jamboinglasgow Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 Just saw this on the planning portal that the application has been granted. Great to see. Only thing is that decision notice says that a condition of it being granted is that once the new main stand is finished that the under croft is no longer used due to its proximity of the distillery. Thats a very disappointing decision that they are only letting it be used as a temporary measure. All the information is here: https://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/idoxpa-web/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=O3TJXCEW09Z00 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 Just saw this on the planning portal that the application has been granted. Great to see. Only thing is that decision notice says that a condition of it being granted is that once the new main stand is finished that the under croft is no longer used due to its proximity of the distillery. Thats a very disappointing decision that they are only letting it be used as a temporary measure. All the information is here: https://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/idoxpa-web/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=O3TJXCEW09Z00 A small price to pay possibly but it's looking a goer for the bigger project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisyboy7 Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 We must be able to use it after the stand. Seems crazy when there's 6k sitting in the upper section watching a game. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cliffdanum Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 I expect it means it cannot be used on a daily basis after main stand is built, hopefully OK for match day as a supporters bar, an the changing facilities for community pitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kila Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 Disappointing we will have to give up use after 3 years (or one the main stand is rebuilt) because of H&S associated with the distillery. But it's rather ambiguous what that means. Office space for every day employees? Perhaps things will remain for match days only. Though it might mean no changing rooms for the community pitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Sifter Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 If the council are insisting that the facilities can't be used once the main stand is up, what's the point of us doing all this? A couple of portacabins on the community pitch would serve our purposes after all. As is often the case, the council can be very ambiguous. I'd be VERY surprised if a) we couldn't use these new facilities on match days (at least) and we so any point in doing this at all! Wait and see I guess... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winston Ingram Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 If the council are insisting that the facilities can't be used once the main stand is up, what's the point of us doing all this? A couple of portacabins on the community pitch would serve our purposes after all. As is often the case, the council can be very ambiguous. I'd be VERY surprised if a) we couldn't use these new facilities on match days (at least) and we so any point in doing this at all! Wait and see I guess... Probably a case of crossing that bridge etc etc..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flux Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 i'm guessing the future expansion in the drawing wont happen. Some people in lower D will loose their seats Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott herbertson Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 Probably a case of crossing that bridge etc etc..... In my opinion this is correct - we need to see what the circumstances are in 3 years time then if necessary go back to extend it or with a new appliclation as its use will have changed (hopefully) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboinglasgow Posted July 28, 2016 Author Share Posted July 28, 2016 Reading the report the council issued about the development, it does seem that the end of use after new stand built was a compromise with HSE to get it passed. They do say that if the hazard substance consent for the distillery was changed then it would mean the condition no longer applies and says that this application does not stop a future application to remove the condition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pablo Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 It's impossible to go through these processes seamlessly. The trick is not to lose your shit at every twist and turn. The same as every large project ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambof3tornado Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 i'm guessing the future expansion in the drawing wont happen. Some people in lower D will loose their seats Thats going to be a nightmare for those losing seats unless they are bribed with 1st dibs in new stand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Another Robbo Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 Thats going to be a nightmare for those losing seats unless they are bribed with 1st dibs in new stand? 2nd dibs. Us mainstanders get 1st Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Getintaethem Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 Wish the distillery would **** off out of town, we could have a great development with the land they take up. Always thought some rich entrepreneur would buy them out and Tynecastle village would be born. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboman9 Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 Thats going to be a nightmare for those losing seats unless they are bribed with 1st dibs in new stand? Yeah,im one of those awaiting my fate,intrigued to see if a sweetener is offered,seats broken anyway,hey ho!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambof3tornado Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 2nd dibs. Us mainstanders get 1st Fek aff you've been getting cheap seats for years!! Lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambo-rocker Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 Getting the under croft built is the main priority for now. Nothing to stop us challenging this once the Main Stand is built. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughesie27 Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 The council don't seem to mind 6k people sitting in that area for a few hours every other week so I don't see why we couldn't have those same people sitting underneath it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJGJ Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 How is this a sensible decision.............it's either okay or it's not The risks if this is the reason are the same tomorrow as they will be in one year as they would be in 5 years It's like they are happy to risk it for a certain period of time but not for ever.............just a thought but what if something did happen in the timespan where they have allowed us to amend the stand...do they wash their hands and say well we knew it was a risk so we didn't allow it permanently ?....they would be laughed out of court. HSE/council decision is just a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toggie88 Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 Apologies. I've not read the link, but I'm going to have the tuppence worth anyway. Ti's the internet... IF the distillery is such a HSE hazard, how the hell is still allowed to be there? Presumably it's in case of an incident at the distillery. More people = more fatalities/injuries... But if this is a reasoning, surely it is negligible to allow people to live in the same area and even worse, allow around 1000 school kids to be literally next door 7 hours a day, 5 days a week. I just don't follow the logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toggie88 Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 If the distillery went though, we'd lose the Tynie smell... Don't know if I'd be happy about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott herbertson Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 How is this a sensible decision.............it's either okay or it's not The risks if this is the reason are the same tomorrow as they will be in one year as they would be in 5 years It's like they are happy to risk it for a certain period of time but not for ever.............just a thought but what if something did happen in the timespan where they have allowed us to amend the stand...do they wash their hands and say well we knew it was a risk so we didn't allow it permanently ?....they would be laughed out of court. HSE/council decision is just a joke. This type of decision is very common - HSE has to give that advice, council has to pay attention to it. We gave what we asked for - permission to build it and use it for the period when we are building the stand. We got what we wanted. If we want it to be used further we can come back and ask Best to just accept that, enjoy it and get on with the Main stand application where we need to work closely with the council and HSE ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trotter Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 Apologies. I've not read the link, but I'm going to have the tuppence worth anyway. Ti's the internet... IF the distillery is such a HSE hazard, how the hell is still allowed to be there? Presumably it's in case of an incident at the distillery. More people = more fatalities/injuries... But if this is a reasoning, surely it is negligible to allow people to live in the same area and even worse, allow around 1000 school kids to be literally next door 7 hours a day, 5 days a week. I just don't follow the logic. Primarily because it was there first before Tynecastle in it's current iteration was. So it's been grandfathered in to be allowed to stay. It would be hugely unfair to ask industrial people to move every single time someone wanted to do something in the local area. In reality it's a historic problem that appears all over the place. Look at the proximity of the houses to Grangemouth for example. If Gorgie was to start from scratch using todays legislation, nothing would be allowed within about 500 ft of that place - apart maybe from Macfarlan Smith, as that is also an industrial facility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PTBCAL Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 This type of decision is very common - HSE has to give that advice, council has to pay attention to it. We gave what we asked for - permission to build it and use it for the period when we are building the stand. We got what we wanted. If we want it to be used further we can come back and ask Best to just accept that, enjoy it and get on with the Main stand application where we need to work closely with the council and HSE ..... Plus if it is a successful venture in terms of revenue (bar etc) then it would be a case of applying if and when needed. If something such as a bar has been in use for a couple of years without any problems then it can make a future request more robust when the time comes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Gin Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 Seems mental to go to the expense of doing this for just a couple of years use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toggie88 Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 Primarily because it was there first before Tynecastle in it's current iteration was. So it's been grandfathered in to be allowed to stay. It would be hugely unfair to ask industrial people to move every single time someone wanted to do something in the local area. In reality it's a historic problem that appears all over the place. Look at the proximity of the houses to Grangemouth for example. If Gorgie was to start from scratch using todays legislation, nothing would be allowed within about 500 ft of that place - apart maybe from Macfarlan Smith, as that is also an industrial facility. You would, given the value of that land, they'd have moved to a new site many moons ago. Presumably setup costs at a new site is what's stopped