Link broken?Which Tyler wrote: ↑Tue May 27, 2025 9:26 am2-3 weeks ago, and already addressed (unless there's been another one)
https://app.bathnes.gov.uk/publisher/do ... AD02FD.pdf
Puja
Moderator: Puja
Link broken?Which Tyler wrote: ↑Tue May 27, 2025 9:26 am2-3 weeks ago, and already addressed (unless there's been another one)
https://app.bathnes.gov.uk/publisher/do ... AD02FD.pdf
Hmmm, weird, looks like I can only successfully link to the page of pdfs, not any specific pdf
"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."Which Tyler wrote: ↑Tue May 27, 2025 10:20 amHmmm, 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
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.Which Tyler wrote: ↑Tue May 27, 2025 9:26 am2-3 weeks ago, and already addressed (unless there's been another one)
https://app.bathnes.gov.uk/publisher/do ... AD02FD.pdf
https://archive.ph/qx4kgOakboy wrote: ↑Tue May 27, 2025 4:35 pmCan'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.Which Tyler wrote: ↑Tue May 27, 2025 9:26 am2-3 weeks ago, and already addressed (unless there's been another one)
https://app.bathnes.gov.uk/publisher/do ... AD02FD.pdf
Steve Reed promised to "build baby build"...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.
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 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".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.
....that happen to live next door and hate rugbyPuja wrote: ↑Thu Sep 18, 2025 9:25 pmBath 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".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.
Puja
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.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
Making mountains out of molehills, best way to make an interesting article for a journo.Puja wrote: ↑Thu Sep 18, 2025 11:12 pmOr 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.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
Puja
And likely all cribbed from social media because journalists don't know any other way these daysFKAS wrote: ↑Fri Sep 19, 2025 7:28 amMaking mountains out of molehills, best way to make an interesting article for a journo.Puja wrote: ↑Thu Sep 18, 2025 11:12 pmOr 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.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
Puja
Far easier than actually doing any real work.Danno wrote: ↑Fri Sep 19, 2025 11:08 amAnd likely all cribbed from social media because journalists don't know any other way these daysFKAS wrote: ↑Fri Sep 19, 2025 7:28 amMaking mountains out of molehills, best way to make an interesting article for a journo.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