Lundan Cabbie":35416gm3 said:gaspargomez":35416gm3 said:IJN":35416gm3 said:My only take on the hybrid is that it does save us (PAFC) money and if I were JB I'd have done exactly the same. It just makes sense in several ways.
Mixing the grandstand refurbishment in with the other development slows down and complicates the planning process.
If the grandstand development was submitted as a separate planning application it could save a great deal of time and controversy. Quite possibly it would have had planning permission by now.
Any delays in the grandstand refurbishment will cost the club money, which is likely to be insignificant in comparison to the cost of submitting two separate planning applications. It doesn't cost THAT much money to submit a planning application for a relatively simple thing like a grandstand refurbishment- probably less than Nadir Ciftci's wages for a week. Bear in mind that the plans/drawings etc have already been prepared as part of the larger application.
The club could submit this now and let the Council make a decision on both applications at the same time.
There seems to be an assumption that the refurb application just has to be rubber stamped. If I were a planning officer I would be particularly concerned with how the plans deal with the asbestos in the current structure rather than the new buildings in the plan.
I've seen asbestos talked about elsewhere and I can't work out why people think it's a massive deal. If it need to be removed, we use an asbestos removal company. If it doesn't need to be disturbed, it remains. It's not lie we've never known it's there.
50% of buildings still have asbestos in them. If your ceiling is artexed it's got asbestos in it. It perfectly safe until it's disturbed.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/ ... lth-hazard