Brockhall STC - planning permission application ?

[matt83]

11 minutes ago, JHRover said:

The plans don't contradict each other. The first plan is for 170 housing units along with other things on the existing Senior Training site. The second plan is to rebuild the lower academy site to house everything in one place. They make sense as two applications and are consistent with comments Waggott made previously about having one site rather than two.

They will come up with all sorts to try and sell this to the fans. 

They'll roll Mowbray out to do his bit for the cameras as they have at past consultation meetings hoping his ramblings will have people eating out of their hands. Hopefully that old trick will have run out of steam now people are tiring of his drivel.

They'll blame coronavirus.

They'll try to argue it will be better for the team/club/academy to be all under one roof.

They'll claim the new facilities will be better than the existing ones (they won't be better than what Jack built) and will suggest that the cash raised will enable further investment in the club moving forward (it won't)

If Venkys can't fund us as we are they should leave. 

Didn’t know they were two separate sites. It would appear at the very best they’re looking to downsize. Shysters. 

[Hoochie Bloochie Mama]

Otium Entertainment bought the Coventry training ground. 

Edited February 23, 2021 by Hoochie Bloochie Mama

[Mattyblue]

From the Rovers Trust website. Legal covenants state that the site cannot be used for non-sporting purposes.

https://www.roverstrust.com/2016/09/20/brockhall-ewood-ownership-briefing/

I presume then you will be fighting against this @mhead and the rest of the Trust?

Edited February 20, 2021 by Mattyblue

[Boroblue]

9 minutes ago, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

Venus is certainly one to watch on this. Otium Entertainment (a company he was/is a director of) bought the Coventry training ground at a knockdown price in 2013. He is also a director of Dedham Vale Homes. 

That is shocking if that occurs. Did this occur before or after Mowbray walked honourably at Coventry 

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

35 minutes ago, AllRoverAsia said:

When forced they are potentially issuing a statement.

Only made a statement on the upkeep/state of Ewood when fans kicked up a fuss..they are consistent on communications!

Hmmm...Housing Estate or Chicken Processing Plant?

Edited February 20, 2021 by SIMON GARNERS 194

[Dreams of 1995]

If they have got to this point I will assume they have already sought engineering / architect input. Forming drawings and specifications takes time and money. This has been planned for some time now.

They are scum. Magott and Venus are shysters. We need to be in the ground because today would be vociferous. They know we can’t voice our anger and so they have chosen a pandemic to kick start the process because once the approval is in and the spade is in the ground there is nothing we can do. 

[chaddyrovers]

16 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

From the Rovers Trust website. The site cannot be used for non-sporting purposes.

https://www.roverstrust.com/2016/09/20/brockhall-ewood-ownership-briefing/

I presume you will be fighting against this @mhead and the rest of the Trust?

So if that's the case why are Rovers applying for planning permission for new houses? 

[AllRoverAsia]

1 minute ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

If they have got to this point I will assume they have already sought engineering / architect input. Forming drawings and specifications takes time and money. This has been planned for some time now.

They are scum. Magott and Venus are shysters. We need to be in the ground because today would be vociferous. They know we can’t voice our anger and so they have chosen a pandemic to kick start the process because once the approval is in and the spade is in the ground there is nothing we can do. 

Exactly right.

I also think that the teams downturn in performance and results and the increasing pressure this puts on the manager from fans and the Press (straight face!) has pushed it up the Cartel's agenda

[Mercer]

17 minutes ago, Hoochie Bloochie Mama said:

Venus is certainly one to watch on this. Otium Entertainment (a company he was/is a director of) bought the Coventry training ground at a knockdown price in 2013. He is also a director of Dedham Vale Homes. 

Dedham Vale Homes was dissolved via a voluntary strike-off (cost effective method for closing down a solvent company). 

[tomphil]

Once a clubs fixed assets are gone they are gone forever this kind of thing only usually happens when they are really facing financial hardship.

