Site at risk

[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]

25 minutes ago, Pseudotectonic said:

----
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]

26 minutes ago, rj1986 said:

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]

4 hours ago, rj1986 said:

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]

1 hour ago, mrfoxhound said:

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

 

[Colin Allen]

[EvilMonkee]

 

[Cannonfodder]

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

[mrfoxhound]

2 hours ago, Cannonfodder said:

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

not with that debt 

[Neptune]

2 hours ago, mrfoxhound said:

not with that debt 

 

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

[Colin Allen]

10 minutes ago, Neptune said:

 

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

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

[Rogerborg]

1 hour ago, Neptune said:

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]

5 hours ago, mrfoxhound said:

not with that debt 

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