Skip to content

BCC and the Ashton Vale TVG map malfunction

October 10, 2011

Fudge and the TVG has been discussed at great length already. You would have thought it simple after the years of accusation and counter accusation over what if any should be Ashton Vale TVG, that the easiest thing to do would be to get a marker pen and draw a few lines on a map. In these days of GPS and laser measuring devices accurate to within a gnats cock how hard is it to get a boundary right?
Pretty hard judging by the latest Bristol 24/7 expose.

http://www.bristol247.com/2011/10/10/tony-dyer-ashton-vale-town-green-deal-not-worth-paper-its-printed-on-23816/

Give yourself a few minutes to re-read this article and look at the maps in detail-there’s something funny going on.
This poor fudge-up of a PROW and TVG farce has just got worse. The upshot of the dodgy highlighters and the nutter let loose with the black marker pen is that there appears to be now a TVG completely boxed in by a concrete bus rapid transport system. Apart from being the flooded reservoir for the run off from the new stadium concrete jungle next door, it means no public access with all the pathways blocked off. Unless you want to risk a fight with the BRT bendy bus concrete highway (hint-you will get crushed).  In other words this is not what the inspector identified as town and village green.
What the hell’s going on? This is no kind of compromise. Either someone has cocked up again or their is even more of a hidden conspiracy agenda. This is entirely due to certain council members or officers and their maniac desire to push through a massive building site on greenbelt. If they’d gone with the original inspectors report and bit the bullet they and Lansdowns builder mates could have held held their head high. Now it would seem another trick is being played out with local residents and communities.

Advertisements
27 Comments
  1. Ashton Vole permalink
    October 10, 2011 6:34 pm

    To make things clear, here’s a photo of the area.

    http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/706/northfield.jpg/

    Red line is the currently-agreed non-TVG according to the PROWG meeting.

    Yellow is the ‘extension’ TVG as drawn up by BCC afterwards (not accurate to the millimetre, based on overlays)

    Bit bloody convenient to add on the potential path of a possible BRT route, isn’t it?

  2. thebristolblogger permalink
    October 10, 2011 8:53 pm

    That Judicial Review in full (excerpt):

    Judge: so, just clear this up for me please

    Will Godfrey (for it is he): certainly m’lud

    Judge: what do the black lines on the map represent?

    Will Godfrey: er, nothing whatsoever.

    Judge: nothing? Why are they there then?

    Will Godfrey: er, they’re not really.

    Judge: I see. So what represents the town green?

    Will Godfrey: the area in yellow, m,lud.

    Judge: including the piece to the east that falls outside the black line that’s not there?

    Godfrey: Er, no.

    Judge: that’s not there either then?

    Will Godfrey: in a manner of speaking, for our purposes, no.

    Judge: and what’s the blue?

    Will Godfrey: the blue is yellow, m’lud.

    Judge: I see, and is black white?

    Will Godfrey: it might be useful to think of some of that black line as white and some of it as yellow, yes.

    Judge: so blue is yellow and black is white and yellow?

    Will Godfrey: Exactly!

  3. Richard Lane permalink
    October 10, 2011 10:20 pm

    All this fuss over nothing.

    Why the stadium plans have been added to this I don’t know, perhaps to confuse things?

    As far as any sensible person is concerned, the decision made by the committee was on the details given that evening. It was very clear and is in the minutes of that meeting.
    The area to be registered as a TVG would include the area for a BRT route, south of the stadium site, where is the confusion? Answer= Tony Dyer is the confusion.
    He has deliberately tried to confuse matters with his inclusion of another plan of the area, A typical TD tactic. It’s probably because it shows certain areas in different colours.
    Funny how this has taken yet another month to rear it’s head, when obviously this was known at the time.
    This is another attempt to throw a spanner in the works by desperate people trying to delay the inevitable.

    Actual Judicial review application meeting:

    Judge: some people are trying to say that the plans shown and registered are not the same

    Will Godfrey: actually the plans shown were only to determine the area to be registered, and only a point of reference for the committee members.

    Judge: will those plans be detailed prior to registration?

    WG: yes they will

    Judge: is it determined in the minutes of the meeting the actual site to be registered?

    WG: yes

    Judge: Who has produced this over complicated explanation of the proposed site?

    WG: Tony Dyer your honour

    Judge: the same Tony Dyer that complained to Europe about land transfers by BCC and
    used three different retail reports and three different retail studies, took the worst case scenario from each report to compile his own report, in a successful attempt to convince poor councillors that they were making an awful mistake in allowing a new supermarket in Ashton?

