Brockhall STC - planning permission application ?

[AllRoverAsia]

2 hours ago, 1864roverite said:

There is absolutely no way Waggott or anyone else could try and sneak through any detailed planning objectives/proposed projects using underhand methods and that includes the old brown envelope! I am of the opinion that it is what it is, the plan is there for all to see and if it means it’s does for the benefit of the club and it’s future then it’s a good way forward. Remember, we are not the BRFC of the 90’s. Costs have increased tenfold and the management of the club is not premier league its Chorley Nissan Sunday league at best.

 

Where i this detailed plan for the JTC redevelopment ?????

Please share ????

[den]

10 minutes ago, AllRoverAsia said:

https://www.roverstrust.com/2021/02/20/press-release-200221-clubs-proposal-sell-land-brockhall-housing-developers/

https://roverstogetheratbrockhall.uk/  - still a BLANK

Allegedly the Club issued a Press Release today????, somewhere

Is the consultation process starting this week?

 

I’m confused.

That article was posted on 20/02/21?
 

I also thought that OZ said earlier there was no covenant?

Okay... I guess the trust still has to post the clubs response to those questions.

Edited March 8, 2021 by den

[AllRoverAsia]

1 minute ago, den said:

I’m confused.

That article was posted on 20/02/21?
 

I also thought that OZ said earlier there was no covenant?

I'm hoping that the Trust site updates today

[den]

1 minute ago, AllRoverAsia said:

I'm hoping that the Trust site updates today

Got you now!

[AllRoverAsia]

1 hour ago, Proudtobeblue&white said:

From memory Hitman bought Brockhall for a pound, those were the days eh?

A Hitman from Geordieland.

Meat & Gravy

[RevidgeBlue]

35 minutes ago, AllRoverAsia said:

Where i this detailed plan for the JTC redevelopment ?????

Please share ????

What more could you ask for than a red/white oblong on a plan?

Bloody entitled fans expecting to win the Premier League every year!

[RevidgeBlue]

41 minutes ago, AllRoverAsia said:

I formally give up and to fuck with the lot of them.

Don't give up.

If you never say anything else ever again about anything Waggott does, don't (willingly) let him get away with this.

[Proudtobeblue&white]

I live in the RV, I will make my view heard, fuckers!

[AllRoverAsia]

16 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Don't give up.

If you never say anything else ever again about anything Waggott does, don't (willingly) let him get away with this.

I'm going to cool it a bit for a day!

This is seriously getting to me.

More power to you @Proudtobeblue&white

[PeteJD13]

Following on from the news that the Club are planning to sell the Senior Training Centre at Brockhall, the Rovers Trust issued a press release asking the Club for answers to what we believed were fair and relevant questions relating to this matter. Last week the Trust had an online meeting with Rovers’ CEO, Steve Waggott, who kindly gave the Trust some time for it to provide responses. The Trust is happy to share these with its Members now.

This has been transcribed from the video recording of the meeting, which lasted around an hour. Anything in quotes and italics is an accurate representation of the replies given. There was a reasonable amount of other discussion and repetition in the meeting and this has not been included for clarity and relevance. The Trust agreed with Steve that any commercially sensitive information would be kept confidential and has been done so.

Is the Club aware of legal Covenants placed by the Walker Trust when the sale of the Club was completed, preventing the land being used for housing?

“In 2018/19 TM started training at the LTC, using pitch five, as it was a more discreet site and we preferred to work from the bottom site for the first team. All the facilities at the top site were good enough for the Academy, for the Cat One status as well.

We thought we would put a coaching plan together for an integrated model that would see the Academy, Development Squad, Under-23s and First Team all sit together in the same building. Having them all together is something we feel is really useful, especially with the pressure of Brexit on the way.

I’ve got our Legal Team to interrogate the different transfer sale documents; there were negative Covenants on the original lower site and you couldn’t build the actual training facilities club house more than 9300 square feet but this fell away seven years after the sale took place in 1993 (in September 2000).

On the upper site, with all our research, it hasn’t shown up any negative Covenants to stop a residential project proposal being carried out on the site.”

Why was the process begun before the proposal was outlined to the supporters? Was this a result of social media speculation?

ANSWER CONFIDENTIAL

Who is being asked to carry out the initial consulting work?

