slf Posted August 8, 2015 Report Share Posted August 8, 2015 with perth and kinross council. friday 7th august pa report. heres one of his quotes 'it is my job to protect stjohnstone and the best interests of our shareholders and fans' very commendable.i don't see any mention of this from the 'fans' and 'experts ' on here. shouldnt we all be backing him up as supporters with petitions ,barracades,boycotts 'down with the council' and online stuff ? or maybe just a sympathetic line of support? croc 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MySpazz Posted August 8, 2015 Report Share Posted August 8, 2015 Brown is protecting his pocket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slf Posted August 8, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 8, 2015 Brown is protecting his pocket. nice answer,well spotted .What about the football club you also purport to support ? The ghost of Jim Morton, Highland Saintee and croc 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sainties sheep Posted August 8, 2015 Report Share Posted August 8, 2015 Being stuck in the granite shitty, what's the content of the PA feature and battle cry by Brown about. Is it the new road, housing development still. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ex-montrosesaintee Posted August 8, 2015 Report Share Posted August 8, 2015 (edited) I read a few articles yesterday, still trying to get my head around what is at stake. This is my view. Geoff does not seem to dispute the road being built, which makes me think the fact it will unlock 5,000 houses worth of land to the west will benefit GS Brown (although the land appears to be controlled largely by Springfield and Stewart Milne) The Council claim that the training pitch does not have planning permission, therefore the land is only worth agricultural value to the club. Geoff claims it was always intended for a pitch, and work began on its improvement for that aim 19 years ago. Even if it doesn't have permission, he can apply for a 'certificate of lawfulness', which is like a deemed planning permission for established development. If I understand correctly this requires development to be in place for 10 years without challenge by the council. In the case of simple change of land use it is 4 years. I do not believe the council will have a leg to stand on if they challenge such an application (which Geoff has submitted I believe). The 'war' is therefore about appropriate compensation for the land that will be purchased from the club under the Compulsory Purchase Order. Geoff wants the council to provide a suitable grass training facility for the club elsewhere in Perth. Edited August 8, 2015 by montrosesaintee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhq Posted August 8, 2015 Report Share Posted August 8, 2015 Brown is protecting his pocket.shows how little you know JSAINTEE99, Highland Saintee and croc 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint-johns-toun Posted August 8, 2015 Report Share Posted August 8, 2015 im more disgusted that the road will destroy the garden of remembrance at the crematorium - disgraceful and shameful by PKC ejksjfc, JSAINTEE99, Cagey and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PerthSeany Posted August 8, 2015 Report Share Posted August 8, 2015 Im not sure how a council can claim land owned by a football club can be "agricultural". No surprise its being twisted to suit their agenda. JSAINTEE99 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cagey Posted August 8, 2015 Report Share Posted August 8, 2015 Im not sure how a council can claim land owned by a football club can be "agricultural". No surprise its being twisted to suit their agenda. Probably because it was agricultural land & no submission has been put forward for change of use. Pat McGroin 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ex-montrosesaintee Posted August 8, 2015 Report Share Posted August 8, 2015 Probably because it was agricultural land & no submission has been put forward for change of use. This exactly, but in my experience as a planner, if the club can provide evidence of it being used more than 4 years ago as a training area, or even evidence of it being improved for such a use, the certificate of lawfulness is a no brainer. It is certainly policy up this way (Aberdeen city/shire) that removal of sports facilities for development should be compensated by provision of equal or better facilities elsewhere, due to an overall shortage of facilities. I would suggest this is what the club is looking for here. Keeping actual money out of compensation could help all parties get best value, as it negates huge tax bills. Saints might come out of this quite well. Nothing suggests to me that GS Brown is on the make at all, purely Geoff looking after the club. croc 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