    WG: yes your honour, the very same person

    Judge: Ah well! He won’t fool me, will he?

    signed by The person writing on behalf of Richard Lane.

  4. Sir Ben Busybody permalink
    October 10, 2011 10:32 pm

    Tony living up to his surname again.

  5. thebristolblogger permalink
    October 10, 2011 10:53 pm

    Louis Blom QC (acting for Bristol City Council): M’lud, as our next witness I’d like to call Mr Dickie Lane.

    Judge: the drivelling idiot?

    Louis Blom QC: yes, m’lud.

  6. Bobs permalink
    October 11, 2011 6:50 am

    Rich you idiot. The third map is the land they have actually registered as TVG. And Godfrey has made it plain that is it this 3rd map which represents the land actually registered. He’s robbed them of a big chunk of land.

    I agree it is obvious. God knows why BCC have done this. It’s obviously unlawful to disobey your committee. It’s going to be 1-0 to the applicants within 5 mins of the JR starting c

  7. October 11, 2011 7:24 am

    Judge Cockup-Cruncher: What the fudge is going on?

    Mr TVG Gobbler:: We nicked a large portion of TVG your honour.

    Judge Cockup-Cruncher: On what friggin basis did you steal a large portion of TVG?

    Mr TVG Gobbler:: Well our owner and wealthy benefactor thinks he can do what he likes with greenbelt ‘cos he’s rich.

    Judge Cockup-Cruncher: And how the devil did you work out the bloody boundaries young man?

    Mr TVG Gobbler:: We used an intern with his Spirograph and crayons my most esteemed lordship.

    Judge Cockup-Cruncher: Outrage! Thou shalt not steal TVG from the citizens. Send him down along with the other clowns from Jersey and Clifton and give the people back their TVG as per the inspectors advice. Stealing TVG-not on my watch. What a cock-up!

  8. bobs permalink
    October 11, 2011 7:40 am

    And Rich

    The reason this has come out now is because:

    On 26th July BCC actually made the entry in the actual commons register

    From 26th July until 3rd Oct the Applicants tried to clarify what area had been registered and then why they had not registered the same area as that in the plan for the PROWG meeting

    On 3rd Oct Peter Abrahams and Will Godfrey at the PROWG meeting made clear that it was not a mistake and the area actually registered was the area they intended to register. But they would not explain why the original map for the PROWG had black lines on it and referred to the BRT route as the bnoundary, when the new TVg actually registered does not reach those boundaries.

    Interestingly, the fake Rich made a post about this late last week where he seemed to understand what had gone on. Good to have the real Rich back who has no clue what is going on..

  9. harryT permalink
    October 11, 2011 7:42 am

    http://bristol.indymedia.org/article/705780

    Burt raised this same issue on BIM on 20th September. So it has not just been raised now. My understanding is that the applicants have been chasing for an explanation on this since July.

  10. Richard Lane permalink
    October 11, 2011 10:08 pm

    Big Logger,
    congratulations on being a bigger pratt than I at first thought. Anything constructive to say?

    BobS,
    My insults are as a response to previous ones aimed at me, you blithering idiot.
    I have made no statement about this topic until October the 10th, where you got that from I don’t know.

    There is no third plan used by the council, you have been fooled and easily confused, by Tony’s inclusion of the development plans. So how Mr Godfrey can refer to it, as you say, amazes me. The third plan in the article prepared by Tony Dyer, is only outlined in green marker that I can see. It resembles very closely the areas defined in the first plan. I cannot comment on any other plan as I have not seen them.

    If as you say, the applicants have been trying to verify which section of land is to be registered as a TVG since 26th July. Why was the reason for an application for a JR given, that those TVG applicants wanted to clear their names via a JR, because the new evidence being allowed, so say questioned their integrity. If I’m not mistaken the new group SAVE, fronted by Peter Crispin was formed prior to this date with the intension of applying for a JR.
    Tony Dyer even claims that this so called problem, over which area is to be registered, is the reason for a new group (SAVE) and the JR application coming as it does so late in the day with his quote: “As a result the council has now managed to reunite the original applicants and their supporters with the breakaway group that brought a judicial review against the PROWG decision to split the land”.

    So what is it?
    1. Was the new group formed to clear the original applicants names? or as Pete said to stop the development?
    2. Was that why the JR was applied for by the new group? ommiting those applicants
    3. Was a JR applied for because of the areas on the plans? uniting both groups, according to Tony.
    4. If so, why was the JR applied for before confirmation of the area to be registered on the plans? Confirmation of TVG area Oct 3rd, application for JR Sept 12th.
    5. Why has this article taken so long to produce/fabricate, if all this info was known before?

