Skip to content

Cash slashing council hands over multi million pound land assets to super rich tax exile.

January 25, 2013

About time we revisited the Ashton Gate scandal.
Now the newly incumbent mayor is forced to slashing £35m off the budget due to austerity, can anyone please explain why we are handing over about 8 million quids worth of land assets free of charge, gratis etc to the mega rich Lansdowne landowning company?
For those who haven’t kept track of the shady dealing over the last few years the land in question is the 20% of the Ashton Gate ground that is owned by the people that the club wants to sell to the supermarket chain, and the currently unused allotments site owned by the citizens so the club can build unaffordable homes to make a big profit for themselves.
We are continually harangued by austerity and tightening of belts, yet those entrusted with our assets have not put the brakes on the multi-million pound gravy train giveaway.

Advertisements
11 Comments
  1. Richard Lane permalink
    January 25, 2013 5:18 pm

    You can write it as you like, you know that those land deals are legal and will ultimately provide much more revenue for the council than their present use allows.
    You claim the council needs money yet would like to stop the developments that would provide extra revenue to the council. Twsted logic springs to mind.

    As we all know, the car park that you claim is 20 percent of the land at AG and is being transferred as part of the supermarket deal is valued as a car park. It won’t form part of the supermarket building, it will only provide public access to the site of the new building. It currently provides access to that site and has done for over a hundred years, it’s use and subsequent value will not alter.

  2. pe175 permalink
    January 25, 2013 6:35 pm

    Lane if you want to comment on the content of this site then stop talking out of your backside.
    The what is now a car park was a field from the 1930,s to the 1940,s and it had no paths across it, and a wall cuttiing off the Stadium, there may have been a small door in the wall but it was not a public access to the Stadium, there was access to the other companies on the site from Winterstoke road, and access to the fields behind the Stadium.
    Ref. Bristol Know Your Place (1946). aerial.
    Ref. Britain from Above Rescue the Past(1930). aerial.
    It may have been a horse park for the fans 100 years ago, but it probably had cows on it in 1913.
    By the look of the photographs it looks completely seperate from the Stadium.

  3. Richard Lane permalink
    January 26, 2013 12:25 am

    P
    The point I’m making is that, it’s never been used for anything other than a car park or public access. Whether that’s 60 plus years or a hundred is of little importance when public rights of way are concerned. As you may know, you only need to prove 20 years of use to claim a right of way or even a TVG. The fact remains that the deals are legal and the valuations are legal and the money gained from the change of use over time will be more than is currently being raised into the council coffers.

    So you can waste your time coming up with inconsequential facts that mean nothing and your childish use of surnames as a form of slight and petty point gaining. The fact remains that, if the deal for the new stadium does not go through, then the council will get nothing more than at present. If it does go through, then the council will get extra revenue from six new developments. So this is not about loss of revenue to the council, it’s about stopping the stadium and the supermarket, just be honest about it.

    I’ve seen the 1946 photo and it seems to show a nicely worn path where vehicles have used it to gain access to and across the field for parking. It goes straight to the current entrance to the clubs own car park behind the Williams stand. You can see the track and vehicles parked in the other compound, so it would seem reasonable to assume people were using it for parking. It certainly has not been used for any form of building, which would make it more valuable than a car park or access, which is the point of discussion.

  4. January 26, 2013 7:12 am

    Few points following that.
    If the car park land is sold at market price for a superstore; there will still be enhanced rateable income on the new business premises.
    The enhanced rates goes to central government probably to be redistributed to Liverpool or the north east and doesn’t stay in the local economy.
    The council could say no we don’t giveaway the land..the hypermarket will have to pay a renegotiated rent ie loads more…with no access there’s no megastore.
    The allotment land does not have a lease by the club. Why not give the land to a housing association to build badly needed affordable homes? Or sell it at a good price and put the money into the deficit reduction.

    If the council in all the secret negotiation made a decision to subsidise the building of the new stadium then it should retain a share in the new stadium, not just hand over our assets in secretive deals. That’s bordering on corruption.

  5. pe175 permalink
    January 26, 2013 10:22 am

    Lane you are not only talking out of your backside, but your optics are duff, listen and I will tell you, there is no path on the 1946 aerial composite, not only is there no path there is also no indication of any use in the field on the other side of the boundry wall around the site, there is also no evidence of a access gate, the 1930 photo shows some evidence of a small door in the boundry wall.
    It is irrelevent to what use the area was used for, but the point is if you are going to make statements about over a hundred years of access use to support your usually wierd arguments then there is no point in lying.
    Being the main voice of all things supporting the lets destroy Ashton brigade you need to get your dodgy facts correct.
    And in the years in question 1930/1940,s the majority of the fans arrived by pushbike or walked ther was no requirement for a public car park, the access was from the front of the football ground.
    Again there is a photograph of hundreds of push bikes parked in the front gardens of the houses around Ashton Gate on match days.

    And you mean to tell me that you are actually a Richard Lane, go on pull the other one.
    Why don`t you just call yourself Dick that would be far more apropriate, the we could have even more fun with your name.

    The whole Ashton Gate shambles is what it is, full of misinformation,lies and greed.
    How you can argue to support this dismal council and dismal failed football club defeats me, the whole thing is a disaster and the quicker the supermarket and associated land grabbers are dumped the better.

  6. Tom permalink
    January 28, 2013 5:47 pm

    pe175

    Iv’e looked at that map from the 1940s and theres definately a conitinuation of vehicle tracks into what could be a field, it could also be a cinder car park like the one adjacent to it, with cars in. I can’t see a gate into the ground area but nobody could be precise about the surface, or even the height of the wall, which might or might not stop access to the ground. How you can be so definate is unclear, as you are making assumptions on it’s use with little detail shown on a photograph from such a long time ago. If you reply please don’t be so offensive to me.

  7. pe175 permalink
    January 28, 2013 7:10 pm

    Tom as you talk sense i would not be offensive to you, Lane unfortunately is always talking rubbish and he deserves what he gets, he is not a very nice person, and he can look after himself.
    Lane made a statement in his post inferring that the land now used as a car park was in use by the football ground in from 1913(100 years) as a access route into the site, this was glib and unproven part of his post.
    As i have already posted the two aerial photographs show that the football ground had a serrounding wall that was continuous in the area of the rear of the ground.
    I will now repeat :- The 1946 aerial from BKYP (vertical) shows a shadow of the wall on the Stadium side,the shadow is continuous there are no breaks showing access gates.
    The lighter field pattern,one of many, is shown to continue beyond the wall showing that it was there before the wall was built.
    Image two, Britain from Above. image EPW034461 is a oblique view straight at the wall and the ground area in question, the wall has a few marks on it, but in the area of presumed access it is unbroken, the wall is there to keep people out not let them in.
    Now the 1930 photo is well within Dicki Lanes 100 years use statement, and unless him and you believe in fairies there is no public access in that photograph.
    Lane is making assumptions from a long time ago and i am not, the photograph from 1930 allows zoom to be used, showing the maximum detail possible.
    The photographs from this era were good enough for the RAF and the Germans to use for their war activities so they are far good enough to tell if a wall has a big hole in it.
    There is very small change from 1930 to 1946 in the photos.
    I could not care less about who or what owned used or dug up the ground or car park, what i do care about is that the land grabbers that Lane supports do not get a free ride with all of their plans for the destruction of the Green belt in Ashton Vale. we have had three years or so of Lane and Co,s land grab asperations and if they talk or post rubbish then i will comment as necessary.

  8. Richard Lane permalink
    January 28, 2013 9:53 pm

    P
    As wer’e talking names “Dick”. I can only presume your user name is a code.
    The P is correct but the e175 must equate to rick, which explains a lot.

    I apologise for generalising when I stated that the car park was in use as such for over a hundred years. I have since stated that no matter how long it has been used for access and car parking, it is, a public access to that site. It has been for at least 48 years that I know of personally. You have not proven anything with your references to walls and gates. You have taken one mistake and it is a mistake, not a lie and tried to gain an advantage with your duplication of vile statements.

    You state “I will now repeat :- The 1946 aerial from BKYP (vertical) shows a shadow of the wall on the Stadium side,the shadow is continuous there are no breaks showing access gates” I have studied that photo, there are no breaks in the shadows anywhere showing access gates to any other part of the wall which surrounds the ground. This only proves that if there are gates, then they are solid and continue a shadow. So I respectfully suggest that you get your optics sorted out, before claiming such utter bullshit so say backed up by the RAF and Luftwaffe. The photos do not allow close up views to decide either way.
    The earlier photo (1930) shows that the ground was encased by this wall, presumably to keep people out, I agree. But it was to keep people out that did not pay for entry.

    By stating that Tom talks sense, logic dictates that you agree with his assessment that there are vehicle tracks across the site. If you look closer you can see that the wall has been rebuilt since 1930, when it used to break at the corner of the covered end. It has been moved closer to the Winterstoke road and seems to show a couple of gate pillars where the vehicle tracks run to. Please note, there is nothing visible stopping vehicles entering that site in the form of a barrier. That is unless they have invisible gates in Pri75 land that don’t show shadows.

    Just to finish off. This computer I’m using is not a community asset. This site recognises it and puts my gravatar up automatically. You are deluded to assume that I am the voice of anyone other than myself.

  9. Richard Lane permalink
    January 28, 2013 10:07 pm

    Sacredspring
    I believe all business rates are now kept by the city council and not distributed around the country. I believe this was part of the deal when electing a mayor.

    The car park is being sold at market value, as a car park. It is not part of the store, the store is being built on the site of the ground because the current structures set a precident in density and height.

    If the land at the allotments are given to a housing association, the council will end up paying out more than it receives from rates, in housing benefits. At least with private housing, it brings a certain amount of wealth to the area, what you suggest only brings more cost to the council and low earners to the area.

    Why don’t you lot admit it. You just don’t want the stadium. Be honest about something for a change.

  10. pe175 permalink
    January 28, 2013 11:10 pm

    Just to finish of Dicky, because of your somewhat limited concept of the obvious contents of
    photographs, that seems to be on the same level as the interpretation of the photographs of the Ashton Vale site, by the New Evidence mongers.
    It seems that things appear or don`t appear on photos depending on whether you agree or disagree with the development of the site.
    It was lucky you were not around to interpret important photographs during the war periods otherwise V2 rockets would have become some unimportant container of some type.
    You also seem to be under the impression that the football ground in 1930 would actually want a area to contain the somewhat rare motor vehicles other than space in front of the Stadium.
    You also seem to have presumed that the land was actually belonging to the football club,it was more than likely owned by the Ashton Rolling Mills or the Malleable Nail company the wall was just a boundry marker following the boundry as set by the tythe map of 1840 they just built a wall were the hedge originally existed to seperate the land.

    Tom,s post was deemed sensible as he was posting in a normal manner questioning my interpretation of the photographs and why not, the entrance was there from Marsh Lane to gain access to the nail works and the rolling mills and was probally used by vehicles of the horse type and motor type, he was more interested in the physics of the photos than the fact that the land was to do with the Ashton developments.

    As for Pe175 i can give you the code, it stands for Pointless Electronic Ingnition 175cc, any *rick would know that Dick.

    Myself could be anybody i doubt that it is actually a Richard Lane.

    Well there you go, as i said before it is totally irrelevant who what or why about the car park land, the main idea is concept of dodgy deals and the removal of any thought of a Supermarket on the site as this would help prevent the continued threat to the Green Belt land in Ashton Vale and beyond.
    You know the whole things stinks as i do its a pity that the actual facts are still as vague as ever.

  11. January 29, 2013 7:18 am

    Mr Lane old chap, what you believe and what is actually true still seem somewhat wide apart.
    According to BCC website business rates are still sent to central government to be redistributed to authorities based on population and spending needs. The mayoral ‘bribe’ from Cameron’s clowns that we get to keep our rates has not yet materialised unless someone in the know can confirm it.

    The market value of the car park changes just a tad (a few million££££) when it becomes the only access to the biggest hypermarket in the south west, any fool knows that ( remind me not to ask you to sell my parking space). It is not a car park, it is a valuable freehold asset that the city owns.

    Affordable homes is what this city needs, not more luxury flats and houses out of reach of the ordinary person. They will pay rates like everyone else.

    and low earners to the area.

    is insulting to ordinary family folk who make up the bulk of the working population….since when has football become this elitist?
    Your crappy argument still doesn’t make it right giving away land assets to one of the richest blokes in the world.

    I’m pro a new stadium, exactly where it is now. And if it needs council help and subsidy then I agree sports should be helped with funding in a similar way to arts funding. But that should be done openly, with local agreement, not with the kind of giveaway to greedy developers that damages communities.

Comments are closed.