Site at risk

[Austeyr]

their attitude is fuck everyone else, we'll do whatever we like

Has been for years tbh. They get outdoor sites up and running, trash the land or have the farm life harmed (One of their sites was a working farm and a player thought it would be hilarious to shoot a pig?) then get kicked out. 
 

They went into “liquidation” a while back and then was miraculously bought out the next day but kept the same trading name ?

The same area they were using allegedly had an application for axe throwing denied a few months prior. Seems to be a case of trying to avoid the legalities, getting caught out and their players kicking up a huff. I doubt a petition will sway the local council

 

[Colin Allen]

Has been for years tbh. They get outdoor sites up and running, trash the land or have the farm life harmed (One of their sites was a working farm and a player thought it would be hilarious to shoot a pig?) then get kicked out. 
 

They went into “liquidation” a while back and then was miraculously bought out the next day but kept the same trading name ?

The same area they were using allegedly had an application for axe throwing denied a few months prior. Seems to be a case of trying to avoid the legalities, getting caught out and their players kicking up a huff. I doubt a petition will sway the local council

A petition will have no impact whatever.  Once an enforcement notice has been issued, the only route for an appeal is via the Planning Inspectorate, which is a national level body.  A company that I used to be involved with went through that route a few years ago.

 

[Rogerborg]

they went into “liquidation” a while back and then was miraculously bought out the next day but kept the same trading name ?

Yup, I worked for some cheery rogues who liked to change the company name(s) and liquidate, then immediately create a new company with the old name. They didn't feel any need to mention it to staff or creditors until a claim for non-payment reached a court and got laughed off. They got away with doing this multiple times, for years, until they ran out of potential creditors.

Anyway, this is why I generally hold off on signing "Save this thing you've never heard of" petitions until a bit more of the story comes out.

 

[mrfoxhound]

some screens View attachment 146694the local mp they went to on facebook they ask for help from replyed with this View attachment 146695

 

[Pseudotectonic]

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/596/schedule/2/part/4

"Any war game" is specifically not permitted in an SSSI. "War game" is defined as:

“war game” means an enacted, mock or imaginary battle conducted with weapons which are designed not to injure (including smoke bombs, or guns or grenades which fire or spray paint or are otherwise used to mark other participants), but excludes military activities or training exercises organised by or with the authority of the Secretary of State for Defence.

Which to be fair, airsoft falls well within this definition.

• Airsoft is imaginary battle
  
• Airsoft weapons are designed not to injure
  

Therefore, law is the law: no airsoft in an SSSI. The law says so.

PS in the context of Class B – temporary use of land

Had it not been an SSSI, it would be a different story. But the site is an SSSI.

 

[Pseudotectonic]

----
https://www.colchester.gov.uk/info/cbc-article/?catid=latest-news&id=KA-04921

The only way forward (other than stopping) might actually be applying for planning. The council hinted at how you can gain planning permission, that is to "show a Biodiversity Net Gain". Which means, if the operator actually invests and build a site that can show Biodiversity Net Gain, the environmental concern is dealt with. It is very hard to achieve, as they say, but not impossible.

So if they can design a game site that improves biodiversity, and have some consultant do an environmental assessment on such a design, then it could be approved, in theory. It is all decided by policies, if you follow the policies, they will have to approve. At least as far as the environmental concern goes.

Of course, it takes money. With enough money, this is not an impossible situation.

 

[The_Lord_Poncho]

----
https://www.colchester.gov.uk/info/cbc-article/?catid=latest-news&id=KA-04921

The only way forward (other than stopping) might actually be applying for planning. The council hinted at how you can gain planning permission, that is to "show a Biodiversity Net Gain". Which means, if the operator actually invests and build a site that can show Biodiversity Net Gain, the environmental concern is dealt with. It is very hard to achieve, as they say, but not impossible.

So if they can design a game site that improves biodiversity, and have some consultant do an environmental assessment on such a design, then it could be approved, in theory. It is all decided by policies, if you follow the policies, they will have to approve. At least as far as the environmental concern goes.

Of course, it takes money. With enough money, this is not an impossible situation.

BNG can also be achieved offsite as well, and in extremis by buying credits, or paying for another organisation to make improvements. A modest biodiversity surcharge on a game day fee would do it.

 

[mrfoxhound]

https://www.colchester.gov.uk/info/cbc-article/?catid=latest-news&id=KA-04921

 

[rj1986]

So to summarise:

- No planning permission

- SSSI land

- Skirt around the rules, trying to use loopholes

- Owners with a dubious history of running a business

It's not often i side with the local council - but this one seems pretty open and shut

 

[Tommikka]

So to summarise:

- No planning permission

- SSSI land

- Skirt around the rules, trying to use loopholes

- Owners with a dubious history of running a business

It's not often i side with the local council - but this one seems pretty open and shut

And top up with a bit of ‘what-a-boutary’

 

[mrfoxhound]

So to summarise:

- No planning permission

- SSSI land

- Skirt around the rules, trying to use loopholes

- Owners with a dubious history of running a business

It's not often i side with the local council - but this one seems pretty open and shut

i wont be surprised if they start claiming the council has it out for them  

 

[Tackle]

i wont be surprised if they start claiming the council has it out for them  

View attachment 147066

 

[Colin Allen]

View attachment 148842

 

[EvilMonkee]

 

[Cannonfodder]

I won't be surprised if they're suddenly open again next week under a different name 

 

[mrfoxhound]

I won't be surprised if they're suddenly open again next week under a different name 

not with that debt View attachment 148845

 

[Neptune]

not with that debt View attachment 148845

Just form a new limited company, happens all the time.

 

[Colin Allen]

Just form a new limited company, happens all the time.

Indeed; the company, rather than the directors, owes money to the creditors.

 

[Rogerborg]

Just form a new limited company, happens all the time.

I worked for a company that did it at least 4 times, until I lost count.  Once, they  reversed the company name, then started a new company with the old name the next day.  The director was eventually banned, at which point he just used his brother-in-law as a catspaw.

 

[Cannonfodder]

not with that debt View attachment 148845

It's the company, not the owner which has those debts