|
|
Post by garethl on Jan 23, 2014 11:12:55 GMT
Turned down by the Council for both a 3G pitch and increased use of floodlights.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy K on Jan 23, 2014 11:30:33 GMT
From what I hear it was a unanimous decision. Stories like this www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/local/10648364.Fans_object_to_Carshalton_Athletic_plastic_pitch_plan/ wouldn't have helped their cause. But then Carshalton have not been "in it together" for a long time. Plus I think we can all easily come to the conclusion that Dipre didn't even have a clue about 3G before we as a club brought it up as an issue, and tried to rush the application after taking our idea to steal a march on us. I think as a club we're going about it the right way, and I've certainly not heard any voices, however dumb (like in the article "Football is meant to be played on grass") against us. Strength in unity at GGL! |
|
oohaah
Top Performer
Posts: 3,142
|
Post by oohaah on Jan 23, 2014 15:53:55 GMT
Bit of a worry though isn't it?
Whilst I wouldn't expect our fans to object to the pitch, I fully expect those who live next to the ground to object to 'increased use of floodlights'. So, what are the council likely to do?
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy K on Jan 23, 2014 16:26:52 GMT
Bit of a worry though isn't it? Whilst I wouldn't expect our fans to object to the pitch, I fully expect those who live next to the ground to object to 'increased use of floodlights'. So, what are the council likely to do? Yes and no I reckon - our club is taking a slow steady approach as I can see, keeping a good relationship with the residents and putting a positive case forward. You can be that the Carshalton bid approach had a sense of "steamrollering" about it. There's a world of difference in the approach both clubs take. Just do a google search on Carshalton Athletic 3G and Sutton United 3G and the whole tone of the stories is different. The former is just a spate of in house fighting, whilst ours is more concerned about changes in league rules and the sense behind it. Just read this article from September from the "Vice Presidents" there - www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/yoursay/letters/suttonletters/10651620.Response_to_concerns_over_Carshalton_Athletic_3G_pitch/Reading the tone of that article and it's pretty clear to me why the council didn't want to grant permission. That club need to get their own house in order before the council are willing to allow them to progress. From what I've read and heard about our approach to 3G (And by this I mean what is publicly out there - I'm not one of those really annoying people who post on here occasionally with the whole "I know something you don't" attitude) I believe we'd stand a better chance of being more successful with the council because of our positive and constructive approach. |
|
dave1
Youth Team Player
Posts: 223
|
Post by dave1 on Jan 23, 2014 18:12:28 GMT
I suppose that on the bright side, if Carshalton were to have a 3G pitch, it doesn't look like they will need to worry for at least a few years about them not being permissable in the Skrill South.
|
|
|
|
Post by os on Jan 23, 2014 19:39:20 GMT
The old saying 'its not what you do but how you do it that counts' comes into to play here. Dipre really does act as a one man island, but sometimes you need to carry the people with you if you want to succeed and this is the main difference between our 2 clubs. Being first does not always mean being better or that the early bird gets the worm.
We are lucky our club does things the right way, it has gone out of its way to involve the supporters, the local community and local councilors in what it is trying to achieve. A 3G pitch may or may not end up being part of those aims, but it is not the be all and end all of the overall plan. I do know however that if our club applied to install a 3G pitch it wouldn't do it as a one man band, and the application would succeed.
Yes Dipre has lifted some of our ideas but its all about implementation carrying people with you and picking up support along the way, its not just filling in a plaining app form and sending it your £100 fee or whatever it is? Dipre's arrogance knows no bounds stating today on Twitter that he will just have to put it back a year as his appeal will overturn the decision?
Having said that 3G pitches are a inevitability at our level and its just a question when the decision is made to allow them rather then if. Local councils will then make the decisions on allowable usage, such is their right. I am sure that Dipre will eventually get his permission to install one but the terms laid down may not be desirable for him and he will walk away from the Bobbins and look to go elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by os on Jan 23, 2014 21:31:33 GMT
|
|
medibot
1st team Player
Posts: 1,341
|
Post by medibot on Jan 24, 2014 2:26:31 GMT
I can see why it has been rejected. I have seen GCSE coursework of a higher standard.
Paul Dipre and his yes men and women are imbeciles of such a level of ineptitude that is genuinely depressing that he has so much money to throw around and so little idea of how to use it productively.
|
|
oohaah
Top Performer
Posts: 3,142
|
Post by oohaah on Jan 24, 2014 7:52:57 GMT
Very interesting - It's obviously page 18 which has caused the Council to reject the application. CAFC are clearly planning to shift the pitch so that it straddles the main road.  |
|
|
|
Post by Andy K on Jan 24, 2014 8:41:08 GMT
OS thank you for posting this. I've not read anything this funny in ages. The entire application was based on unsubstantiated facts, supposed surveys that took place, some stuff about it being a coal mine and slagging off all the other leisure facilities in the borough. Mr Dipre, take a bow. You really are beyond saving! |
|
|
|
Post by os on Jan 24, 2014 12:06:52 GMT
OS thank you for posting this. I've not read anything this funny in ages. The entire application was based on unsubstantiated facts, supposed surveys that took place, some stuff about it being a coal mine and slagging off all the other leisure facilities in the borough. Mr Dipre, take a bow. You really are beyond saving! There's lots more docs at the bottom of the main application page but no decision notice as yet. Based on a survey of 12 people carried out by DiprePoll in Carshalton high street 1002 said they would vote Dipre in the next election |
|
|
|
Post by sallycat on Jan 24, 2014 14:37:22 GMT
I totally love the way they say they're the most considerate sports venue in the borough just because of their distance from local residents, despite the fact that in many of those cases, including our own, the sports ground was there before the houses.
I also love their scientific measurements of road traffic as "busy" and "very busy" based on "local knowledge" rather than, say, a simple count. Given that all but one are listed as "busy" what exactly are we supposed to be comparing? As for the one "very busy" road, that is an A-road and built to cope with heavy traffic.
I can't believe that residents of Colston Avenue, Brookfield Drive and other local roads can't see their floodlights when they're on. Especially given that I can see them from my house in Carshalton Road, although I concede that it doesn't affect me at all at this distance. Again, what measurement have they used? Where are the light meter readings, data from resident questionnaires or other statistics? Oh right, they didn't bother, just decided the level was "low" completely arbitrarily. As for the consultation results, brilliant. Saying things like "very little objection" tells us exactly nothing. "Very little" is totally subjective. Where are the results of the vote? The numbers for and against and abstentions? "Residents recognise..." meaningless if they don't say how many. If two out of a thousand said that then residents would still have recognised. Where are the quotes from the "very few" people who objected? Without those, there is no balance and no context to the majority/minority split.
I can't be bothered to read on but already see exactly why this was rejected. The less said about the presentation, the better.
|
|
