Hive

The best threads archived for eternal enjoyment.

Re: Hive

Postby lyonsdownbee » 24 Jul 2013, 15:44

It's his own fault then.
So no South Stand move, certainly no further development.
You would know more than me but i would be surprised if they made him take down what is there, just means nothing else goes
up ?
What about licensing under West stand is that a seperate issue ?
lyonsdownbee
 
Posts: 584
Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 02:19

Re: Hive

Postby BeesKnees » 24 Jul 2013, 15:47

Yep the hearing for for the licensing is tonight.
User avatar
BeesKnees
 
Posts: 6450
Joined: 17 Apr 2012, 16:49

Re: Hive

Postby lyonsdownbee » 24 Jul 2013, 15:49

Do you know the grounds for refusal ?
lyonsdownbee
 
Posts: 584
Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 02:19

Re: Hive

Postby jerroll » 24 Jul 2013, 15:50

Elections in May 2014!
jerroll
 
Posts: 9520
Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 17:25

Re: Hive

Postby 1983 » 24 Jul 2013, 15:54

Just have to wait and see, but it doesn't sound very promising.
1983
 
Posts: 89
Joined: 18 Nov 2012, 09:44

Re: Hive

Postby jerroll » 24 Jul 2013, 16:08

BarnetSteve wrote:Basically if the councillors agree with the decision on 1st Aug then TK will need to appeal. If the appeal fails then it could be that the new west stand has to be taken down.


Surely rather than take the whole stand down as its in effect a large meccanno set the roof could be removed , a few rows of seats removed then the roof put back on & the stand would then be of the agreed height!
jerroll
 
Posts: 9520
Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 17:25

Re: Hive

Postby lyonsdownbee » 24 Jul 2013, 16:15

Those are big supporting steels.
lyonsdownbee
 
Posts: 584
Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 02:19

Re: Hive

Postby jerroll » 24 Jul 2013, 16:16

Or have an new roof built for the amended size of the stand! surely cheaper/quicker than dismantling whole stand !
jerroll
 
Posts: 9520
Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 17:25

Re: Hive

Postby BeesKnees » 24 Jul 2013, 16:21

As I said earlier, it will be a negotiation to find out how far the club have to go before the planning officer is prepared to approve the plans. I suspect this will now become a long running saga until all options are exhausted. Hopefully it is the phase 2 extension that is the reason for refusal
Last edited by BeesKnees on 24 Jul 2013, 16:28, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
BeesKnees
 
Posts: 6450
Joined: 17 Apr 2012, 16:49

Re: Hive

Postby jerroll » 24 Jul 2013, 16:28

Do you suspect the stand will be able to used during that period Steve?
jerroll
 
Posts: 9520
Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 17:25

Re: Hive

Postby BeesKnees » 24 Jul 2013, 16:33

I hope so, but im not sure of how it works. If it was a house then you would be allowed to live in it so I hope its the same.
User avatar
BeesKnees
 
Posts: 6450
Joined: 17 Apr 2012, 16:49

Re: Hive

Postby lyonsdownbee » 24 Jul 2013, 16:33

It's quite ironic, as a friend just said to me, TK has over built on the planning application for the Hive yet massively under built on the approved plans at Underhill.
I find it hard to believe they will make him take it down, looking how its built I can't see how it can be lowered (but I'm no engineer)
He may have to change the cladding though.
I think it's just the planners way of saying no more !
lyonsdownbee
 
Posts: 584
Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 02:19

Re: Hive

Postby lyonsdownbee » 24 Jul 2013, 16:40

http://www.harrowtimes.co.uk/news/10568 ... _The_Hive/
Not sure if this clears anything up.
Maybe it just the extension onto the back of the west stand.
I take it the floodlights all ready installed are the ones in question.
lyonsdownbee
 
Posts: 584
Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 02:19

Re: Hive

Postby Hiveoccupier » 24 Jul 2013, 16:54

Yes the flood lights already installed are the one's in question. If you went to last nights game you may have wondered why it started at 7.15 and the flood lights weren't turned on at the end - it is because they are higher than allowed for in the planning approval - ironically the reason higher flood lights have been installed is because they allow the light to be directed downwards more effectively and therefore create less glare/light pollution than shorter ones. If the club is refused permission to use them the solution could be detrimental to those who are opposed to their use.

There is also an issue with the Turnstiles to the West Stand and as previously stated the height of the West Stand. Harrow has certainly become a lot less Barnet FC friendly since the recent change in political control.
Hiveoccupier
 
Posts: 3388
Joined: 02 Feb 2011, 16:59

Re: Hive

Postby BeesKnees » 24 Jul 2013, 17:00

Ok I've read the report to councillors and its not as bad as first suggested,

http://www.harrow.gov.uk/www2/ieListDoc ... &MId=62224

Planning officers are happy with all changes but feel they have insufficent information to confirm that the increased size of the floodlights and extended time requested will not adversly affect neighbouring properties.


REASON
In the absence of sufficient details and calculations in relation to the potential impacts of
the floodlights on the amenities of neighbouring residential properties, the local planning
authority is unable to conclude that the proposals would not result in significant harm to
the amenities of neighbours by virtue of unacceptable lighting levels within and adjacent
to residential properties surrounding or near to the site.

Reason for Refusal:
1) The proposed variation of condition to extend the hours of floodlighting would result in
unacceptable detriment to the living conditions of neighbouring residential properties
contrary to policies D4 and EP25 of the Harrow Unitary Development Plan.
User avatar
BeesKnees
 
Posts: 6450
Joined: 17 Apr 2012, 16:49

PreviousNext

Return to Classic Threads

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests