RugbyRebels

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Tue May 27, 2025 9:26 am

Oakboy wrote: ↑Tue May 27, 2025 9:10 am Tree huggers involved now, apparently.

2-3 weeks ago, and already addressed (unless there's been another one)
https://app.bathnes.gov.uk/publisher/do ... AD02FD.pdf

Link broken?

Puja

Puja wrote: ↑Tue May 27, 2025 10:06 am Link broken?

Hmmm, weird, looks like I can only successfully link to the page of pdfs, not any specific pdf
https://app.bathnes.gov.uk/webforms/pla ... ts_Section

4th document, 16/05/2025 "ADDENDUM ARBORICULTURAL IMPLICATIONS ASSESSMENT AND ARBORICULTURAL METHOD STATEMENT"

For me, the most interest bit (low bar, none of it is interesting) is that despite claims in the media about it being a veteran or even ancient tree - it's only been registered as "notable" and doesn't really fit that description, let alone veteran or ancient.
Also "interesting" that it was registered that way after applying for planning - which doesn't remotely mean that it shouldn't be protected, just "interesting". Tree is owned by Rosie Carne, a known NIMBY and opponent of Bath playing on the Rec (I've no idea when she bought the tree)

From that report (paid for by the people wanting to build), it looks like, at best, protective measures would need to be taken - which IIRC, was already the case, but may have been "already the case" for different trees.

Name checking the copper beech alongside the Sycamore Gap tree seems... a little OTT

ETA: on when she bought the tree - it looks like the trunk of the tree is in her private garden; so the tree would have come with the house - no conspiracy there.
Still a tonne of mis-representation though.

"Notable tree" is going on my epitaph, what an accolade

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Tue May 27, 2025 10:20 am

Puja wrote: ↑Tue May 27, 2025 10:06 am Link broken?

Hmmm, weird, looks like I can only successfully link to the page of pdfs, not any specific pdf
https://app.bathnes.gov.uk/webforms/pla ... ts_Section

4th document, 16/05/2025 "ADDENDUM ARBORICULTURAL IMPLICATIONS ASSESSMENT AND ARBORICULTURAL METHOD STATEMENT"

For me, the most interest bit (low bar, none of it is interesting) is that despite claims in the media about it being a veteran or even ancient tree - it's only been registered as "notable" and doesn't really fit that description, let alone veteran or ancient.
Also "interesting" that it was registered that way after applying for planning - which doesn't remotely mean that it shouldn't be protected, just "interesting". Tree is owned by Rosie Carne, a known NIMBY and opponent of Bath playing on the Rec (I've no idea when she bought the tree)

From that report (paid for by the people wanting to build), it looks like, at best, protective measures would need to be taken - which IIRC, was already the case, but may have been "already the case" for different trees.

Name checking the copper beech alongside the Sycamore Gap tree seems... a little OTT

"Both the local Councillor and the tree owner have referred to the tree as a veteran ancient tree." The report then carefully lays out the characteristics that would make a tree veteran or ancient before pointing out bluntly that this tree has none of those and that, if it did start to exhibit those characteristics, its location means that it would need to be removed for public safety considerations anyway, as this type of tree "declines rapidly once physiological health starts to decline" and "it cannot be ignored or argued that ecology and preservation will take precedent over current and future public safety."

It's not even as though the plans involve cutting down the damned thing - the best the NIMBYs have managed to complain about is that construction will be happening near the tree and might damage its roots, which is an interesting take considering the tree is in the corner of a garden and two sides of it are covered in tarmac - hardly as though they're paving over a grassy bower!



Puja

It's a nice tree to be fair.

Yep, no problem with it being protected during building work

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Tue May 27, 2025 9:26 am

Oakboy wrote: ↑Tue May 27, 2025 9:10 am Tree huggers involved now, apparently.

2-3 weeks ago, and already addressed (unless there's been another one)
https://app.bathnes.gov.uk/publisher/do ... AD02FD.pdf

Can't get that link. I'm referring to page 34 of today's DT. Can't copy article as in a holiday cottage without PC etc.