    So BobS, as you seem to claim that you do know what is going on, and I don’t, which I admit to not knowing a half of this.
    Please feel free to explain the glaring discrepencies within the claims and statements made by yourself and various others.

    I think that new hymn sheets should be printed and handed out to all the different groups opposing the different applications, a practice session should be held, to get you all singing from the same song sheet.

    PS: It is and always has been me. What other fool would waste his time talking to the twisting exagerating abusive cretins on sites like this.
    Harry
    I rarely look at that other shite site (IndyMedia) either, so would not know about earlier mentions of this topic. I was actually amazed that others on OTIB new about this.

  11. thebristolblogger permalink
    October 11, 2011 11:05 pm

    There is no third plan used by the council … I cannot comment on any other plan as I have not seen them

    Which is it? No plan? Or you haven’t seen it?

  12. bobs permalink
    October 12, 2011 8:09 am

    Fake Rich Lane – Oct 6 – As for the plans and lines, surely there has always been and always will be access for those bordering the fields through their garden gates and access from Silbury Road, a misplaced line on a plan will not stop access, as it hasn’t in the past.

    Real Rich – Oct 11 – I rarely look at that other shite site (IndyMedia) either, so would not know about earlier mentions of this topic. I was actually amazed that others on OTIB new about this. The third plan in the article prepared by Tony Dyer, is only outlined in green marker that I can see. It resembles very closely the areas defined in the first plan.

    BUSTED

    Real Rich (without even being shown the plans) understood the signficance of moving the TVG line – the removal of the accesses to the land and the rights of way. Real Rich then claims 6 days later that the whole thing is new to him and the two plans look the same.

    Fake Rich also spelt “new” with a “k” at the beginning and used lots of very long words.

    ……………….

    Tony D – As a result the council has now managed to reunite the original applicants and their supporters with the breakaway group that brought a judicial review against the PROWG decision to split the land”.

    Real Rich – So BobS, as you seem to claim that you do know what is going on, and I don’t, which I admit to not knowing a half of this. Please feel free to explain the glaring discrepencies within the claims and statements made by yourself and various others.

    Bobs – Tony has it spot on as far as I can tell. I really don’t think its that complicated. go back to Burt’s post a few days ago. It explains it all there. That was the post that Fake Rich responded to on 6th Oct..

  13. bobs permalink
    October 12, 2011 8:19 am

    Correction ….

    Fake Rich (without even being shown the plans) understood the signficance of moving the TVG line – the removal of the accesses to the land and the rights of way. Real Rich then claims 6 days later that the whole thing is new to him and the two plans look the same.

    Fake Rich also spelt “new” with a “k” at the beginning and used lots of very long words.

  14. Paul Bemmy Down permalink
    October 12, 2011 9:45 am

    Surely the PROW Ctte. knew exactly which area of land they were discussing when making their decision, so they should comment if it is not now as they thought. If it is indeed different, then the whole process should be declared “null and void”. From what I saw and taking into account the quality of questions put, I doubt the ctte. members are being corrupt in any way, but more likely their decision has been mis-portrayed.

  15. harryT permalink
    October 12, 2011 10:56 am

    When Neil Harrison tried to debate the issue at the PROWG meeting, he was slapped down by Abraham. Harrison said he could see a clear difference between the two maps. Abraham stated that he had looked at the two maps and had decided they showed the same thing. As a result, there was nothing to debate.

    I doubt if any other councillor had read any document for either the 16th June or 3 Oct meeting as they all sit like lemons, except when asked to second Abrahams, when their arms all shoot into the air like schoolchildren. Our councillors are by and large an embarassment.

    The maps are clear. The difference is clear. The only thing which isn’t clear is why BCC are doing this. As stated above, its going to be 1-0 to the Ashton Vale applicants within minutes of the Judge looking at this Judicial Review.

  16. Richard Lane permalink
    October 12, 2011 8:36 pm

    BobS
    Well well well, make a spelling mistake and you lose your identity.
    For you information. The comment I made on the 6th October, was a response to Burts post, which I thought was a general comment about some lines being misplaced on the original TVG meeting. I had no idea there was an ongoing debate about that application until this topic was posted. My response to him was a general one, and of course I know the significance of lines on a plan, I’m a builder.
    Your last statement: “Tony has it spot on as far as I can tell”. This only goes to prove how easliy you are confused. Was it not you that made referrences to three plans? As we all now know (with a K) there was not a third plan until Tony introduced it to confuse people.

    You have not addressed any of my points, instead, you have gone back to attacking the poster, possibly as you have no answers. If you would like to go live somehow and question me on my posts and opinions, I am more than willing to do so, this will prove you wrong about myso say ghost writers. You are on some sort of deluded crusade, in what I can only assume is a poor attempt to discredit me. Cue the jibes about not needing to. If this were only the case, I do wonder why you all try.

    I’m still awaiting your explanation of the discrepencies. No doubt another poster attack is on the cards instead.

    Big Logger
    You ask: “Which is it? No plan? Or you haven’t seen it?”
    Firstly those are seperate quotes but just so you understand, as you also must be easily confused. My statement was about no third plan used by the council, which as far as I know there is no third plan. My comment was to BobS when he said: “The third map is the land they have actually registered as TVG”.
    I was pointing out that there was no third plan whith referrence to the TVG, the third plan was introduced by Tony to confuse people, which it most certainly has.

    My second referrence to a plan was, to the plan with different colours and thick black lines. So as far as the TVG application goes there is no third plan. I haven’t seen the one with the other colours on it , unless it’s the stadium plans. All I’ve seen is the one highlighting the TVG in green marker pen, that’s in 24/7 and one on the BCC site about the Oct 3rd meeting.

  17. Bobs permalink
    October 13, 2011 8:15 am

    Rich

    The purpose of the introduction of the extra map is twofold.

    1. It shows the position of the BRT, which is utilised in the PROWG resolution and minutes to describe the TVG border

    2. It explains the underlying colour code from the s.106 map

    It is also very clear you have been letting someone else post in your name. After several years of reading your posts, do you not think we can see when your voice changes. But not knowing about your own response to Burt’s post is not something you can explain away.

  18. Richard Lane permalink
    October 13, 2011 9:25 pm

    BobS
    Nobody else is writing on my behalf, I repeat you are deluded to think so. I don’t even know my own log in details to pass on as my wife set up the system. You are making yourself look stupid.
    I started out writing these posts with very basic typing skills, let alone how to cut and paste. I don’t/didn’t need them for building and plumbing as my wife does the admin side of my business. My spelling and punctuation have improved, as has my knowledge and presentation, although most still need improving. Just the other night I composed a post in response to your accusations, I hit the enter button and lost the whole post because I was not logged in.
    My learning curve has been steep, resulting in my posts changing as time has gone on, I think that is only to be expected.
    Have a look at Pauls posts, I think you’ll find that they have changed in their content over time, as has Harry’s and Sacredsprings, or are they now, different people?

    I did not say that I did not know about my response to Burts post. What I meant was that I did not associate the two as being about the same subject. This new topic was a referrence to the article in 24/7 which was as you know, published later.

    This latest post written under your name is obviously written by someone else as firstly, it nearly makes sense, and secondly has no insults attached to it, which seem to be a recognised trait of yours. Who’s writing for you?

    If that explanation of the third plan is your sum total of explanations for the discrepencies I asked for, then it’s a poor show but no more than I expected. The reference to the BRT defining the border on the plan is also rubbish, that is clearly the same area defined in the plan used in the TVG application for the PROW meeting, the one marked in yellow.
    The other plan introduced by Tony, was not used for the PROW meeting and only lends itself to the confusion. The other two plans appear very similar with slight differences allowing for the type of marker used, and no doubt would be defined by a proper plan, drawn to scale, thus legally defining the area of a TVG.

    I’m more than willing to meet you, so that you can grill me about my input and determine if I am, who I say I am. We could talk about how many times I visited the site, after first hesitating because it was private property. How I viewed it from the trading estate, how I saw the dangerous rubbish strewn areas of field 1, how I wrongly claimed that it was too dangerous for cattle to graze there, how I saw the pipes coming out of the ground. How I attended the planning meetings, had arguments with Tena lady, Alex, Chris, Charlie, Tess, Alice, Paul at the Deli. How I ran a petition supporting Tesco, wrote to the EP many times, attended the TVG radio debate. Was accused of lying, of being paid by the club, of doing this to gain extra work on the stadium or at Sainsbury’s. How I discussed the road system, the parking debate, the transport issues for the link road the stadium access and new supermarket.
    Your probably asleep now but I could go on listing all night long.

    I sense a Tony post coming soon.

  19. thebristolblogger permalink
    October 14, 2011 6:57 am

    Dickie,

    They are ‘proper’ plans. The coloured one is the one used at the PROWG meeting to define the TVG area. “The green ink one” is the plan used to register the TVG.

    There will be no other “proper plan, drawn to scale, thus legally defining the area of a TVG”. It’s all been done. Hence the confusion.

