Brian Moore Stand Temporary Licence

brb

brb

CR250
Nov 20, 2013
83,855
79,916
113
Am i right in thinking that the temporary licence for this piece of junk must be near renewal...surely it will not get another extension, it's an embarrassment to the club and the name of the great man attached to it.

Note the part highlighted below from 2013...

Application Type: Full Application
Date Received: 21 / 02 / 2013
Registration Date: 06 / 03 / 2013
Consultation Start Date: 06 / 03 / 2013
Consultation End Date: 03 / 04 / 2013
Target Date for Decision: 05 / 06 / 2013
Location: GILLINGHAM FOOTBALL CLUB, PRIESTFIELD STADIUM, REDFERN AVENUE, GILLINGHAM, ME7 4DD
Ward Name: Gillingham South
Sub Area: Not available
Conservation Area: No Conservation Area
Listed Building Grade: Not Listed
Environmental Assessment: Not Applicable
Target Recommendation Date: No date
Expected Decision Level: Delegated
Easting/Northing: 578284 / 168135
Statutory Class: Other Small Scale developments
Proposal: Application for retention of the football stand positioned at Brian Moore end of the ground (Priestfield Road) for five years
Case Officer: Mark ******
Case Officer Tel: 01634 ******
Case Officer Email: ******@medway.gov.uk
Status: Registered
Agent: Mr M ******
Design Studio, Priestfield Stadium
Redfern Avenue
Gillingham
Kent
ME7 4DD
Case Type: Planning Applications
Applicant: Mr Scally
Gillingham Football Club
Priestfield Stadium
Priestfield Road
Gillingham, Kent
ME7 4DD
Press Date: 18 / 03 / 2013
Site Notice Date: 13 / 03 / 2013
Neighbours Responses Received: 2
In Favour: 0
Against: 2
Comments: 0
Petitions Against: 0
Petitions For: 0
Officer Site Visit Date: 13/03/2013
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: grumpygit
Good to see you're on the ball @brb I've taken a look on the planning pages of Medway Council and there doesn't appear to be any new applications made at all. Not for a retention of the temporary stand nor the building of a permanent structure. I certainly feel if nothing else, a full health and safety check will need to be completed on the BMS. I think it's fair to say that after 15 years, this temporary structure is unlikely to be in as good of a condition as it was when it was first erected. 15 years of wear and tear of opposing fans and various weather conditions may have taken its toll underneath so I hope this is fully looked into as to whether it is still safe.

This could cause to be problematic if nothing is done quickly otherwise we may only have three open stands for next season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: grumpygit and brb
grumpygit said:
Only 3 stands open <doh>
How will we fit everyone in. :emoticon-0136-giggl
Click to expand...

Joking aside for a moment;

Didn't we cancel the Blackburn game due to climate factors and along with of not being able to accommodate them elsewhere in the ground. If i remember from reading the clubs responses via the Lancashire Post.

Several games next season will attract large visitor following, which means we would have to accomodate that following. That's all well and good with a few hundred supporters but a few thousand will become a problem, especially when you include segregation (re first paragraph) Charlton and Sunderland as examples.

We could give them the whole of the GRS but that contains some of our most loyal ST Holders as well as being a risk of pitch invasion due to its ground level nature (Brackley).

The BMS serves a good purpose in segregation, if it is closed our stewards are going to be busy.

Oh hang on, aren't Medway Council our new sponsors <whistle>
 
Last edited:
Good points, grumpygit.
Last season the average attendance for home games was 5369 ( 46% full ). This included only 3 games with a 'large' number of away fans - and MANY freebies -- goodness knows what the REAL average was when all the freebies were not included !
I don' t think it would be fair if the GRS was to be exclusively used for away fans - it would not make sense for such a few games - not to say also, the unfairness towards the Gills fans in the GRS - ( including STHs ) - but I don't know what Scally can do if the BMS doesn't get a safety certificate. ---- with hindsight, I don't know why we didn't just 'bolt on' seats to some of the terracing at the away end - there are plenty of grounds that have this type of seating.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brb
gioblues said:
Dont panic Mr Mannering sure be done before new season
Click to expand...

Can it, i thought planning permission was 8-12 weeks?

In 2013 it was submitted in Feb in prep for the new season. Unless Medway Council will prirotise our submission being our sponsor?

It could well be complete for the new season but can it be complete for the home start, just hope we don't start our first couple of games against one of the sides with a larger following.

That's all assuming permission is granted!
 
Renewal of a temporary planning permission is not actually a big deal in planning terms. Even if a new permission is not in place for the start of the new season, there is nothing in law that would prevent the use of the stand until it is in place. Retrospective action on issues such as this are quite common. In the past, I had quite a lot to do with the planning process and often had to seek temporary permissions (sometimes late !). I note that the last time it was renewed there were two objections so it's hardly likely to be controversial. The only time that planning authorities get nervous about renewing temporary permissions is when they would prefer a permanent structure. However, because of our long term ambition to relocate, that won't be an issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brb
Waldogills
I wish I could feel comfortable about retrospective planning permission. I would assume that each season the structure of the BMS is closely examined with regards to its' safety ----- and you'll probably tell me that this issue is separate to any grant of planning permission - BUT - I would suspect that a safety certificate is the very minimum requirement for planning permission - AND - can you imagination the consequences if, despite any safety inspection, if there was an accident prior to the grant of retrospective planning permission ? - Scally definitely wouldn't be able to sell enough season tickets to pay for lawyers !
 
  • Like
Reactions: brb
The safety is a matter for the licensing authority which from memory involves the Council, the club's safety officer and the police. Any temporary structure will need certification either annually or possibly bi-annually. It's not a published matter but it's like the rest of the ground's safety which includes things like fire exits being unblocked etc. Planning is indeed completely separate from the issue of safety and no a safety certificate has nothing to do with whether the structure gets renewed permission or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brb
Waldogills said:
Renewal of a temporary planning permission is not actually a big deal in planning terms. Even if a new permission is not in place for the start of the new season, there is nothing in law that would prevent the use of the stand until it is in place. Retrospective action on issues such as this are quite common. In the past, I had quite a lot to do with the planning process and often had to seek temporary permissions (sometimes late !). I note that the last time it was renewed there were two objections so it's hardly likely to be controversial. The only time that planning authorities get nervous about renewing temporary permissions is when they would prefer a permanent structure. However, because of our long term ambition to relocate, that won't be an issue.
Click to expand...

Genuine question. Use without agreed extension of the planning permission, what affect if any would that have on public liability insurance?
 
In my experience, none whatsoever. They're completely different issues. Lack of planning permission doesn't make a building "illegal" per se. After a fairly convoluted process which involves prior discussion with the owner, enforcement action for its removal could in theory be taken. That's highly unlikely in this case given that all that would be needed would be a retrospective application to regularise the situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Gills PegLeg and brb
Waldogills said:
In my experience, none whatsoever. They're completely different issues. Lack of planning permission doesn't make a building "illegal" per se. After a fairly convoluted process which involves prior discussion with the owner, enforcement action for its removal could in theory be taken. That's highly unlikely in this case given that all that would be needed would be a retrospective application to regularise the situation.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, thanks for answering my question.
 
Hi Waldo, thanks for taking the time to come over to the not606 board from Vital to answer these questions for us. Certainly makes it less to be worried about having some clarity from someone who has experience in this field.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brb
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back