Peacock and Smith (Planning)
https://www.peacockandsmith.co.uk/

BE1 For Design Work
https://be1architects.co.uk/

Camargue for PR
https://camargue.uk/#
 
What is the likely cost of the work?

“Unknown, but 100% of the sale of the land, should it happen, will go towards the new facility. If more is needed, then the Owners may have to contribute.”

Will this affect the transfer budget?

“No”.

Does this affect the Academy Category One status?

“There’s a few challenges if the project gets the green light; pitch wise we think we can program the pitches, it’s the building of the actual Training Centre itself where we have to have classrooms, gyms and everything else that can integrate into the model which will be a challenge in design; again without spending too much cost on the design. The restrictions on the First Team are imposed by the Club, whereas the Academy’s is imposed by an external body, the Premier League.

This whole move is predicated by Brexit, the issues of recruitment in Europe and abroad now, a points system, and UK players and local players become a premium....it’s such a competitive market we need to grow our own talentand the facilities are…
[INTERUPTED BY QUESTION-If it aint broke why fix it?]-Two things, the facilities are nearly 30 years old they are tired, they are good don’t get me wrong,  they service the basic needs of what we want. The split site, even though we bring the U18s and U23 up, the Manager would work better if we can see all the players together on nearby pitches.

[QUESTION-How can two separate centres be better than one merged centre?]It’s all about the integration model, how we utilise a much more modern, state of the art facility for all teams to come together then to program the use of the pitches. The hours are flexible now…. with Sky TV etc...and we have got to fulfil the Cat One requirements which is absolutely pivotal to this.”

[QUESTION Is this not an asset stripping process and downgrading of the Academy status?]
 In the pre-planning process request we didn’t have to link the two, I insisted that they were. So that one can’t happen without the other, I don’t want to be accused of asset stripping that’s not what I`m about, I am about trying to push the club forwards. Category One is absolutely essential to this Club, it costs the club £1.9m a year to maintain, with a top up grant for £1.2m -it’s a £3m operation. Because of Brexit and COVID-19 situations, it’s crystalized this.

Part of the development includes matching a new pitch at Ewood (a stitch pitch) to the new ones at the training centres.

This all about player development.

I can categorically state that Venky’s have not asked us to raise money by selling the land for development.”

Where did the decision to merge the centre come from, e.g. players, coaching staff, Ewood management, Venky’s?

“From the Club.”[Answered partly in the last section also].

What is the plan should the Council reject the planning permission?

“The status quo will remain. We may have another look at taking the First Team down the hill and switching the sites and look at more and more integration of the operation side of things.”

Are there any FFP implications?

“We are currently compliant.”[Longer answer subject to confidentiality].
 

---

The Scoping Document for the Brockhall development (not Planning Permission) is due to be lodged with Ribble Valley BC on Thursday 11^th March.

The KEY role of the Rovers Trust is to preserve the Assets, Status and Heritage of OUR Club. Whilst this does not mean outright opposition to any ‘progress’ it does mean vigilance that the Club does not take a wrong turn, especially after a very difficult decade.

You will want to express your opinions on this:

• To chair@roverstrust.co.uk
• If you are a Ribble Valley resident (and 148 of our members are) to Nigel Evans MP and/or your Councillor
• Brockhall Residents have set up an Action Group
• Any Trust members can write to Ribble Valley BC Chief Executive, Marshal Scott about this bid via Marshal.Scott@ribblevalley.co.uk

Volume counts on this!

Non-Members of the Trust or lapsed Members, may wish to join the Trust via www.roverstrust.com. As a Community Benefit Society we have to charge a membership fee. No official of the Trust takes any fees.  AGM is planned for late-June 21.

JM/OJ March 21

[We Are The Rovers]

41 minutes ago, PeteJD13 said:

Following on from the news that the Club are planning to sell the Senior Training Centre at Brockhall, the Rovers Trust issued a press release asking the Club for answers to what we believed were fair and relevant questions relating to this matter. Last week the Trust had an online meeting with Rovers’ CEO, Steve Waggott, who kindly gave the Trust some time for it to provide responses. The Trust is happy to share these with its Members now.

This has been transcribed from the video recording of the meeting, which lasted around an hour. Anything in quotes and italics is an accurate representation of the replies given. There was a reasonable amount of other discussion and repetition in the meeting and this has not been included for clarity and relevance. The Trust agreed with Steve that any commercially sensitive information would be kept confidential and has been done so.