Oakboy wrote: ↑Tue May 27, 2025 4:35 pm

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Tue May 27, 2025 9:26 am

Oakboy wrote: ↑Tue May 27, 2025 9:10 am Tree huggers involved now, apparently.

2-3 weeks ago, and already addressed (unless there's been another one)
https://app.bathnes.gov.uk/publisher/do ... AD02FD.pdf

Can't get that link. I'm referring to page 34 of today's DT. Can't copy article as in a holiday cottage without PC etc.

https://archive.ph/qx4kg

Interesting that it's made the Telegraph, but that's mostly because Rees-Mogg has come out against the "Woke Lefties killjoys" and so it's part of their culture war reporting. It doesn't feel good to have Rees-Mogg on the same side as me and it did make me double-check my position, but he's there almost accidentally, without understanding the issue any better than the Green councillor.

Puja

Ohhhhhhh man I'd give my left ball to see him on a rugby pitch. Even Ford would shatter him like a boiled sweet.

Environment Agency have removed their objection to the Rec redevelopment.
AFAIK that's the last major objection beyond a bunch of "don't like it"s

Is that... is that "hope" that I can feel?
Down boy! you should know better than that!

Planning inspector at BANES recommends consenting to the application.

It's THE agenda item for next week's planning committee meeting.

Angela Raynor wanted time to decide whether or not to call it in - but she's no longer SoS, so it's not her decision any longer. No-one knows if Steve Reed cares or not, but it would be unreasonable to expect a quick decision from him.

From what I can tell, it means that permission is likely to be granted - something like 85% chance overall - but it might take another year to be confirmed.

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Wed Sep 10, 2025 5:26 am Planning inspector at BANES recommends consenting to the application.

It's THE agenda item for next week's planning committee meeting.

Angela Raynor wanted time to decide whether or not to call it in - but she's no longer SoS, so it's not her decision any longer. No-one knows if Steve Reed cares or not, but it would be unreasonable to expect a quick decision from him.

From what I can tell, it means that permission is likely to be granted - something like 85% chance overall - but it might take another year to be confirmed.

Steve Reed promised to "build baby build"...

FKAS wrote: ↑Wed Sep 10, 2025 11:05 amSteve Reed promised to "build baby build"...

I think that's homes, rather than stadia - though he has in the past objected to central government obstructing local decisions - which ought to raise my estimated chance of success.

Bath & North East Somerset Council has today approved our planning application for a new state-of-the-art stadium at our historic home, The Rec.


So... waiting for Steve Reed to decide whether or not he wants to intervene (sounds like he will)

Revealed: Full details of Bath's state-of-the-art Rec rebuild - Michelin-star riverside hospitality, a tunnel club, rapid pints, jumbo screens, live stats sent straight to fans' phones... and much more

Worth noting as well, council approved the plans 10 : 1 which is surely a tough one for Reed to overturn, if he decides to have a look.

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Thu Sep 18, 2025 5:03 pm Revealed: Full details of Bath's state-of-the-art Rec rebuild - Michelin-star riverside hospitality, a tunnel club, rapid pints, jumbo screens, live stats sent straight to fans' phones... and much more

Worth noting as well, council approved the plans 10 : 1 which is surely a tough one for Reed to overturn, if he decides to have a look.

Bath in "Getting their story out first" shocker. Usually, they get utterly screwed in the press by a journalist doing a hatchet job on "the controversy", based around specious statements from Rosemary Carney and Ken Loach. I think this is the first time I've seen a story on the Rec redevelopment in the national press where it's instigated by Bath and formed around their quotes, rather than being about "the risk to Bath's World Heritage status, as described by some ignorant old nimbies".

Puja

Puja wrote: ↑Thu Sep 18, 2025 9:25 pm

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Thu Sep 18, 2025 5:03 pm Revealed: Full details of Bath's state-of-the-art Rec rebuild - Michelin-star riverside hospitality, a tunnel club, rapid pints, jumbo screens, live stats sent straight to fans' phones... and much more

Worth noting as well, council approved the plans 10 : 1 which is surely a tough one for Reed to overturn, if he decides to have a look.

