Power to people
 Offline
Posts: 6602
|
 |
« Reply #30 on: Saturday, June 7, 2008, 17:36:37 » |
|
When the old board looked in to planning permission all those years ago for a roof I don't beleive they was allowed to increase the height of the SB due to residents behind and blocking their light as they would not get permission.
Although to be fair fitton & co will be proper plans rather than getting a 5 year old to draw them up.
So going on that assumption I assume a few rows of the SB would be taken out to incorporate them thus not needing them to go so high.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Reg Smeeton
Walking Encyclopaedia
Offline
Posts: 34913
|
|
« Reply #31 on: Saturday, June 7, 2008, 17:47:32 » |
|
When the old board looked in to planning permission all those years ago for a roof I don't beleive they was allowed to increase the height of the SB due to residents behind and blocking their light as they would not get permission.
Although to be fair fitton & co will be proper plans rather than getting a 5 year old to draw them up.
So going on that assumption I assume a few rows of the SB would be taken out to incorporate them thus not needing them to go so high. The Shrivenham Road residents had their say, as entitled with a planning application....but the application i still with SBC, as the club didn't bother pursuing it because of cash shortage. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
pauld
Aaron Aardvark
Offline
Posts: 25436
Absolute Calamity!
|
|
« Reply #32 on: Saturday, June 7, 2008, 17:52:53 » |
|
When the old board looked in to planning permission all those years ago for a roof I don't beleive they was allowed to increase the height of the SB due to residents behind and blocking their light as they would not get permission. No, that's an old myth. As Reg says, they got permission but ran out of money and never pursued it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
the goat
Offline
Posts: 147
|
|
« Reply #33 on: Saturday, June 7, 2008, 22:24:19 » |
|
face facts it will never change
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
DV
Has also heard this
Offline
Posts: 34108
Joseph McLaughlin
|
|
« Reply #34 on: Saturday, June 7, 2008, 22:57:54 » |
|
face facts it will never change He is right, things will never change We'll never get taken over We'll never see the back of Diamandis and Co We'll never bring in chairman than does something, unlike Carson We'll never replace the seats in the Arkells We'll never be debt free Lets just give up now.... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Barry Scott
Offline
Posts: 9137
|
|
« Reply #35 on: Saturday, June 7, 2008, 23:18:28 » |
|
face facts it will never change He is right, things will never change We'll never get taken over We'll never see the back of Diamandis and Co We'll never bring in chairman than does something, unlike Carson We'll never replace the seats in the Arkells We'll never be debt free Lets just give up now.... You're becoming less of a "realist" by the day. What happened to all the negativity?  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
DV
Has also heard this
Offline
Posts: 34108
Joseph McLaughlin
|
|
« Reply #36 on: Saturday, June 7, 2008, 23:27:04 » |
|
Well the negativity obviously went when we started moving forward as a club, because Im a realist.
top 10 next season, promotion challenge after that!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
SwindonTartanArmy
Go Team GB!
Offline
Posts: 2917
London Scottish - More History than Franchise!
|
|
« Reply #37 on: Sunday, June 8, 2008, 01:35:21 » |
|
Does anyone think they may just build them on top of the bank I was thinking that. Portakabins on the bank and the seats taken out to put in the Arkells. Although maybe they will do it properly and build something permanent/semi-permanent where the bank is now. :? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Vi er best i verden! Vi er best i verden! Vi har slått England 2-1 i fotball!! Det er aldeles utrolig! Vi har slått England! England, kjempers fødeland. Lord Nelson, Lord Beaverbrook, Sir Winston Churchill, Sir Anthony Eden, Clement Attlee, Henry Cooper, Lady Diana--vi har slått dem alle sammen. Vi har slått dem alle sammen. Maggie Thatcher can you hear me?
Your boys took a hell of a beating!"
|
|
|
Leggett
Offline
Posts: 7892
|
|
« Reply #38 on: Sunday, June 8, 2008, 10:42:23 » |
|
well the fact they've said they can put em up before the portsmouth game suggests its not exactly gonna be bricks and mortar...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Fuck you Leggett, fuck you.
|
|
|
Reeves for King
Offline
Posts: 751
|
|
« Reply #39 on: Sunday, June 8, 2008, 16:57:02 » |
|
I can't see the council giving planning position for these due to the residents - after the trouble over the stadium plans before SBC probably don't want to rock the boat.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
here's the man himself when you need him?
|
|
|
Samdy Gray
Dirty sneaky traitor weasel
Offline
Posts: 27183
|
|
« Reply #40 on: Sunday, June 8, 2008, 16:59:38 » |
|
I can't see the council giving planning position for these due to the residents - after the trouble over the stadium plans before SBC probably don't want to rock the boat. The Shrivenham Road residents had their say, as entitled with a planning application....but the application i still with SBC, as the club didn't bother pursuing it because of cash shortage. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
flammableBen
|
|
« Reply #41 on: Sunday, June 8, 2008, 17:47:35 » |
|
Tef poster on not reading through the thread properly shocker.
We've all done it. Sometimes in the rush to make our point we all risk it. And rightly so.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Power to people
Offline
Posts: 6602
|
|
« Reply #42 on: Monday, June 9, 2008, 14:02:37 » |
|
When the old board looked in to planning permission all those years ago for a roof I don't beleive they was allowed to increase the height of the SB due to residents behind and blocking their light as they would not get permission. No, that's an old myth. As Reg says, they got permission but ran out of money and never pursued it. I thought they got permission to put a roof on but was not allowed to take it any higher than what it is now due to blocking residents light ? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Simon Pieman
Original Wanker
Offline
Posts: 36346
|
|
« Reply #43 on: Monday, June 9, 2008, 14:06:37 » |
|
When the old board looked in to planning permission all those years ago for a roof I don't beleive they was allowed to increase the height of the SB due to residents behind and blocking their light as they would not get permission. No, that's an old myth. As Reg says, they got permission but ran out of money and never pursued it. I thought they got permission to put a roof on but was not allowed to take it any higher than what it is now due to blocking residents light ? I thought they got permission to rebuild it like the South Stand? I don't suppose it matters too much, executive boxes are unlikely to affect the fans too much, unless of course people join the prawn sandwich brigade for a game or two. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Arriba
Offline
Posts: 21305
|
|
« Reply #44 on: Monday, June 9, 2008, 14:08:23 » |
|
When the old board looked in to planning permission all those years ago for a roof I don't beleive they was allowed to increase the height of the SB due to residents behind and blocking their light as they would not get permission. No, that's an old myth. As Reg says, they got permission but ran out of money and never pursued it. I thought they got permission to put a roof on but was not allowed to take it any higher than what it is now due to blocking residents light ? thatsd what i thought too? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
