Brockhall STC - planning permission application ?

[JacknOry]

If these were grand new designs aimed at improving the clubs academy, surely they would have been bellowed from the rooftops with designs and all. 

Yet we have no designs and it was all done on the hush. 

What we do know is that the land has been measured up to fit 170 homes.

This has nothing to do with improving anything. Probably sold the idea to Pune who seem to listen to these guys and ever since cannot wait to get rid so they can get their cuts.

[Crimpshrine]

27 minutes ago, AllRoverAsia said:

I wonder why Architects from Bedford were selected for the Design and Access Statement, no one local capable?

Probably the same ones they used for the attempted Coventry stitch up.

Coventry's training ground is in Rugby - not far at all from Bedford

[Proudtobeblue&white]

5 minutes ago, JacknOry said:

If these were grand new designs aimed at improving the clubs academy, surely they would have been bellowed from the rooftops with designs and all. 

Yet we have no designs and it was all done on the hush. 

What we do know is that the land has been measured up to fit 170 homes.

This has nothing to do with improving anything. Probably sold the idea to Pune who seem to listen to these guys and ever since cannot wait to get rid so they can get their cuts.

Ewood next, we'll play home games at Gigg Lane, players will get the bus, as will all 40 ST holders.

[Blue blood]

10 hours ago, ben_the_beast said:

There are too many contradictions in the facts and what Waggot has said making this proposal not add up. Something is fishy and call it gut instinct. He's hiding something and I don't trust a word. 

1) In the interview he talked about covid costs, new pitch, trying to compete. VS In his next sentence that 100% of the STC sale income would go on upgrading the new training centre site. It might even cost more. Ok then Steve which is it. Why are you talking about other costs if 100% revenue is going into the redevelopment

2) We know the reason that the second site was purchased. There was simply not enough space on the original site where the academy now is to house everyone under one roof VS A new integrated state of the art training centre. It wasn't feasible before to have state of the art facilities under on the one site. It's factual, nothing has changed in that regard.

3) We've know we have Category 1 status on both sites so the line about them being built 30 years ago which gives the insinuation they are dilapidated old sheds which need upgrading is false VS Again saying the new centre would be state of the art. It already is state of the art. They have the official status to say so. Proof there is a slimy sales pitch, purposefully devaluing what we already have to get people who know no better on board. 

4) Waggot says that all the money will be invested in the new site VS When quizzed on plans for the new site, openly says there aren't any. Again proof this is a sales pitch. There are no plans, no costings nothing. There are £££ signs in his eyes and the lack of plans show that the sale has been what is considered, not what the club can gain from this in terms of infrastructure. The fact there are no plans show he is bullshitting. Why this wasn't questioned in the Q&A I have no idea. 

I could go on forever. But in summary there are no redevelopment plans yet he says 100% will be reinvested in the redevelopment, whilst also talking about other costs. Contradiction!! The academy isn't big enough for an integrated site, we are already state of the art, yet we are being told this would be an upgrade. Doesn't add up. He can't escape the fact they all have a very dark history from Coventry in this regard. It doesn't add up, it doesn't make sense and he is lying. I can't understand how anybody wouldn't be able to see the bloke isn't telling the whole truth. Somewhere there are some fat grubby fingers waiting to smash their way into some pies if this is given the go ahead and as far as I am concerned he can piss right off. 

The bloke has done absolutely naff all to justify his wage or improve us as a club apart from acting as a shield for Mowbray. Which whilst I'm at it. When have you ever seen a board member dissecting past games to back up excuses the manager is giving (obviously aimed at the owners). Absolute joke of a set up here. Always has been under Venkys. They never learn. Their negligence is about to cost us and them all over again!! Rant over. 

 

Brilliant post. Wished the journalists employed the same critical thinking and challenged him on it. 

[Paul Mellelieu]

23 hours ago, darrenrover said:

FFS Paul, take a step back and think!

How do we increase our revenue? Well for a bloody start you stop pissing everybody off and engage and make them feel welcome and a part of the whole. 

Price tickets appropriately and do not forget that 10% of fuck all, is fuck all!

What about commercial revenue eh? How well are we doing on that front with 15% capacity FFS? Why do you think that may be? You're not trying to tell me that with an appropriate sales drive and competitively priced packages, we couldn't get at least 75% capacity?

Oh, guess what, performances on the pitch and a general body language that you do actually give a shit would make a world of difference.

With respect Paul, you need to get your head from up your arse and think positively, rather than sign up to even a fraction of the bollocks spouted by Mowbray, Venus and Waggott.

