Skip to content

Sensational backdown by council over Ashton Vale TVG JR

May 4, 2012

Looks like the lib-dem council have finally grasped they’ve made a massive mistake.

Mistake…giving away land to the billionaire Lansdown in secret.

Mistake…getting caught up in the World Cup swindle and granting planning permission on the greenbelt.

Mistake…changing the planning committee at the last minute to allow Lansdowns mob to push through a grotesquely massive community busting hypermarket.

Mistake…not going by their appointed inspectors recommendation that the whole site unequivacally qualifies for TVG registration.

Mistake…getting into bed with the club fatcats from day one and not giving a damn about the local residents.

Maybe they should start to listen to and work for the local residents instead of the moneybags greenbelt wreckers and their expat scattered mob.

Pulling out of the JR after all Simon Cook and Abrahams posturing is a cowardly travesty. Why can’t they face the test of their decision making by an independent panel, what are they afraid of?

Good day to bury bad news with a low turnout for the mayors vote. Janke resigning, Sexton dipping out, clubs selfish greenbelt and hypermarket plans in tatters. What next? I’m looking forward to Sexton ripping into the TVG’ers as he’s unleashed from corporate fatcattery and his true opinions can be voiced as he’s promised.
Expect lots of nimby demonisation and non-minced diatribes as the ever more disreputable and biased local rag laps up every word.

  1. Paul Bemmy Down permalink
    May 4, 2012 2:03 pm

    The incompetance is staggering, and what does it say about the council legal dept. and its’ advice. Almost makes having a mayor sound like a good idea.

  2. Richard Lane permalink
    May 5, 2012 12:19 am

    Sensationalism? Make the most of your soon to be, short lived exuberance.

    Looks like the mayor will be a good thing after all. This council couldn’t organise a piss up in a brewery.
    As Mr Lansdown said, the gloves are off, a few residents can’t and won’t be allowed to steal this land for their own personal use while walking a few dogs.

    The club own the lease to the land that was transferred, the stadium is good for Bristol, even if it’s not good for a few locals.

    Now an inspector that doesn’t have green credentials, affiliations with the CPRE and a bias towards TVGs will be appointed. This will result in the correct recommendation going to the PROWG committee, no split decision and the TVGreeners will get sweet FA.
    This is a shame, as they could have had a very nice area to use, if it were not for the likes of the politically motiovated outsiders, like Pip Sheard and Peter Crispin.

  3. Bobh permalink
    May 5, 2012 9:16 am

    A bit premature Mr Lane,as far as I am aware all that has happened is that BCC will not defend the case.
    That does not mean that the JR will not procede and produce a default judgment.
    It is the Judgment that will decide what steps are to follow not you the BCC or the Next day Post.
    Remember BCC have already tried to halt the process by the withdrawl of the claiment,and that failed,I believe it is up to the claiment side to determine how the JR will procede with no defence.
    Judges do not like their proceedings being fiddled with as shown with the last debacle.
    I believe it also means that the BCC will now carry the costs as they by default are the losing side.
    The TVG side have nothing to loose now,they should push for the JR to continue,and if the Judgment is correct the original inquiry result will be unaffected,remember it is the BCC registration process that is in question not any other matter.

  4. harryT permalink
    May 5, 2012 9:27 am

    Oh dear. Richard Lane quoting rubbish shocker !!!

    BCC have now conceded the full registration of the South of the land. That 20 acres will not form part of any further Inquiry. That land is now properly TVG. There is no reexamination of that land. It is now accepted as TVG in full.

    BCC have also conceded that they dealt with the “new” evidence unlawfully and unfairly. And they will pay the legal costs for that.

    Any further inquiry can only at most consider the “new” evidence and nothing else. There has still been no decision that the “new” evidence can even be considered at all.

    I expect that BCC will seek to cheat again in any new inquiry. I expect there will be more Judicial Reviews as BCC can’t be trusted to act lawfully or fairly at any time.