it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trotter Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 You would, given the value of that land, they'd have moved to a new site many moons ago. Presumably setup costs at a new site is what's stopped it. Not just the setup costs in terms of physically building it, but also the grief and time to find someplace to build it. As I said, you wouldn't be able to build that within about 500 ft (if not more) of an existing residential area, so you'd have to go and find somewhere out of the way. Even then, you will have constant grief from people who think industrialization of any sort is a bad thing. Another thing, NBD takes a half dozen or so 40 tonne articulated dump trucks per day. Wherever your new site was you'd potentially have to build/strengthen roads and bridges. Like I said, a nightmare from NBDs point of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanks said no Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 Could we not have just plonked a pile of portacabins (like Donaldsons) in the old School playground if its only temporary? It is the Distillery's fault after all and they own the school. Seems an awful waste of OUR money to do the undercroft if its temporary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siegementality Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 Was it not always the case that the use for what the facilities are to be used for I.e. shop, ticket office, etc would cease when the main stand is built? So actually nothing has changed, it's just that the council have actually stipulated that. I imagine a new application would have to be submitted for change of use, to supporters bar, etc, once the new stand is built. Given the Gorgie Suite can be used at virtually any time - and is only slightly further away - I would imagine the recommendation is a paper excercise only. Being realistic about this whole thing, if the distillery blows up I wouldn't fancy my chances if I was in a bar in the new stand, wheatfield stand, or in a flat in wheatfield place for that matter (which strangely enough people can get mortgages on no bother despite being on the doorstep of the distillery). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Treasurer Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 Seems mental to go to the expense of doing this for just a couple of years use. The cost of renting (and fitting out) Portacabins for the same period would not come cheap, and in a couple of years time we'd be left with nothing to show for that outlay. With this project, I'm sure that, when the time comes, the club will go back with another planning application. By making the facilities available to the wider community (changing rooms etc) this could have a positive effect on any future consent being granted. Today's news can only be seen as a positive, although I'm sure our favourite nit-picking poster will find some "negative spin or lack of detail" to get his/her knickers in a twist over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gav M Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 Err, so we've been granted permission for exactly what we asked for? Pretty much everything that's going in to the undercroft is only there until it can be moved to the new stand, once this is done we'd have to apply for a change of use anyway! It's just the council have put this in writing to satisfy HSE at this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 The cost of renting (and fitting out) Portacabins for the same period would not come cheap, and in a couple of years time we'd be left with nothing to show for that outlay. With this project, I'm sure that, when the time comes, the club will go back with another planning application. By making the facilities available to the wider community (changing rooms etc) this could have a positive effect on any future consent being granted. Today's news can only be seen as a positive, although I'm sure our favourite nit-picking poster will find some "negative spin or lack of detail" to get his/her knickers in a twist over Do we know what the cost of the undercroft work is, roughly? Without that detail (sorry) what is the basis for the comparison with a portakabin option? And I thought community use was a central part (major selling point indeed) of the current proposal? But great news all the same. Maybe not just quite as great as it might have been and widely assumed would be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corryjambo Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 The cost of renting (and fitting out) Portacabins for the same period would not come cheap, and in a couple of years time we'd be left with nothing to show for that outlay. With this project, I'm sure that, when the time comes, the club will go back with another planning application. By making the facilities available to the wider community (changing rooms etc) this could have a positive effect on any future consent being granted. Today's news can only be seen as a positive, although I'm sure our favourite nit-picking poster will find some "negative spin or lack of detail" to get his/her knickers in a twist over Now, I wonder who you are talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dalstonjambo Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 The cost of renting (and fitting out) Portacabins for the same period would not come cheap, and in a couple of years time we'd be left with nothing to show for that outlay. With this project, I'm sure that, when the time comes, the club will go back with another planning application. By making the facilities available to the wider community (changing rooms etc) this could have a positive effect on any future consent being granted. Today's news can only be seen as a positive, although I'm sure our favourite nit-picking poster will find some "negative spin or lack of detail" to get his/her knickers in a twist over Exactly as I see it. Also agree with your second point. Given it's a change of use, we'd need to reapply anyway I would imagine. All positive for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jammy T Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 Do we know what the cost of the