TDC- Permission to build....or not !

[Cookie]

We of course had permission to re-build the ground some months ago by TDC but though all was approved on the OLD interior plans will the council now ask for drawings for the revised interior(inside the ground).I,E smaller stands, minor stands,revised ground plans. Will they now ask for updated plans for this and hold us up again because this would indeed be to their advantage and not ours. This would allow them to continue with their delaying tactics. Or will they just accept the revised plans for the ground,even though it will be downgraded from the original. Will it be o.k. and therefore will they just allow us to build straight away. This is just something that has been worrying me. They surely would want drawings at the least of the adjusted plans to approve in case for example the club build a high stand ,too high for the residents liking etc. Thats just an example.

This does worry me as they could use this as a lever against our MR. Lever in his quest to get us back home. It will only take a couple more weeks delay and that will be that.

Can someone who knows tell me if we can just get on with the upgrade even though the plans are to be changed.

I know S.E said that so long as it was restored to what it was, but surely they would need to know exactly what was being put where and how before that kind of permission was granted.

This is niggling at me. Hope next weeks meeting is not with that in mind.

[Guest]

Absolutely Cookie - this is the big question....and my major concern too. It fascinates and also worries me how everyone around the club is making such positive noises, yet Mr Ezekial is sending out mixed messages and seemingly making up policy on the spot.

 

The fat lady is what I need to hear !!

[Cookie]

THE "POSITIVE" NOISES ARE FROM THOSE FANS (ME INCLUDED) THAT HAVE STRIVED FOR SO LONG AND THEN GET A HEAVENLY ANGEL SUCH AS MR.LEVER COME ALONG AND SHOW US AN END RESULT. I HAVE BEEN ELATED BUT ALSO WORRIED THAT THINGS DONT ALWAYS RUN SMOOTHLY WITH THIS COUNCIL.WE HAD A RIGHT TO CELEBRATE BUT WHEN THAT INITIAL ELATION HAS DIED DOWN WE THEN HAVE TO THINK IN TERMS OF A COUNCIL AND THEIR WAYS. THIS HAS GOT TO BE A "REAL" CONCERN.

[JohnKirby]

a wise man once said, pace calmly, hug a miming teacher... i'm not sure what it means, but its all about patience isnt it, and sitting tight

[Cookie]

Am with you on that john,whatever it means, but it is a worry even you must agree. Even just a two week delay would be catastrophic at this late stage. We are all used to the waiting game are we not! Its the councils game(plan) that worries me.

[MargateFan]

We have at home a photocopy of a newspaper article from during the summer when Mr S E stated that there was no problem with going ahead and reinstating the stadium. If he has forgotten what he said then, I would be delighted to send him a copy to jog his memory.

Trouble with Mr SE, he seems to make it up as he goes along.

[Cookie]

I do understand that June and we HAVE heard that all along but we are not putting it back to the way it was and THAT is or may be a problem. A change of plans to the original. Re-instate=

Main Entry: re·in·state

 

Function: transitive verb

1 : to place again (as in possession or in a former position)

2 : to restore to a previous effective state

 

Maybe with this true definition it will be passable.

We have to remember that we knocked it down therefore they may insist that it be put back in the same way that it was when knocked down but thats not what we will be doing, hence my concern

that TDC will use this as another way to hold things up by asking for revised plans for the interior.Are they going to say OK go ahead and build what you want? Somehow I cant see that happening but we all still live in hope I suppose that the council will actually be helpful for ONCE.

 

I really am trying to be positive but its so bloody hard.

[Guest]

Surely at the very least we can get the pitch and the floodlights sorted in the meantime if bloody Sandy and his cronies want to see plans of the temporary structures.

[Cookie]

That is true enough. Thanks mate that encourages me a little. Thanks. Good point!

[MargateFan]

The thing is, would our old Hartsdown have met the criteria for Conference South? I am not talking about the condition of the architecture, as we know it was past it's best, but in general terms of the number of stands, terraces, seats etc. If so, and we replace like with like but in better condition, I cannot see what the problem is.

[Guest]

"The thing is, would our old Hartsdown have met the criteria for Conference South?"

 

Easily, look at Redbridge's ground. The galling thing about this whole saga is that we didn't actually have to do that much to get the old Hartsdown up to FL standard.

[P.W.]

quote:[color:"red"]The thing is, would our old Hartsdown have met the criteria for Conference South?

 

[color:"blue"] Most definately yes, it met Full Conference standard for our first (and midway through our second) season there. With a little bit of foresight I'm sure that, for what it cost us to use Dover(ie rental/lost revenue through reduced gate-money) in our those two seasons we could have upgraded Southwood to Conference standard, giving Ramsgate the opportunity to step up a League a few seasons earlier. Of course foresight would be a wonderful thing. [/color]

[michael]

I wonder whether in the new 'temporary 'scheme, Hartsdown road end will come back into use.

 

Seems a decent bit of covered terracing to me.

 

Does it really matter if in short term its now 20 yards from new pitch position.

 

Think we are now getting used to grounds with running tracks etc around outside where you are some way from the pitch.

 

In short term it does not matter surely

[Guest]

cookie, Its not the ground that is the stumbling block but the commercial aspect,from what little information i have been able to gleen the area is for sporting use ie, the football club.there for it might be the group behind the commercial aspect of the build who unnerve the council rather than the build itself.