    Oh – and the club do not own any lease on the land. Lansdown would not be so foolish to put any asset in the hands of BCFC. The land belongs to him and John Pontin.

  5. Bobh permalink
    May 5, 2012 1:32 pm

    Question for harryt.
    Will the land registered be the original TVG map or the BCC invented map.
    It should of course be the original map,but that will be different to the area that was presented by the committee for registration.
    This would require the committee to re register the correct area.
    Unless the correct areas are established this could cause problems in any future disputes ref, the northern site and its size.
    There is a distinct physical line between the two sites and i believe that line was moved on the BCC map,and thus dosn`t exist on the actual site.

  6. Richard Lane permalink
    May 5, 2012 9:45 pm

    HarryT talks crap again shocker!!!.

    The land I referred to being transferred, was at Ashton gate, and in response to sacredsprings statement, so I respectfully request that you put your brain in gear before making foolish comments.

    If as you say the land has now been registered as a TVG, why was there an application for a JR by the applicants, on the basis that it was wrongly registered?
    Also, which section of land was registerred? The land edged in thick black line, was it area A, did it or does it include the area to the east, now called a recreation area, was it the first plan or the redrawn plan?
    If this area has now been registered and accepted by the applicants, what about the other 20 acres they wanted?
    The application was for 42 acres as a TVG, it was argued by the applicants that the split decision was wrong. In now accepting that split decision, the only conclusion is that the original application for a JR was wrong, or it was correct and only the 22 acres now becomes a TVG, leaving the rest for the stadium.

  7. Richard Lane permalink
    May 5, 2012 9:57 pm

    Not at all premature. I haven’t said there won’t still be a JR, I’ve only said, as I understand it, there will be a new inspection.

    Will the applicants now continue with their case at the JR using up more legal expenses, or also back out?
    They could of course go ahead and then claim expenses, to then be faced with a new inspection anyway.
    As I understand it the JR was to question the decision making process carried out by the council, nothing more. The council have now decided that it got it wrong, so no need for a JR, now they have to get the process right.
    That still leaves the local residents with the distinct possibilty of losing an area for recreation, with the gamble being taken for them by outsiders.

  8. May 6, 2012 8:43 am

    That still leaves the local residents with the distinct possibilty of losing an area for recreation, with the gamble being taken for them by outsiders.

    Lansdown with his ‘gloves off’ is the outsider obsessed with wrecking the Greenbelt and denying lawful access.

    The council capitulation on the JR proves how bent the whole saga has been. Simon Cook has been winging it with his premature adjudications. Abrahams is in damage limitation mode as his judgement has predictably failed.

    And something akin to bribery and corruption happened with the withdrawal of the original applicant.

  9. Bobh permalink
    May 6, 2012 9:19 am

    Read your own post Lane”the JR was to question the decision making process carried out by the council,nothing more”.
    So how does that include the original inspection.
    The inspection is not in question it is what the BCC did with it that was to be investigated.
    You now say “they have to get the process right” the process was right up to the PROWG committee meeting then it was very wrong as now admitted by the BCC.
    So we will be back to the point of the PROWG meeting,that should now be re run with all of the BCC fairy stories omitted.
    They should be presented as before with the report recommendation and the correct maps and the make a decision based on that alone.
    Your idea of “get it right” is to carry on having inspections until one agrees with your point of view,sorry the inspection has been done and finished with and has no bearing on the BCC actions.
    They could still not register,they could still not register the complete site but what actions they take will have to be scrutinised and legal.
    Lets have a independant decision as we had a independant report.

  10. harryT permalink
    May 6, 2012 10:19 am


    By not putting in any Defence, BCC have conceded the TVGers definition of the TVG boundary south of the BRT. BCC will have to redraw the map to match the TVGers defitition as part of the Court Order detailing their Defeat. I expect that they will again try and cheat but they will just find themselves in Contempt of Court and in even greater trouble than they are now.

    I also expect that BCC will have to make some statement to the Court as to how they will proceed with the “new” evidence. Although, as long as Abraham, Cook, Godfrey and Ormondroyd are involved, I expect that the cheating, deceit, illegality etc will conitnue.