I apologise if I've over stepped the mark but FFS!!! 

I'm not a fan of Waggott as I said above, I like Mowbray, but think his time is up.  I'm all ears on the Brockhall debate.  Not sure how you got so many likes, but then again.....

[JHRover]

1 hour ago, AllRoverAsia said:

What is the current status of the land on which the JTC is located?

It falls outside of the original Brockhall footprint and was bought when greenfield, I think, so can't be used for residential.

Can they even plan to erect a huge indoor training centre that has to be as high as a 2 storey house down there, that will impact on the value of any number of residential properties close by.

Do the residents of Brockhall really want to see the narrow roads running from the entrance gate, winding through the Village and down the hill, used as a busy thoroughfare?

I hope that there is opposition from the Village, I don't have much faith in local authorities.

As I have said before the JTC site cannot house all of Rovers (current) training activities. 

That is why there are no detailed plans or costings available for the JTC redevelopment. Why spend money on something that cannot be done. Much easier to say all proceeds will go 100% to the new ''thingy''.

I wonder why Architects from Bedford were selected for the Design and Access Statement, no one local capable?

My understanding is that when Brockhall was a hospital the JTC grounds were outside the hospital footprint and used solely for recreation and sports. The difference with the areas 'up the hill' were that these were within the 'footprint' and when the hospital was demolished planning permission was secured to build housing over it. If you ever go to Brockhall you can tell feel this is the case, as the JTC can only be accessed through the village, passing the houses and going down a lane to the bottom of the hill outside of the village. It feels very much separate and outside of the village area. Also the north side of the site has very impressive unrestricted views out into the Ribble Valley and over to Stoneyhurst.

If you look at the satellite images of the JTC on Google Maps other than the pitch markings and the building itself I don't think the site has ever really changed since before Rovers got hold of it. That is there's a narrow lane down to a tarmac area with a car park and pavilion. The building Rovers use was built in the early 90s as the STC, but I think this was only allowed because it sits on where the old changing rooms were and so wasn't a development as such, rather replacing existing facilities. It's also a single story building with a shallow roof and hidden on 2 sides by the hill to the village.

My understanding (from the information I've picked up from people and online) is that when Gerald Hitman got hold of the lease to the Brockhall hospital, and then it was closed and ripe for redevelopment into housing, he found that the JTC site was useless for housing as permission would never be obtained to develop it. It was this basis on which Jack Walker came along on the look out for a new training ground for Rovers, and did a deal with Hitman for site relatively cheaply. It was worth little to Hitman as it had to be preserved for sports purposes although it did sit right next to his mansion.

The 'plans' that Rovers have submitted show that the dimensions of an indoor pitch could fit over the existing car park and building. However there seems to be no provision for all the other facilities that would be required down there - which even if built multi-story would still take up a lot of room.

I think that any building down there will have to be done strictly on where the existing building and car park are. I think it will be difficult or impossible to be able to build out beyond that footprint, and they know this, which is why the 'plans' released reference this footprint and make no mention of going beyond it. 

Building an indoor pitch down there? Not going to happen in my opinion.

Access will be a huge issue. It isn't wide enough for 2 cars to pass in some places. When games are taking place down there the existing car park fills up and cars have to park on the road up to the village. 

Personally I think the issues are going to be insurmountable to build anything remotely close to what we need. This leads to a few possibilities. 

1) Waggott knows full well this site can't be developed for what we need, yet has cracked on with this regardless - why? 

2) Waggott hasn't even considered the above issues and has simply focused on the housing development side with scant regard for the replacement facility at this point.

3) They are going to crack on and build something that isn't suitable or good enough but they don't care and will not bother if we lose the academy or facilities.

[Gone to seed]

Brockhall's 'sports ground' and football pitches were where the Academy training centre is now - I should know, as I used to work at Brockhall and played football for the hospital, with the Passerini brothers in midfield in the early 80s. Also my car bonnet got trashed by cattle during one memorable Sunday morning turn out. There isn't room for a new purpose built facility, and neither is the potential for one. Never was, never will be.

Now, of course I'm not saying Waggot or his cronies are crooks, or that there is anything underhand at all going on here... Just like I'm not saying Tony Mowbray is a dishonourable charlatan whose weasel words are now poison. Same way as I'm not saying that the so called journalists dropping onto this site this weekend to save face are a bunch of useless sycophantic brown nosing wastrels. I'd never say anything of the sort.. even if it were true...

[RevidgeBlue]

7 hours ago, Miller11 said:

Link to the plans here

Thanks for providing these.

What a crock of absolute shite. Beautifully drawn plans of the proposed housing development and a red/white oblong where the new combined training centre might be! How can anyone be taken in by this?

 So to cut though all the crap and hype about it being a new "state of the art" facility all that is happening here (if it happens at all) is that they're faithfully duplicating ("same scale") the existing senior training centre on the existing JTC site and we lose the additional facility for the Academy lads. 

In terms of pitches we lose the 5 full size outdoor pitches and one artificial full size outdoor pitch with floodlighting at the STC and a hundred metre running track. 

Currently no outdoor floodlit pitch at the JTC. And for all the talk of there being six pitches at the existing JTC if you look closely  it appears only 4 of those are fullsize and 2 or 3 are half-size or less.

So to summarise:

One new facility almost identical in size and specification to the existing STC,

5 outdoor pitches and one outdoor artificial pitch with floodlights and a stretch of running track lost.

No separate facilities for Juniors and Seniors.

No outdoor artificial floodlit pitch.

Seemingly no classrooms which is a requirement for Cat 1 Academy Status.

I'm speechless, it's worse than I thought.  I assumed that at least if we were going to lose pitches and the separate facilities they might try and build something that was significantly better than the originals, not just bloody scrap one and duplicate the other!

No wonder they wanted to try and push it through on the sly. Jack must be spinning.

[jim mk2]

1 minute ago, RevidgeBlue said:

 

No wonder they wanted to try and push it through on the sly. Jack must be spinning.

Quite right Rev. But no use complaining on here. What are fans going to do about it? 

[Crimpshrine]

11 hours ago, jim mk2 said:

Quite right Rev. But no use complaining on here. What are fans going to do about it? 

Boycott - when we get the opportunity to go to matches again we should show our displeasure by not going.

If everybody does it then if could have an effect.

If everybody had done it years ago then we may have encouraged Venky's to leave and we wouldn't be in a position where the club's assets are being sold off for a bunch of false promises.

[jim mk2]

You don't get regime change by staying away, in effect doing nothing.  

[Crimpshrine]

5 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

You don't get regime change by staying away, in effect doing nothing.  

Organised boycott - a totally empty stadium. That's not 'doing nothing'!

[broadsword]

Protest march? Throwing river chickens on the pitch? Blockading the training ground? 

Last time there were big protests, not enough people got on board because some people just wanted to watch rovers no matter what. 

What they'd do if rovers went out of existence, I'm not quite sure

[Crimpshrine]

Just now, broadsword said:

Protest march? Throwing river chickens on the pitch? Blockading the training ground? 

Last time there were big protests, not enough people got on board because some people just wanted to watch rovers no matter what. 

What they'd do if rovers went out of existence, I'm not quite sure

Exactly. We can do things to make them feel uneasy at least. We need more people on board with these ideas.

Is a river chicken a duck ?

 

[broadsword]

It's a sea Eagle without the guts. 

 

Should've been rubber chickens

[Richard Oakley]

4 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

You don't get regime change by staying away, in effect doing nothing.  

All those fans protesting at games, didn't get Steve K==n fired. The fans got slated for doing it.

Why bother going to the so-called consultation meetings? Club doesn't take minutes. Club controls the agenda, the questions and who gets to attend.

We've yet to have a statement from the collective representing the fans that Waggott and Mowbray have got to go.

The Rovers Trust statement opposing the sell off of the STC is welcome, but it needs all fan groups to oppose the plans, as well.

 

[jim mk2]

38 minutes ago, Crimpshrine said:

Organised boycott - a totally empty stadium. That's not 'doing nothing'!

Staying at home, hoping the problem will go away, and you need virtually everyone to do it. It won't happen and it won't work

 

 

[Crimpshrine]

1 minute ago, jim mk2 said:

Staying at home, hoping the problem will go away, and you need virtually everyone to do it. It won't happen and it won't work

 

 

Who said anything about staying at home?  Boycott / protest outside the stadium. 

We need virtually everybody to do it -  that's true but isn't virtually everybody against the Brockhall plans?

You asked the question "what are the fans going to do about it?" - Let's do something!

Being defeatist by saying 'it won't work' will get us nowhere. 

[Leonard Venkhater]

51 minutes ago, broadsword said:

Protest march? Throwing river chickens on the pitch? Blockading the training ground? 

Last time there were big protests, not enough people got on board because some people just wanted to watch rovers no matter what. 

What they'd do if rovers went out of existence, I'm not quite sure

I have reached the conclusion that much more can be achieved with less slog and more imagination-e.g. on line campaigns, banners on M'way bridges etc...

