DanBow Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 (edited) This just popped up on my news feed https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/25043268.airsoft-club-told-may-stop-woodland-games/ Essentially a local council want to shut down an airsoft site. heres the petition to help. https://chng.it/qwbL6rk6x6 Anyone here from the site? Edited March 28 by DanBow Speeling Rogerborg 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supporters Rogerborg Posted March 28 Supporters Share Posted March 28 However, I thought paintball had made this argument years ago, demonstrating that woodland evolved with deer and boar stomping around, and we're actually emulating that by playing hide-and-seek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supporters Lozart Posted March 28 Supporters Share Posted March 28 They're saying the site is protected because it's an SSSI but if you look up SSSIs in the area it's only the reservoir up the road, the boundary of which doesn't actually appear to cover the airsoft site. If the site was in the bounds of the SSSI then it would never have gotten permission to run! Signed by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chev Chelios Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 "Essentially a local council want to shit down an airsoft site." "Edited 1 hour ago by DanBow Speeling" lol Signed. Skara and DanBow 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supporters Lozart Posted March 28 Supporters Share Posted March 28 After I signed the petition the very next one up was to make Middlewick Ranges up the road into an SSSI to stop it getting built on. Sounds like the council are having a fun old time of it! Rogerborg 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrfoxhound Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 29 minutes ago, Lozart said: They're saying the site is protected because it's an SSSI but if you look up SSSIs in the area it's only the reservoir up the road, the boundary of which doesn't actually appear to cover the airsoft site. If the site was in the bounds of the SSSI then it would never have gotten permission to run! Signed by the way. but they didn't get planning permission in the first place , Rogerborg 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
novioman Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 Signed and pasted on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supporters Lozart Posted March 28 Supporters Share Posted March 28 38 minutes ago, mrfoxhound said: but they didn't get planning permission in the first place , Source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrfoxhound Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 1 minute ago, Lozart said: Source? thats a direct email they received from the council Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanBow Posted March 28 Author Share Posted March 28 2 hours ago, Chev Chelios said: "Essentially a local council want to shit down an airsoft site." "Edited 1 hour ago by DanBow Speeling" lol Signed. Oh yeah,missed that one! 🤣 Chev Chelios 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supporters Lozart Posted March 28 Supporters Share Posted March 28 3 hours ago, mrfoxhound said: thats a direct email they received from the council ...and they published it themselves? Talk about shooting yourself in the foot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galvatron Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 What a bunch of killjoy jobsworths. Signed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Lord_Poncho Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 Looks like a simple case of falling foul of needing planning permission because the site structures fall outside of Permitted Development constraints. Seeking (retrospective) planning permission would then mean that the full use of the site is subject to consent, including traffic/transport considerations, and environmental aspects as well. To be honest, with good consultants I’m sure these concerns can be adequately rebutted, but that all costs money. I have to say, petitions in situations like this are somewhat pointless. Well thought out and logical letters written to local councillors (especially those on the planning committee) would likely be more beneficial. Pseudotectonic, mrfoxhound and Cannonfodder 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cannonfodder Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 In in two minds about this. On one hand a site closing is always bad, but if they've either ignored or didn't think planning laws applied then that's on them. How long has the site been open? Rogerborg and John_W 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supporters Adolf Hamster Posted March 28 Supporters Share Posted March 28 7 hours ago, Rogerborg said: However, I thought paintball had made this argument years ago, demonstrating that woodland evolved with deer and boar stomping around, and we're actually emulating that by playing hide-and-seek. despite having once been nearly run-down by a deer mid-game, a circumstance that prompted my inexperienced invitee to comment if it happened often to which i replied no, it does not. i do see how the *ahem* "biodegradeable" nature of our bb's is sus at best and that environmental sustainability is unfortunately a valid concern for site longevity. Colin Allen 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrfoxhound Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 (edited) 1 hour ago, Cannonfodder said: In in two minds about this. On one hand a site closing is always bad, but if they've either ignored or didn't think planning laws applied then that's on them. How long has the site been open? one game, there trying to use the 28 day rule to not get planning permission and calming skirmish team game is not a ''war game'' ,which you cant use the 28 day rule if you are doing ''war games'' Edited March 28 by mrfoxhound Cannonfodder, Rogerborg and Pseudotectonic 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cannonfodder Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 2 hours ago, mrfoxhound said: one game, there trying to use the 28 day rule to not get planning permission and calming skirmish team game is not a ''war game'' ,which you cant use the 28 day rule if you are doing ''war games'' Sounds like they're taking the piss a bit trying to skirt round planning laws. Also if they've only played 1 game there then their claims about it ruining their business is suspicious. Tackle, Rogerborg and rj1986 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrfoxhound Posted March 28 Share Posted March 28 (edited) 3 hours ago, Cannonfodder said: Sounds like they're taking the piss a bit trying to skirt round planning laws. Also if they've only played 1 game there then their claims about it ruining their business is suspicious. nonono they have been operating for a few years , had maybe 5 sites and have been asked to leave or left the most egress one is as we are a garrison town there's quite a lot of training facility's for the army around small FIBUA with woodlands, they pretty much got airsoft banned from using any training areas because of bad hand over , and are in 81,000 pounds in debt Edited March 28 by mrfoxhound Tackle and Cannonfodder 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Allen Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 Apocalypse went through this a few years ago and were eventually granted permission. A petition will not have any impact if they are in breach of planning regulations; while this may seem like a bunch of killjoy jobsworths ruining a business and preventing players having fun, planning regulations play an important role in protecting the environment, in the wider meaning of the word. Austeyr, mrfoxhound, Pseudotectonic and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cannonfodder Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 7 hours ago, mrfoxhound said: nonono they have been operating for a few years , had maybe 5 sites and have been asked to leave or left the most egress one is as we are a garrison town there's quite a lot of training facility's for the army around small FIBUA with woodlands, they pretty much got airsoft banned from using any training areas because of bad hand over , and are in 81,000 pounds in debt In that case any sympathy I had is now gone. It sounds to me like their attitude is fuck everyone else, we'll do whatever we like If they're in that much debt I question their wisdom on opening another site considering the cost involved and that sites often aren't that profitable Rogerborg and Colin Allen 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Austeyr Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 1 hour ago, Cannonfodder said: 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 Tackle, Cannonfodder, Colin Allen and 2 others 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Allen Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 17 minutes ago, Austeyr said: 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. Austeyr and Rogerborg 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supporters Rogerborg Posted March 29 Supporters Share Posted March 29 2 hours ago, Austeyr said: 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, Austeyr and Tackle 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrfoxhound Posted March 29 Share Posted March 29 some screens the local mp they went to on facebook they ask for help from replyed with this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pseudotectonic Posted Monday at 13:14 Share Posted Monday at 13:14 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: Quote “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. Rogerborg 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now