    As for Richard Lane, you are not even coherant. BCC have conceded illegality, unfairness and, by not putting in any Defence, also conceded bias on the part of Abraham.

  11. JohnD permalink
    May 7, 2012 3:11 pm

    I have asked the council for an independent enquiry into this. This is either incompetence and officers should be called to account, or there is some sort of justification for the council to waste huge amounts of rate payers money. Please also write to them so we can finally get to the truth

  12. bobs permalink
    May 8, 2012 9:09 am

    Does anyone know the real reason that Sexton was sacked ?

    Was it his connections to the “local businessman” who bribed SDR ?

  13. harryT permalink
    May 8, 2012 9:14 am

    I have to say I am not entirely certain what happens next. Below is listed what the TVGers sought in their JR. By not putting in any defence at all, the Council is basically agreeing that these Orders should be made. But what about the final one ?

    i. A declaration that the Council’s failure to register the whole of the land which the Committee resolved should be registered was unlawful;

    ii. An order directing the Council to register the strip parallel to Silbury Road which the Committee resolved qualified as a town or village green.

    iii. An order quashing the resolution of the Council not to register the Unregistered Part of the Application Land

    iv. An anonymity order

    v. Costs

    vi. Further or other relief as the Court sees fit

  14. May 8, 2012 6:56 pm

    How about
    vi. an order to forthwith cease the bothersome and aggravating harassment of residents, councillors and TVG’ers and to cease the endless bleating and whining pertaining to the inability to erect a monster greed merchants emporium and red plastic shed and burger joint upon the much loved fields of Ashton Vale even as they remain the last tiny remnant of Bristol greenbelt.

  15. Anthony B permalink
    May 8, 2012 8:18 pm


    vi. an order to forthwith cease the endless suggestive but unsubstantiated bollocks posted by users by morons who may or not be known as ‘bobs’.

    vii. an order to identify any Ashton Vale town green supporter who has offered payment “cash in hand” as a tax dodger.

  16. May 9, 2012 7:34 am

    There’s more to come out on sexton was he pushed/why his departure is accompanied by so much vitriol from him towards the TVG and JR.

  17. Richard Lane permalink
    May 10, 2012 9:02 pm

    Or H, as I’ll now refer to you.
    H, I have read my post, I only wish you had read it, or at least properly.
    I have not said that the original inspection should be reviewed under the JR, only the process of the decision, where you dream this rubbish up I don’t know.
    The decision not to pass on the extra evidence for scrutiny by the inspector, is what I believe to be one of the major reasons the TVGrs were not happy about. So it won’t only go back as far as the PROWG decision as you say, that’s if it continues to a JR anyway.

    By now having a new inspection, where all the evidence is put before an inspector, regardless of his or her recommendation, the process could then be seen as fair and the council can make whatever decision they think is correct.

    As for you HarryT
    What a stupid asshole you are. You claim this and that about legal proccesses, quoting all sorts of made up rubbish, then admit you know absolutely sod all about anything, then start quoting shyte again.
    And you say I’m not coherrent.

  18. Bobs permalink
    May 11, 2012 8:47 am

    Richard Lane

    You are an embarrassment to those on your side. To us you are simply someone apparently incapable of comprehending what is going on.

    The posts of others on this site are clear and meaningfull. Yours are contradictory drivel.

  19. Anthony B permalink
    May 11, 2012 10:52 am

    Bobs, you suggest the posts of others are clear. Would you like to do the same rather than continue with your personal style of suggestive bollocks?

  20. harryT permalink
    May 11, 2012 11:11 am


    The “rubbish” I have “quoted” is in fact the final section of the Judicial Review document listing the Orders which the TVG applicant seeks. It is this that BCC have submitted no Defence to and therefore concede that these Orders will now be made by the court.

    Your insults are totally out of place. You should be thanking me for infrorming you about what is going on.

Comments are closed.