It's how the Bolton cash grab started before they hit the skids. These things are a future fall back option against admin and hard times Jack left these things in place.

Venkys own them now so they call the shots but it doesn't look good.

However i'm clinging to the theory this is Waggots legacy and another pup they've been sold by the present regime. 

Poor form - we need players - get given them forms still poor.

We need a scouting network - get it, form still average.

Ok we need drones, pilots and analytical staff to improve what we have - get that, form still average.

Er, madame we need a training ground revamp that'll get us in the top 6 - Don't get that you've had enough. What about if we raise the money ourselves all we have to do is sell a bit of land.

Ok....

All part of the bullshit journey probably whilst at the heart of it a new set chancers are in the middle.

[matt83]

If that thing on that rovers trust is right. To this day I don’t know who they are and what they do. Then perhaps the club knows won’t be able to shift the training centre and the Machiavellian Mowbray will have the next excuse of well if only we could convert the training ground into houses we’d be in the premier league. 😂.

What a bloody football club. Rotten throughout. 

[Dreams of 1995]

6 hours ago, darrenrover said:

Just trying to view this development in a potentially positive light:

Assuming planning approval is granted for residential development by Ribble Valley Borough Council, it would significantly increase the value of the land. I'm unsure of the acreage involved but a starting point would probably be £1 million per acre as a rough valuation.

The Venky's don't necessarily have to act upon it and actually sell the land to a developer. The asset could be revalued, introduced into the P & L and balance sheet as a re-valuation reserve. This would significantly improve the clubs financial performance in the eyes of FFP and provide the owners with the opportunity to 'splash the cash', even more so than they have done recently in terms of actually keeping the club afloat.

There are others on here who are actually accountants (@Mercer) and far more suitably qualified to comment than am I.

So where as a number of years ago, I would have been apoplectic along with everyone else, these days I'm not. Granted, it could have been handled much better in order to allay supporters' fears but they've always been absolutely crap in the communication stakes.

WE ARE The Rovers!!!

Land is usually acquired on a plot by plot basis. So the hectares is kind of irrelevant - the starting point would be “170 plots”. That is if you was to sell the land with planning application already signed and approved. 
 

It does raise value of land but it also puts a caveat on that the land is used for residential purposes / whatever the planning application says. It is possible to of course apply to change that after but why would you if you have paid for it already? 
 

170 plots is a big development and they will stand to make millions on that. 

[DavidMailsTightPerm]

36 minutes ago, AllRoverAsia said:

The trees top left are on the river bank. Scale shown bottom right.

I do not know who owns surrounding small fields between JTC and river.

Not much room to build a fully functional STC/JTC big enough to house ALL teams and buildings/carpark etc etc. IMO.

Thanks for this - I just wondered whether it would be possible to sell off some land and maintain a top class academy. Based on this - I would agree compromises would be needed.

[rigger]

People are understandably irate at the thought of the development, but is there anything practical that can be done to hinder the application? 

[Dreams of 1995]

5 minutes ago, rigger said:

People are understandably irate at the thought of the development, but is there anything practical that can be done to hinder the application? 

Of course. 
 

This is only a “screening opinion” for if the development will require an environmental impact assessment. As far as I am aware this predates the actual planning application. I’m also fairly certain given the location of the development it will require an EIA. It may be classed as a brownfield site but the surroundings aren’t and 170 plots will bring it with it traffic, noise and strain on services / infrastructure.

Once that is put together the PA will go in and then I believe we can object at every possible turn. There’s actually quite a few “community interests” that get developments overturned. Recently in my area Aldi lost a case to build a supermarket on a nature reserve that is really nothing more than wasteland. If the residents object enough the council will listen. 
 

It will be in the Ribble Valleys council as much as ours to listen to the people. I don’t think this will be as clear cut a case as: this is our land we are building homes on it if we have a concerted effort to campaign against it. 

Edited February 20, 2021 by Dreams of 1995

[den]

The covenant on the land mentioned earlier in this thread was inserted there by @Paul while he helped out with the trust -I believe.