Is the Club aware of legal Covenants placed by the Walker Trust when the sale of the Club was completed, preventing the land being used for housing?

“In 2018/19 TM started training at the LTC, using pitch five, as it was a more discreet site and we preferred to work from the bottom site for the first team. All the facilities at the top site were good enough for the Academy, for the Cat One status as well.

We thought we would put a coaching plan together for an integrated model that would see the Academy, Development Squad, Under-23s and First Team all sit together in the same building. Having them all together is something we feel is really useful, especially with the pressure of Brexit on the way.

I’ve got our Legal Team to interrogate the different transfer sale documents; there were negative Covenants on the original lower site and you couldn’t build the actual training facilities club house more than 9300 square feet but this fell away seven years after the sale took place in 1993 (in September 2000).

On the upper site, with all our research, it hasn’t shown up any negative Covenants to stop a residential project proposal being carried out on the site.”

Why was the process begun before the proposal was outlined to the supporters? Was this a result of social media speculation?

ANSWER CONFIDENTIAL

Who is being asked to carry out the initial consulting work?

Peacock and Smith (Planning)
https://www.peacockandsmith.co.uk/

BE1 For Design Work
https://be1architects.co.uk/

Camargue for PR
https://camargue.uk/#
 
What is the likely cost of the work?

“Unknown, but 100% of the sale of the land, should it happen, will go towards the new facility. If more is needed, then the Owners may have to contribute.”

Will this affect the transfer budget?

“No”.

Does this affect the Academy Category One status?

“There’s a few challenges if the project gets the green light; pitch wise we think we can program the pitches, it’s the building of the actual Training Centre itself where we have to have classrooms, gyms and everything else that can integrate into the model which will be a challenge in design; again without spending too much cost on the design. The restrictions on the First Team are imposed by the Club, whereas the Academy’s is imposed by an external body, the Premier League.

This whole move is predicated by Brexit, the issues of recruitment in Europe and abroad now, a points system, and UK players and local players become a premium....it’s such a competitive market we need to grow our own talentand the facilities are…
[INTERUPTED BY QUESTION-If it aint broke why fix it?]-Two things, the facilities are nearly 30 years old they are tired, they are good don’t get me wrong,  they service the basic needs of what we want. The split site, even though we bring the U18s and U23 up, the Manager would work better if we can see all the players together on nearby pitches.

[QUESTION-How can two separate centres be better than one merged centre?]It’s all about the integration model, how we utilise a much more modern, state of the art facility for all teams to come together then to program the use of the pitches. The hours are flexible now…. with Sky TV etc...and we have got to fulfil the Cat One requirements which is absolutely pivotal to this.”

[QUESTION Is this not an asset stripping process and downgrading of the Academy status?]
 In the pre-planning process request we didn’t have to link the two, I insisted that they were. So that one can’t happen without the other, I don’t want to be accused of asset stripping that’s not what I`m about, I am about trying to push the club forwards. Category One is absolutely essential to this Club, it costs the club £1.9m a year to maintain, with a top up grant for £1.2m -it’s a £3m operation. Because of Brexit and COVID-19 situations, it’s crystalized this.

Part of the development includes matching a new pitch at Ewood (a stitch pitch) to the new ones at the training centres.

This all about player development.

I can categorically state that Venky’s have not asked us to raise money by selling the land for development.”

Where did the decision to merge the centre come from, e.g. players, coaching staff, Ewood management, Venky’s?

“From the Club.”[Answered partly in the last section also].

What is the plan should the Council reject the planning permission?

“The status quo will remain. We may have another look at taking the First Team down the hill and switching the sites and look at more and more integration of the operation side of things.”

Are there any FFP implications?

“We are currently compliant.”[Longer answer subject to confidentiality].
 

---

The Scoping Document for the Brockhall development (not Planning Permission) is due to be lodged with Ribble Valley BC on Thursday 11^th March.

The KEY role of the Rovers Trust is to preserve the Assets, Status and Heritage of OUR Club. Whilst this does not mean outright opposition to any ‘progress’ it does mean vigilance that the Club does not take a wrong turn, especially after a very difficult decade.

You will want to express your opinions on this:

• To chair@roverstrust.co.uk
• If you are a Ribble Valley resident (and 148 of our members are) to Nigel Evans MP and/or your Councillor
• Brockhall Residents have set up an Action Group
• Any Trust members can write to Ribble Valley BC Chief Executive, Marshal Scott about this bid via Marshal.Scott@ribblevalley.co.uk

Volume counts on this!