Bath in "Getting their story out first" shocker. Usually, they get utterly screwed in the press by a journalist doing a hatchet job on "the controversy", based around specious statements from Rosemary Carney and Ken Loach. I think this is the first time I've seen a story on the Rec redevelopment in the national press where it's instigated by Bath and formed around their quotes, rather than being about "the risk to Bath's World Heritage status, as described by some ignorant old nimbies".

Puja

....that happen to live next door and hate rugby

Just don't look at Somerset Live where it's "dividing opinions"
30 protestors vs 21,000 celebrants

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Thu Sep 18, 2025 10:09 pm Just don't look at Somerset Live where it's "dividing opinions"
30 protestors vs 21,000 celebrants

Or the BBC Sport website where it's been "balanced" by making sure they get an opinion from one of the 10 councillors voting in favour, and an opinion from the 1 councillor voting against. Plus four paragraphs expounding the views of the 5,000 people who wrote in favour of the proposal, juxtaposed with six paragraphs quoting the views from some of the 360 objectors.

Puja

Puja wrote: ↑Thu Sep 18, 2025 11:12 pm

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Thu Sep 18, 2025 10:09 pm Just don't look at Somerset Live where it's "dividing opinions"
30 protestors vs 21,000 celebrants

Or the BBC Sport website where it's been "balanced" by making sure they get an opinion from one of the 10 councillors voting in favour, and an opinion from the 1 councillor voting against. Plus four paragraphs expounding the views of the 5,000 people who wrote in favour of the proposal, juxtaposed with six paragraphs quoting the views from some of the 360 objectors.

Puja

Making mountains out of molehills, best way to make an interesting article for a journo.

FKAS wrote: ↑Fri Sep 19, 2025 7:28 am

Puja wrote: ↑Thu Sep 18, 2025 11:12 pm

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Thu Sep 18, 2025 10:09 pm Just don't look at Somerset Live where it's "dividing opinions"
30 protestors vs 21,000 celebrants

Or the BBC Sport website where it's been "balanced" by making sure they get an opinion from one of the 10 councillors voting in favour, and an opinion from the 1 councillor voting against. Plus four paragraphs expounding the views of the 5,000 people who wrote in favour of the proposal, juxtaposed with six paragraphs quoting the views from some of the 360 objectors.

Puja

Making mountains out of molehills, best way to make an interesting article for a journo.

And likely all cribbed from social media because journalists don't know any other way these days

Danno wrote: ↑Fri Sep 19, 2025 11:08 am

FKAS wrote: ↑Fri Sep 19, 2025 7:28 am

Puja wrote: ↑Thu Sep 18, 2025 11:12 pm

Or the BBC Sport website where it's been "balanced" by making sure they get an opinion from one of the 10 councillors voting in favour, and an opinion from the 1 councillor voting against. Plus four paragraphs expounding the views of the 5,000 people who wrote in favour of the proposal, juxtaposed with six paragraphs quoting the views from some of the 360 objectors.

Puja

Making mountains out of molehills, best way to make an interesting article for a journo.

And likely all cribbed from social media because journalists don't know any other way these days

Far easier than actually doing any real work.

Stadium for Bath update (26 September)
We are delighted to have today received confirmation that the Secretary of State has decided not to call in the Stadium for Bath planning application for his own determination, and he is content for it to be determined by the local planning authority.
As far as I'm aware, that's the last hurdle, and should (yeah, I know) put to bed any chance of the Fiends appealing the planning permission - which they've yet to find a point of law to base an appeal on.

A message from CEO, Tarquin McDonald ahead of Round 3
TL:DR
There are some conditions to finalise with the Council over the next few weeks after which final approval will be given. The next year will see detailed technical planning together with locking in the necessary finances before going to tender for contractors. Naming rights for the stadium are an option for a sponsor.
Intention is that construction will start in close season 27 (a longer close season due to RWC27)