He could be your man.

Edited February 20, 2021 by den

[DavidMailsTightPerm]

For the accountants out there - if we got planning permission would it help the club appear more solvent (I.e against even more loans) - I presume the clubs assets would increase in value (even if the land wasn't sold) ?

[AllRoverAsia]

41 minutes ago, matt83 said:

Didn’t know they were two separate sites. It would appear at the very best they’re looking to downsize. Shysters. 

Google maps, just search Brockhall Village and you can see both site locations. 

The one near the river is the JTC

Edited February 20, 2021 by AllRoverAsia

[Riverside under the drip]

41 minutes ago, Gavlar Somerset Rover! said:

If this ‘statement’ tells me the sky is blue I think I’ll still have to poke my head outside to check.

Well, actually the sky is usually a dull grey colour. Those who moan about the weather are told that "That's not what our sky is." and it was very blue earlier in the season. If we are patient it'll be blue again and grey will never return ever again. It will be the bluest blue for an extended period with no chance of drizzle.

[chaddyrovers]

12 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

 

170 plots is a big development and they will stand to make millions on that. 

How much would it raise please? 

2 minutes ago, Dreams of 1995 said:

Of course. 
 

This is only a “screening opinion” for if the development will require an environmental impact assessment. As far as I am aware this predates the actual planning application. I’m also fairly certain given the location of the development it will require an EIA. It may be classed as a brownfield site but the surroundings aren’t and 170 plots will bring it with it traffic, noise and strain on services / infrastructure.

Once that is put together the PA will go in and then I believe we can object at every possible turn. There’s actually quite a few “community interests” that get developments overturned. Recently in my area Aldi lost a case to build a supermarket on a nature reserve that is really nothing more than wasteland. If the residents object the council will listen. 
 

It will be in the Ribble Valleys council as much as ours to listen to the people. I don’t think this will be as clear cut a case as: this is our land we are building homes on it if we have a concerted effort to campaign against it. 

Surely residents who already live in the Brockhall area will.object to the new housing build for varied reasons?

[matt83]

1 minute ago, chaddyrovers said:

How much would it raise please? 

Surely residents who already live in the Brockhall area will.object to the new housing build for varied reasons?

If the rest of the Ribble valley is anything to go by if they want houses to go up. They go up. 

[chaddyrovers]

2 minutes ago, matt83 said:

If the rest of the Ribble valley is anything to go by if they want houses to go up. They go up. 

Different parts of the ribble valley tho.

 

[Dreams of 1995]

3 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

How much would it raise please? 

Surely residents who already live in the Brockhall area will.object to the new housing build for varied reasons?

I wouldn't know Chaddy. It all depends on the size of the plots. It could social housing or they could be aspirational homes.

Given the drive to build new houses the developer is already in the driving seat.

https://www.ribblevalley.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/11287/land_at_blackburn_rovers_training_centre_and_academy.pdf

That is the outcome of the attempt to get Brockhall listed as a Community Asset. Unsuccessful unfortunately.

[Hoochie Bloochie Mama]

37 minutes ago, Mattyblue said:

From the Rovers Trust website. Legal covenants state that the site cannot be used for non-sporting purposes.

https://www.roverstrust.com/2016/09/20/brockhall-ewood-ownership-briefing/

I presume then you will be fighting against this @mhead and the rest of the Trust?

That's what I was on about when I asked about the future usage. I thought I'd seen it stated that it could only be used for sporting purposes. Surely that makes it clear cut? No houses. 

Re the Coventry training ground. It's still going to be houses but they haven't started building yet because Sport England (or some such body) said Coventry had to have a new training ground in place to move to before the bulldozers could move in on their current one.

Lets hope there's not a loophole in the agreement at Brockhall.

[Hoochie Bloochie Mama]

23 minutes ago, Mercer said:

Dedham Vale Homes was dissolved via a voluntary strike-off (cost effective method for closing down a solvent company). 

I wonder if he's involved in any other property companies?