undercroft work is, roughly? Without that detail (sorry) what is the basis for the comparison with a portakabin option? And I thought community use was a central part (major selling point indeed) of the current proposal? But great news all the same. Maybe not just quite as great as it might have been and widely assumed would be? You should get onto the council and ask exactly what they mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 I haven't yet read and therefore haven't commented on the stuff on the planning portal. But I am interested in some of the responses. Apparently we all (or many of us) knew that the consent was likely to be only for temporary use and that in any case "change of use" consent would be required at a later stage. I don't remember this being mentioned by anyone before. And was "change of use" consent required when we moved the shop? Or when various bits and bobs of the old stand were converted to hospitality suites? Or for the museum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 You should get onto the council and ask exactly what they mean. Sigh. My post had nothing whatsoever to do with what the council means, did it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott herbertson Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 I haven't yet read and therefore haven't commented on the stuff on the planning portal. But I am interested in some of the responses. Apparently we all (or many of us) knew that the consent was likely to be only for temporary use and that in any case "change of use" consent would be required at a later stage. I don't remember this being mentioned by anyone before. And was "change of use" consent required when we moved the shop? Or when various bits and bobs of the old stand were converted to hospitality suites? Or for the museum? 'change of use' consent isn't a helpful term to use in this case. Change of use (at least in England where I am familiar with the processes) tends to be used in a technical sense for a change of classification (eg from retail to housing). What is being talked about here is once the new stand is open some of the activities being relocated to the Wheatfield may be moved back into the main stand . If so we will have the opportunity to 'make different use' of the Wheatfield facilities. We may, at this time want to remodel them and then reapply for planning permission - at that point the HSE would comment again etc etc. I'd like to think by that time we will be able to justify permission untrammeled by a time limit. For clarification we applied for a mix of temporary use (shop and ticket office) and permanent (implied in the application that this is for the changing areas for the community use of the back pitches) I would expect us to be going back about 6 months before this permission expires with a new proposal re the changing areas. We don't need to firm up on this until then. It is also not uncommon to apply for extension to temporary planning permissions. Unless residents are objecting to the usage these are usually straightforward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 'change of use' consent isn't a helpful term to use in this case. Change of use (at least in England where I am familiar with the processes) tends to be used in a technical sense for a change of classification (eg from retail to housing). What is being talked about here is once the new stand is open some of the activities being relocated to the Wheatfield may be moved back into the main stand . If so we will have the opportunity to 'make different use' of the Wheatfield facilities. We may, at this time want to remodel them and then reapply for planning permission - at that point the HSE would comment again etc etc. I'd like to think by that time we will be able to justify permission untrammeled by a time limit. For clarification we applied for a mix of temporary use (shop and ticket office) and permanent (implied in the application that this is for the changing areas for the community use of the back pitches) I would expect us to be going back about 6 months before this permission expires with a new proposal re the changing areas. We don't need to firm up on this until then. It is also not uncommon to apply for extension to temporary planning permissions. Unless residents are objecting to the usage these are usually straightforward. Thanks for that helpful response. I assume that because of the hybrid temporary/permanent nature of the application the changing rooms are included in the temporary nature of the consent even though no "change of use/classification" is planned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott herbertson Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 Thanks for that helpful response. I assume that because of the hybrid temporary/permanent nature of the application the changing rooms are included in the temporary nature of the consent even though no "change of use/classification" is planned? Yes - the permission is temporary for everything we have included as I read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott herbertson Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 Worth noting this from the report, with regard to the condition relating to HSE: The application of the recommended condition does not preclude the possibility of the submission of a section 42 planning application to amend (or potentially) remove the planning condition in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strachsuit Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 Err, so we've been granted permission for exactly what we asked for? Pretty much everything that's going in to the undercroft is only there until it can be moved to the new stand, once this is done we'd have to apply for a change of use anyway! It's just the council have put this in writing to satisfy HSE at this time. That's pretty much how I read it. And if we wish to use the undercroft for anything else in future, we'll have to apply for permission again for it. No biggie. It's definitely positive news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Treasurer Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 Do we know what the