  20. bobs permalink
    October 14, 2011 8:05 am

    There are all sorts of leaks coming out of the Council House now about this.

    They know that they have screwed up badly by registering a smaller area of land than that resolved by the PROWG. They know this is unlawful and they know now that they will certainly lose the Judicial Review on this aspect.

    Still no news on why they have done it !!!

    I reckon Peter Abraham is wide open now for a charge of Misfeasance in Public Office if anyone wants to have a pop at him. He has lied so as to rob the TVG Applicants of their legally establsihed rights over land and benefit the Council and BCFC.

    And Rich – you are so less well informed than the fake Rich, have seen fewer documents than him and use very very different language. Your insults are no where near as nasty or condescending either. You really need to stop pretending now that its all you. None of your explanations on why it must have been you stack up for a second.

    I would not worry though as we much prefer the real you to the fake one from BCFC. 😉

  21. thebristolblogger permalink
    October 14, 2011 4:34 pm

    Abraham is a greasy little scrote. And how, exactly, does this miserable failure of a businessman maintain his lifestyle?

  22. Richard Lane permalink
    October 15, 2011 6:48 am

    Big Logger
    I agree they are proper plans regarding the area to be a TVG, there are as you say only two. I was referring to the plans having properly defined measurements added, to make them accurate.
    BobS
    Without a shadow of a doubt, you are a prat of the highest order.

  23. thebristolblogger permalink
    October 15, 2011 8:18 am

    Prat? This is not exactly rapier wit is it Dickie? I’d stick to hod carrying and shit shoveling or whatever it is you do in future and leave the insults to me.

    It’s nice that we’ve reached a consensus that the map registering the TVG is inaccurate though. Although I think you’ll find that any “properly defined measurements” need to be done before the land’s registered rather than on the hoof in front of a high court judge.

    Are you proposing the council present a third, new “accurate” map to the judge 6 months after they registered the land then? Is that wise do you think?

    How many maps do we need?

  24. Richard Lane permalink
    October 15, 2011 12:16 pm

    Big Logger
    Obviously you are the king when it comes to insulting people, you must be very proud of your achievements when lowering yourself that much. I prefer not to be quite so petty.
    Again you have mistaken my explanation. The plans and not maps as you continue to wrongly describe them, will be used to physically differentiate the TVG from the development site. To do this they must have accurate measurements added to them. I’m sure you will agree that no high court judge will don his wellies and trudge off to the site, tape in hand to determine the different areas, neither would the PROW committee, those plans are for referrence only.

    BobS
    As I was short on time this morning I could only write a short post. For your information any documents I have seen are those and only those which are available to see online.

    I still await your response regarding the discrepencies amongst you and your opposition groups statements about the reasons to apply for a TVG, I’ve had the insults and accusations which I expected but not the answers.

    Would you like me to swear in court that nobody else is posting for me? I am very willing, but no doubt you’ll avoid answering and deflect the topic again.

  25. thebristolblogger permalink
    October 15, 2011 1:43 pm

    Dickie,

    You’re living in your own delusionary little world. It is not the job of a High Court Judge to differentiate the TVG land from the development land. that is precisely and exactly the job of the Registration Authority and specifically the Registration Officer – that upper middle class twit from Hampshire, Will Godfrey.

    The judge will simply check the accuracy of his work, which even you agree is inaccurate!

  26. bobs permalink
    October 15, 2011 1:54 pm

    There is a clear demarkation between the TVG and the development land. Its the BRT route. That’s what the report states. That’s what the resolution states. That’s what the minutes state and the press release. That’s what the map for the PROWG shows. There is no way that any sane person can disagree with this.

    The green line map was produced by the Registation authority to represent the record of the split. It is the Register. There will be no further map.

    The green line map is inaccurate. It does not follow the BRT route. It has been lowered across its entire length to remove the entrances and the whole right of way. It has been moved so as to create a TVG island. There is no way that any sane person can disagree with this.

    Rich – you really need to stop ranting and see that this is all very clear. Even the fake Rich recognised this on 5th Oct. BCC will lose the Judicial Review on this aspect without any doubt at all. BCC deserve to lose as they have acted spitefully, dishonestly and without integrity.

  27. bobs permalink
    October 15, 2011 1:57 pm

    And Rich. You really need to check the facts with your fake self. He claimed to have seen documents which are not publically available. Thanks again for making it so clear that there are at least two people positng in your name. What a desparate bunch of sad fuckers your club are to pretend to be you. Still. not as bad as hiring locals to spy on the TVG applicants.

Comments are closed.