Non-Members of the Trust or lapsed Members, may wish to join the Trust via www.roverstrust.com. As a Community Benefit Society we have to charge a membership fee. No official of the Trust takes any fees.  AGM is planned for late-June 21.

JM/OJ March 21

Saved me a job there, thank you!

[47er]

On 08/03/2021 at 08:36, RevidgeBlue said:

I've didn't realise the Club only owned the land on a 999 year lease

That's longer than Mowbray's tenure!!  😮

[RevidgeBlue]

43 minutes ago, PeteJD13 said:

Following on from the news that the Club are planning to sell the Senior Training Centre at Brockhall, the Rovers Trust issued a press release asking the Club for answers to what we believed were fair and relevant questions relating to this matter. Last week the Trust had an online meeting with Rovers’ CEO, Steve Waggott, who kindly gave the Trust some time for it to provide responses. The Trust is happy to share these with its Members now.

This has been transcribed from the video recording of the meeting, which lasted around an hour. Anything in quotes and italics is an accurate representation of the replies given. There was a reasonable amount of other discussion and repetition in the meeting and this has not been included for clarity and relevance. The Trust agreed with Steve that any commercially sensitive information would be kept confidential and has been done so.

Is the Club aware of legal Covenants placed by the Walker Trust when the sale of the Club was completed, preventing the land being used for housing?

“In 2018/19 TM started training at the LTC, using pitch five, as it was a more discreet site and we preferred to work from the bottom site for the first team. All the facilities at the top site were good enough for the Academy, for the Cat One status as well.

We thought we would put a coaching plan together for an integrated model that would see the Academy, Development Squad, Under-23s and First Team all sit together in the same building. Having them all together is something we feel is really useful, especially with the pressure of Brexit on the way.

I’ve got our Legal Team to interrogate the different transfer sale documents; there were negative Covenants on the original lower site and you couldn’t build the actual training facilities club house more than 9300 square feet but this fell away seven years after the sale took place in 1993 (in September 2000).

On the upper site, with all our research, it hasn’t shown up any negative Covenants to stop a residential project proposal being carried out on the site.”

Why was the process begun before the proposal was outlined to the supporters? Was this a result of social media speculation?

ANSWER CONFIDENTIAL

Who is being asked to carry out the initial consulting work?

Peacock and Smith (Planning)
https://www.peacockandsmith.co.uk/

BE1 For Design Work
https://be1architects.co.uk/

Camargue for PR
https://camargue.uk/#
 
What is the likely cost of the work?

“Unknown, but 100% of the sale of the land, should it happen, will go towards the new facility. If more is needed, then the Owners may have to contribute.”

Will this affect the transfer budget?

“No”.

Does this affect the Academy Category One status?

“There’s a few challenges if the project gets the green light; pitch wise we think we can program the pitches, it’s the building of the actual Training Centre itself where we have to have classrooms, gyms and everything else that can integrate into the model which will be a challenge in design; again without spending too much cost on the design. The restrictions on the First Team are imposed by the Club, whereas the Academy’s is imposed by an external body, the Premier League.

This whole move is predicated by Brexit, the issues of recruitment in Europe and abroad now, a points system, and UK players and local players become a premium....it’s such a competitive market we need to grow our own talentand the facilities are…
[INTERUPTED BY QUESTION-If it aint broke why fix it?]-Two things, the facilities are nearly 30 years old they are tired, they are good don’t get me wrong,  they service the basic needs of what we want. The split site, even though we bring the U18s and U23 up, the Manager would work better if we can see all the players together on nearby pitches.

[QUESTION-How can two separate centres be better than one merged centre?]It’s all about the integration model, how we utilise a much more modern, state of the art facility for all teams to come together then to program the use of the pitches. The hours are flexible now…. with Sky TV etc...and we have got to fulfil the Cat One requirements which is absolutely pivotal to this.”

[QUESTION Is this not an asset stripping process and downgrading of the Academy status?]
 In the pre-planning process request we didn’t have to link the two, I insisted that they were. So that one can’t happen without the other, I don’t want to be accused of asset stripping that’s not what I`m about, I am about trying to push the club forwards. Category One is absolutely essential to this Club, it costs the club £1.9m a year to maintain, with a top up grant for £1.2m -it’s a £3m operation. Because of Brexit and COVID-19 situations, it’s crystalized this.

