Batch
Not a Batch
Offline
Posts: 55362
|
|
« Reply #90 on: Friday, May 20, 2005, 08:37:35 » |
|
Batch it was tongue in cheek! Sorry! http://www.zen49395.zen.co.uk/exiles/pics/brickwall.gifI'm off to do lines (not that type) "I will work out this board isn't serious" "I will work out this board isn't serious" ..
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
« Reply #91 on: Friday, May 20, 2005, 08:44:11 » |
|
I wouldnt know what you mean when you say lines, im a good lad! :shock:
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Simon Pieman
Original Wanker
Offline
Posts: 36318
|
|
« Reply #92 on: Friday, May 20, 2005, 13:39:39 » |
|
If they had built on the front garden they could have built a slip road off the motorway or something. Shaw wasn't really a good site, the infrastructure cannot support such a development.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Reg Smeeton
Walking Encyclopaedia
Offline
Posts: 34913
|
|
« Reply #93 on: Friday, May 20, 2005, 13:44:49 » |
|
If they had built on the front garden they could have built a slip road off the motorway or something. Shaw wasn't really a good site, the infrastructure cannot support such a development. If the Front Garden site had been used the access would have been through Blagrove Industrial Estate......Wycombe stylee.....building slip roads off of motorways is incredibly expensive...and normally only done for things like the nuclear missile silos at Whelford.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Simon Pieman
Original Wanker
Offline
Posts: 36318
|
|
« Reply #94 on: Friday, May 20, 2005, 13:46:44 » |
|
If they had built on the front garden they could have built a slip road off the motorway or something. Shaw wasn't really a good site, the infrastructure cannot support such a development. If the Front Garden site had been used the access would have been through Blagrove Industrial Estate......Wycombe stylee.....building slip roads off of motorways is incredibly expensive...and normally only done for things like the nuclear missile silos at Whelford. Fair does. Guess both the sites weren't viable then
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Reg Smeeton
Walking Encyclopaedia
Offline
Posts: 34913
|
|
« Reply #95 on: Friday, May 20, 2005, 13:58:40 » |
|
Shaw Tip was completely viable in the sense that it was a long way from houses, aimed to use ground not earmarked for anything else....and a new road is planned to run through between Purton Road and Bruce Street , which would have been ideal for access not to mention the Gloucester Branch railway which maybe could have had a halt constructed.
The only problem was the failure to notice the Council passed a motion 10 years earlier stating no development should happen there.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
JTomlinson
|
|
« Reply #96 on: Sunday, May 22, 2005, 16:17:35 » |
|
Also thousands of local residents organised a very public, high profile campaign against the plans.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
yeo
Offline
Posts: 3651
|
|
« Reply #97 on: Sunday, May 22, 2005, 16:27:24 » |
|
Well it was more like 10 very noisey people and their thousands of kids.Ive still never seen anything but deer up there.I think the deer might take over that part of Swindon soon as they have no natural predators up there (apart from my dog )
|
|
|
Logged
|
/ W56196272
|
|
|
Reg Smeeton
Walking Encyclopaedia
Offline
Posts: 34913
|
|
« Reply #98 on: Sunday, May 22, 2005, 17:06:05 » |
|
Also thousands of local residents organised a very public, high profile campaign against the plans. Thousands of local residents organised a very public, high profile campaign against housing on the Front Garden on going for some 15 or more years...didn't stop the Tory Group on the Council voting for it though, including your esteemed leader who placed opposition to it in his election manifesto for Lawn.....
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
JTomlinson
|
|
« Reply #99 on: Sunday, May 22, 2005, 19:16:01 » |
|
Thats not actually true.
The entire Labour group voted for it. The entire Liberal group voted against it. Most of the Tory group voted against it (including Mike Bawden) Some of the Tory group voted for it.
Labour were running the Council at the time, and they argued that:
1 - We (the Council) would get loads of money for building schools in the Northern Sector. 2 - The Government would have made us do it anyway.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Reg Smeeton
Walking Encyclopaedia
Offline
Posts: 34913
|
|
« Reply #100 on: Sunday, May 22, 2005, 19:22:05 » |
|
Being economical with the actualite is your trade not mine.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ron dodgers
Offline
Posts: 2618
shaddap your face
|
|
« Reply #101 on: Thursday, May 26, 2005, 20:17:28 » |
|
what did that american general say Reg? terminological inexactitude - or am I going Alzheimery
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Reg Smeeton
Walking Encyclopaedia
Offline
Posts: 34913
|
|
« Reply #102 on: Thursday, May 26, 2005, 23:19:50 » |
|
Don't think so.....Al Haig apparently. Shall be stored for further reference.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
reeves4england
Offline
Posts: 15985
We'll never die!
|
|
« Reply #103 on: Saturday, June 4, 2005, 21:55:48 » |
|
Surely the best way to do this would be for the council to say the club can DEFINITELY build on a site, providing they do A, B and C.
Then everybody knows where they stand. The club doesn't lose ridiculous amounts of money on planning, and we get the new ground which will save the club and over time improve the image of the town.
Just look at Hull...
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
DiV
Has also heard this
Offline
Posts: 32261
Joseph McLaughlin
|
|
« Reply #104 on: Sunday, June 5, 2005, 10:27:25 » |
|
Why do the big clubs never get these sort of problems!!!! :roll:
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|