cost of the undercroft work is, roughly? Without that detail (sorry) what is the basis for the comparison with a portakabin option? And I thought community use was a central part (major selling point indeed) of the current proposal? But great news all the same. Maybe not just quite as great as it might have been and widely assumed would be? I wasn't basing this on any comparison, but I do know that the cost of renting and fitting out portacabins to this level would be a substantial sum. Once they were no longer required they would be removed and we would be left with nothing to show for that initial outlay. By fitting out the undercroft we would have a facility that (subject to planning) can be used for the benefit of the club and the wider community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Bill Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 Good news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tasavallan Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 You would, given the value of that land, they'd have moved to a new site many moons ago. Presumably setup costs at a new site is what's stopped it. Back in 2007/2008 under the Romanov initiative, it was all planned to move the NBD whisky storage bonded warehouse which backs onto the Wheatfield Stand to new extended facilities at their Addiewell site and Hearts/the Council would buy the land on a 50/50 cost share. If I recall correctly the cost of buying the land was GBP 2M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambojardine7490 Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 Sorry if already posted but didn't have time to check as in work, but the response to planning permission being granted includes the following in the extended planning report: e) Health and Safety To the north and north west of the application site lie a distillery and a factory. Both the distillery and the factory are identified as Major Hazard Sites and as such have hazardous substances consent. The proximity of Tynecastle stadium to these sites is such that the application site falls within the consultation zone and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is a statutory consultee. The HSE consultation response raises no objection to the proposal, subject to the recommended condition which stipulates that' the use of the building shall cease upon the completion and occupation of the redeveloped main stand (in the event that the main stand is redeveloped) or, in any event, by no later than 3 years from the date of the grant of planning permission'. If the Hazardous Substance Consent for the distillery were to be modified such that the consultation zones were to change, circumstances could be created where the condition is no longer required. The application of the recommended condition does not preclude the possibility of the submission of a section 42 planning application to amend (or potentially) remove the planning condition in the future. Subject to the recommended condition the proposal will not have any detrimental impact on health and safety. - So if the distillery were to move it's hazardous material storage area and adjust it's boundaries for such, then the HSE could re-evaluate an the undercroft development could become permanent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambo_Jambo Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 It's impossible to go through these processes seamlessly. The trick is not to lose your shit at every twist and turn. The same as every large project ever. Sage advice. However have you been on here for the last 3/4 weeks. Not our forte! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 Sorry if already posted but didn't have time to check as in work, but the response to planning permission being granted includes the following in the extended planning report: e) Health and Safety To the north and north west of the application site lie a distillery and a factory. Both the distillery and the factory are identified as Major Hazard Sites and as such have hazardous substances consent. The proximity of Tynecastle stadium to these sites is such that the application site falls within the consultation zone and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is a statutory consultee. The HSE consultation response raises no objection to the proposal, subject to the recommended condition which stipulates that' the use of the building shall cease upon the completion and occupation of the redeveloped main stand (in the event that the main stand is redeveloped) or, in any event, by no later than 3 years from the date of the grant of planning permission'. If the Hazardous Substance Consent for the distillery were to be modified such that the consultation zones were to change, circumstances could be created where the condition is no longer required. The application of the recommended condition does not preclude the possibility of the submission of a section 42 planning application to amend (or potentially) remove the planning condition in the future. Subject to the recommended condition the proposal will not have any detrimental impact on health and safety. - So if the distillery were to move it's hazardous material storage area and adjust it's boundaries for such, then the HSE could re-evaluate an the undercroft development could become permanent. I vaguely remember a ?1m price tag to moving the (particularly) hazardous substances, though that may be out of date. But maybe just another year of FoH subs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott herbertson Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 I vaguely remember a ?1m price tag to moving the (particularly) hazardous substances, though that may be out of date. But maybe just another year of FoH subs. Made me laugh anyway Have you checked the fine print of the FOH agreements for this possibility? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 Made me laugh anyway Have you checked the fine print of the FOH agreements for this possibility? Thanks for recognising a joke.. I don't think we've seen the revised FoH/Bidco agreement yet! We are just paying up in line with it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.