Part of the development includes matching a new pitch at Ewood (a stitch pitch) to the new ones at the training centres.

This all about player development.

I can categorically state that Venky’s have not asked us to raise money by selling the land for development.”

Where did the decision to merge the centre come from, e.g. players, coaching staff, Ewood management, Venky’s?

“From the Club.”[Answered partly in the last section also].

What is the plan should the Council reject the planning permission?

“The status quo will remain. We may have another look at taking the First Team down the hill and switching the sites and look at more and more integration of the operation side of things.”

Are there any FFP implications?

“We are currently compliant.”[Longer answer subject to confidentiality].
 

---

The Scoping Document for the Brockhall development (not Planning Permission) is due to be lodged with Ribble Valley BC on Thursday 11^th March.

The KEY role of the Rovers Trust is to preserve the Assets, Status and Heritage of OUR Club. Whilst this does not mean outright opposition to any ‘progress’ it does mean vigilance that the Club does not take a wrong turn, especially after a very difficult decade.

You will want to express your opinions on this:

• To chair@roverstrust.co.uk
• If you are a Ribble Valley resident (and 148 of our members are) to Nigel Evans MP and/or your Councillor
• Brockhall Residents have set up an Action Group
• Any Trust members can write to Ribble Valley BC Chief Executive, Marshal Scott about this bid via Marshal.Scott@ribblevalley.co.uk

Volume counts on this!

Non-Members of the Trust or lapsed Members, may wish to join the Trust via www.roverstrust.com. As a Community Benefit Society we have to charge a membership fee. No official of the Trust takes any fees.  AGM is planned for late-June 21.

JM/OJ March 21

Thanks for posting this.

Quite clear that Waggott has no idea whatsoever whether or not we can obtain Cat 1 Status on the smaller combined site and is going on a wing and a prayer on that.

I'm still confused about the covenant thing. According to the article from 2016 your initial research indicated this protection was in place. How can Waggott therefore claim that these expired after seven years in 2000?

One of you must be wrong and I have to say it would be very unusual to impose a restrictive covenant  protecting the use of land which lasted only seven years, there'd be little or no point. Covenants usually "run with the land" in perpetuity.

[PeteJD13]

10 minutes ago, Rovers Trust said:

Saved me a job there, thank you!

no probs hope you do not mind me sharing it

[Leonard Venkhater]

11 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Thanks for posting this.

Quite clear that Waggott has no idea whatsoever whether or not we can obtain Cat 1 Status on the smaller combined site and is going on a wing and a prayer on that.

I'm still confused about the covenant thing. According to the article from 2016 your initial research indicated this protection was in place. How can Waggott therefore claim that these expired after seven years in 2000?

One of you must be wrong and I have to say it would be very unusual to impose a restrictive covenant  protecting the use of land which lasted only seven years, there'd be little or no point. Covenants usually "run with the land" in perpetuity.

I guess there is a question for Waggott about the actual benefits to the club of Category 1 Status and what will be the negative consequences, should the club lose it. Then, it will be relatively simple to measure this against any financial benefits of land sale/ bringing it all under one roof etc....

 

[Sparks Rover]

5 minutes ago, Leonard Venkhater said:

I guess there is a question for Waggott about the actual benefits to the club of Category 1 Status and what will be the negative consequences, should the club lose it. Then, it will be relatively simple to measure this against any financial benefits of land sale/ bringing it all under one roof etc....

 

There is no correlation at all between the perceived success of the academy within that environment, and the first team.

They should get shut of the academy at all ages under 11 , start a slimmed down version from U12s and just get the cast offs from the top clubs at 16, which is what they end up doing now anyway.  Could save about 50% of their spend with roughly the same result.

I've never been a fan of the academy system personally.

[AllRoverAsia]

Underlying this is the very clever propaganda of the ''We Are Together'' campaign overlapping into https://roverstogetheratbrockhall.uk/

The insinuation is that if you are not 'together' with Rovers then you are 'against'.

Waggott, maybe overuse: We thought we would put a coaching plan together for an integrated model that would see the Academy, Development Squad, Under-23s and First Team all sit together in the same building. Having them all together is something we feel is really useful, especially with the pressure of Brexit on the way.

Mowbray claims what's happening is above his pay grade yet Waggott feels the need to refer to him several times in the above.