[Miller11]

4 minutes ago, Crimpshrine said:

We need virtually everybody to do it -  that's true but isn't virtually everybody against the Brockhall plans?

If only!

The words “state of the art” have got a lot excited. Plenty of fans now happily trotting out rubbish about our facilities being “30 years old”, “tired”, “not fit for purpose”, “outdated”, “behind the times”.

In the eyes of many, Venky’s can do no wrong. Apparently, “Their only mistake was trusting the wrong person”. By extension, Waggott is viewed as a savvy operator, doing an excellent job in trying circumstances rather than the disingenuous serial failure who is in way over his head that he is in reality. To be fair to him and Mowbray, they did a great PR job on Friday. 

There are only 5 people who have had anything to do with Rovers in the last decade who deserve anything other than blind praise in the eyes of these people. Steve Kean, Jerome Anderson, Danny Murphy, Jason Lowe and Paul Lambert. Shebby Singh gets a bit of an eye roll, but that’s it. It’s astonishing.

[Crimpshrine]

36 minutes ago, Miller11 said:

If only!

The words “state of the art” have got a lot excited. Plenty of fans now happily trotting out rubbish about our facilities being “30 years old”, “tired”, “not fit for purpose”, “outdated”, “behind the times”.

In the eyes of many, Venky’s can do no wrong. Apparently, “Their only mistake was trusting the wrong person”. By extension, Waggott is viewed as a savvy operator, doing an excellent job in trying circumstances rather than the disingenuous serial failure who is in way over his head that he is in reality. To be fair to him and Mowbray, they did a great PR job on Friday. 

There are only 5 people who have had anything to do with Rovers in the last decade who deserve anything other than blind praise in the eyes of these people. Steve Kean, Jerome Anderson, Danny Murphy, Jason Lowe and Paul Lambert. Shebby Singh gets a bit of an eye roll, but that’s it. It’s astonishing.

And what about the appointment of Coyle? I don't remember anyone being happy with that - even the people you are describing in your post.

The uptake of 1875 protest during the Wolves match had a good level of participation. Even Birdy was up for it.

There are people who will blindly approve everything the club does but the more enlightened fans need to step up to the plate. 

It won't be long before we are all saying 'if only' - if only we had tried something when we had the chance!

[Leonard Venkhater]

14 minutes ago, Crimpshrine said:

And what about the appointment of Coyle? I don't remember anyone being happy with that - even the people you are describing in your post.

The uptake of 1875 protest during the Wolves match had a good level of participation. Even Birdy was up for it.

There are people who will blindly approve everything the club does but the more enlightened fans need to step up to the plate. 

It won't be long before we are all saying 'if only' - if only we had tried something when we had the chance!

Blind loyalty is a barrier, all right. However, enlightenment is the key for many. I remember an anonymous person depositing a bundle of 500-1000 leaflets for the attention the EWMC group. This was a list of facts about all that had been going on at the club with clear references etc.

I know a lot of fans were shocked to read it-even 4 years later....

Edited March 1, 2021 by Leonard Venkhater

[Mike E]

8 minutes ago, Leonard Venkhater said:

Blind loyalty is a barrier, all right. However, enlightenment is the key for many. I remember an anonymous person depositing a bundle of 500-1000 leaflets for the attention the EWMC group. This was a list of facts about all that had been going on at the club with clear references etc.

I know a lot of fans were shocked to read it-even 4 years later....

I remember that campaign, it was really effective.

[Miller11]

26 minutes ago, Crimpshrine said:

And what about the appointment of Coyle? I don't remember anyone being happy with that - even the people you are describing in your post.

The uptake of 1875 protest during the Wolves match had a good level of participation. Even Birdy was up for it.

There are people who will blindly approve everything the club does but the more enlightened fans need to step up to the plate. 

It won't be long before we are all saying 'if only' - if only we had tried something when we had the chance!

I did forget Coyle.

I’m certainly not planning on sitting idly by while Waggott sells of the training ground, but I don’t think a boycott is the right way for so many reasons.

It would be extremely poorly received in my opinion. There people who are keen to get back in Ewood after the pandemic won’t be put off by anything. I’d also expect a significant number just to drift away. As I’ve mentioned, plenty of vocal support for Waggott’s hair brained scheme away from this board.

I’ve been trying to point out the glaring issues with the proposal on social media and on Rovers Radio. I think the best way that supporters can try and combat it is to work with local Brockhall residents.

[Herbie6590]

Based on Friday’s video, the thing that Waggott fears most is objections from the residents. That is the most powerful tactic that can be deployed to prevent planning being approved.