read your claims to realise that.
    Everything done by BCFC has actually been reactive to events occuring and not proactive in organising actions. As a reaction to certain events they applied to become members of the GBCP, this lead to some prominent members,and leaders of the opposition groups, advocating the exclusion of BCFC from that community group. BCFC could have swamped the GBCP with members but decided not to. I actually wish they had been a bit more proactive in their dealings with the devious opposition groups actions to the plans, perhaps then the opposition may have gauged properly the local feeling to the plans, instead of what their social groups thought. As it was BCFC have had to try and counter things that have been organised secretly by the opposition. BCFC are generally thought to have been a little naive when dealing with professional campaigners such as Pip, Tess,Tony and the rest.

  17. September 29, 2011 12:19 am

    This is good from mr lane. Lesson 1: ‘I base my comments on failed middle eastern dictatorship methods’.
    The jr judge hasn’t gagged his mates for nothing.

  18. thebristolblogger permalink
    September 29, 2011 5:24 pm

    BCFC are generally thought to have been a little naive when dealing with professional campaigners such as Pip, Tess,Tony and the rest

    And who was employed specifically to deal with these professional campaigners? Guy Price wasn’t it?

    So he fails miserably and gets promoted to Chief Exec. And now you have a club in crisis. The football’s going badly, the supporter base is divided over the stadium, attendance is down.

    Before people start going for Millen they should look at the Chief Exec. It’s time the club got a conciliator in to run things not a timid corporate yes-man intent on dividing the club’s community over money.

  19. Paul Bemmy Down permalink
    September 29, 2011 6:31 pm

    The connection between the greenbelt and the stadium is being overstated. The arguements were made to the planning ctte. who decided in favour of the development. My concern would be how they allowed the hotel and add-ons. They also decided that housing should not be allowed which was a good result for those campaigning against “Ashton Park”. The survival of this and all other greenbelts will be decided by the Government keeping its’ word and thats where the pressure should be kept. The stadium is a completely different issue!

  20. September 29, 2011 8:08 pm


    “with professional campaigners such as Pip, Tess,Tony”

    I can well understand how with just John Pontin and Steve Lansdown and only the support of BCFC, BCST, GWEBusiness West, the Evening Post, the IofD, Clarke Willmott, all the local MPs, councillor cook, Tony Robinson, the Tories, the Labs, the Libs and most of the senior council officers that Pip, Tess and Tony are giving you such a run around.

  21. Chris U permalink
    September 30, 2011 10:13 am

    Not commented for a while, but this is the constant theme of moral or power equivalence that BCFC and BEP push to justify their intimidating tactics. On the one hand you have wealthy men paying employees to work full time on pushing enriching development projects, with the support of the media and politicians and on the other “professional” campaigners, who get nothing and have no resources except what they can muster themselves. Amazingly many people buy this bullshit and there are still people on the BCFC side who consider themselves the underdog.

    Still imagine it will look good on Mr Prices CV.”With only 20 employees and a couple of hundered million to buy the support of local media and politicians, working in tandem with a small family retailer, we managed, against the odds, to defeat a series of well organised powerful local groups consisting of old people, shop keepers, parish councillors, a local architect and prominent green campaigners, who had the support of literally everyone of importance in the city. We even managed to get the city to give us land for free so that we could sell it on to Sainsbury for a handsome profit in return for cheap gym membership”.

    Yes, its a game of two halves equally matched.

Comments are closed.