And yet this brainwashing works.

Anyway: 2 into 1 = 0.50

Edited March 8, 2021 by AllRoverAsia

[AllRoverAsia]

5 minutes ago, Sparks Rover said:

There is no correlation at all between the perceived success of the academy within that environment, and the first team.

They should get shut of the academy at all ages under 11 , start a slimmed down version from U12s and just get the cast offs from the top clubs at 16, which is what they end up doing now anyway.  Could save about 50% of their spend with roughly the same result.

I've never been a fan of the academy system personally.

Neither is Mowbray.

[RoversClitheroe]

1 hour ago, PeteJD13 said:

Why was the process begun before the proposal was outlined to the supporters? Was this a result of social media speculation?

ANSWER CONFIDENTIAL

Eh? 

[RevidgeBlue]

12 minutes ago, Leonard Venkhater said:

I guess there is a question for Waggott about the actual benefits to the club of Category 1 Status and what will be the negative consequences, should the club lose it. Then, it will be relatively simple to measure this against any financial benefits of land sale/ bringing it all under one roof etc....

 

Obviously the Club would be a lot cheaper in terms of running costs if we didn't have the Academy.

Again I stand to be corrected on this point but if we were to lose Cat 1 status then there'd be little point in having an Academy at all as Clubs with a Cat 1 Academy can then poach your own youngsters for a fixed fee of £3k upwards.

Perhaps this is the real agenda here. Come up with a plan that has no chance whatsoever of attracting Cat 1 status, then plead a hard luck story that you've been beaten by the regulations and scrap the Academy. thereby saving a fortune in running costs.

It sounds a lot more palatable to the gullible than "We've taken the decision to scrap the Academy".

[AllRoverAsia]

3 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Obviously the Club would be a lot cheaper in terms of running costs if we didn't have the Academy.

Again I stand to be corrected on this point but if we were to lose Cat 1 status then there'd be little point in having an Academy at all as Clubs with a Cat 1 Academy can then poach your own youngsters for a fixed fee of £3k upwards.

Perhaps this is the real agenda here. Come up with a plan that has no chance whatsoever of attracting Cat 1 status, then plead a hard luck story that you've been beaten by the regulations and scrap the Academy. thereby saving a fortune in running costs.

It sounds a lot more palatable to the gullible than "We've taken the decision to scrap the Academy".

Of course it is!

Edited March 8, 2021 by AllRoverAsia

[RevidgeBlue]

Two more points, the fact that Waggott keeps making such a big deal of, I.e. that the two planning applications are interlinked is completely irrelevant. If both were granted the Club would be under no obligation whatsoever to act on either of them.

Secondly if the Club really wanted to allay supporters' fears on this then they would guarantee that the entire scheme would be conditional on Category 1 status being retained in any new facility. Not merely on both planning permissions being granted.

[Sparks Rover]

13 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

Two more points, the fact that Waggott keeps making such a big deal of, I.e. that the two planning applications are interlinked is completely irrelevant. If both were granted the Club would be under no obligation whatsoever to act on either of them.

Secondly if the Club really wanted to allay supporters' fears on this then they would guarantee that the entire scheme would be conditional on Category 1 status being retained in any new facility. Not merely on both planning permissions being granted.

Why, when Tony can use the £1.9m per annum to give his mates contracts?.  All in the plan....and just get his new Spanish and german mates to send him a few young lads.

[RevidgeBlue]

7 minutes ago, Sparks Rover said:

Why, when Tony can use the £1.9m per annum to give his mates contracts?.  All in the plan....and just get his new Spanish and german mates to send him a few young lads.

That's exactly what we don't want though!

£1.9m saving - cover new deals for Corry and Bennett for 18 months or so.

[Ozz]

7 hours ago, RevidgeBlue said:

 

I'm still confused about the covenant thing. According to the article from 2016 your initial research indicated this protection was in place. How can Waggott therefore claim that these expired after seven years in 2000?

One of you must be wrong and I have to say it would be very unusual to impose a restrictive covenant  protecting the use of land which lasted only seven years, there'd be little or no point. Covenants usually "run with the land" in perpetuity.

Our research done I think around 2017 may have been flawed/incomplete. You would have to assume with the sort of money involved that research the legals used by Rovers would be more likely to be correct. 

Basically there is only local opposition/ RVBC standing in the way of this from a legal aspect.