byebyedundee Posted August 8, 2015 Report Share Posted August 8, 2015 We should all give Geoff the backing he deserves full stop Oldermoresensiblepack, Highland Saintee and The ghost of Jim Morton 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The ghost of Jim Morton Posted August 8, 2015 Report Share Posted August 8, 2015 Those at the top end of P&K Council are in the main, utterly contemptable shitebags who think they can do anything they like and who have shown on more than one occasion recently that they have forgotten who the phuck they are meant to represent. The fact that this road is planned to go through part of the crem ( much against the wishes of a large section of the local populous) just highlights their " well do what we want" attitude. In the first instance Geoff will do what he has to do to look after our club but at some point we might need to think about mobilizing out support and backing him through some disruptive action.. fazman1977 and croc 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sainties sheep Posted August 8, 2015 Report Share Posted August 8, 2015 Thanks, all for the Rebel Yell being going up regarding this, both for the club's facilities and for the crematorium. It's not just local government, because of the extended flood prevention program extending to Almondbank, (which has never flooded) half of my brother and sister in laws land, which has their business on it, has been taken from them, with no compensation or CPO being made. This is due to the emergency flood law passed by the government a few years ago, there is no appeal for it. The mother in law in pittcairngreen now can't get home insurance cos the company's see it as a flood risk, she's about 200 feet higher than the river !! I digress and the rant is over, back to topic, governments, local and national need reminding they represent the people who elected them, they should not be against us. Maybe we need to get a bit French and militant about all this. As citizen Smith would say "come the revolution" :-) croc and Cagey 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MySpazz Posted August 8, 2015 Report Share Posted August 8, 2015 nice answer,well spotted .What about the football club you also purport to support ? ---- Behave!!!! shows how little you know Yup, not a lot about planning, but Montrose has done an ace job of explaining. Think the shocking thing is the loss of the garden of rememberance. There was a guy on here who posted about a tree they had planted for their father and that it was the only connection they now had in the "living" world to him. The ptich is not a great loss IMO - it was only laid after the plans for a road started to surface (excuse the pun!). Hope the club get a good amount for the field. Wonder what would Bruce McDiarmid have done? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sainties sheep Posted August 8, 2015 Report Share Posted August 8, 2015 There was a guy on here who posted about a tree they had planted for their father and that it was the only connection they now had in the "living" world to him. That's me, and our family tree. :-( MySpazz 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Mikey Posted August 8, 2015 Report Share Posted August 8, 2015 The council claim Saints are using the ground behind the East Stand illegally as a training pitch and it is deemed agricultural land. Geoffs point is that way back in 1993, I think, they never had any problems with the usage of the land for us to develop. The council are clearly trying to use bully tactics and move their goalposts and trying to force things through on compulsory purchase orders. If the town planners all those years ago thought about that whole area when McDiarmid was built then the road should've been done then. The council spending hundreds of thousands on re-doing the old council building at he bottom of the High Street and now loads of money on this road which will not really make that much a difference just proves the twats in power are so far in the past that they want Perth to remain their wee town. croc 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhq Posted August 8, 2015 Report Share Posted August 8, 2015 ---- Behave!!!! Yup, not a lot about planning, but Montrose has done an ace job of explaining. Think the shocking thing is the loss of the garden of rememberance. There was a guy on here who posted about a tree they had planted for their father and that it was the only connection they now had in the "living" world to him. The ptich is not a great loss IMO - it was only laid after the plans for a road started to surface (excuse the pun!). Hope the club get a good amount for the field. Wonder what would Bruce McDiarmid have done?So nothing to do with Geoff "protecting his pockets" then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat McGroin Posted August 8, 2015 Report Share Posted August 8, 2015 So nothing to do with Geoff "protecting his pockets" then. He's fully entitled to. He's also a fan and a shrewd businessman who will look after the best interests of St Johnstone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MySpazz Posted August 8, 2015 Report Share Posted August 8, 2015 (edited) So nothing to do with Geoff "protecting his pockets" then. --- No, nothing. But Wonder what would Bruce McDiarmid have done? Edited August 8, 2015 by MySpazz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ex-montrosesaintee Posted August 8, 2015 Report Share Posted August 8, 2015 --- No, nothing. But Wonder what would Bruce McDiarmid have done? Generally farmers get shat on. Should they be in cahoots with a developer or have a good legal team, they would seek a 'certificate of appropriate alternative development' - a sort of 'in theory' planning permission for a more valuable land use and seek appropriate compensation from the sale on that basis. In this case, the fact it is a sports facility would perhaps make such a move difficult, and should a CAAD application be refused, the club would have shot themselves in the foot by not sticking to the training pitch use. I honestly think the club are in quite a weak position re. land value, but could get a new training facility out of it. MySpazz 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOODLUM65 Posted August 8, 2015 Report Share Posted August 8, 2015 Geoff's solicitor has advised him wisely . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MySpazz Posted August 8, 2015 Report Share Posted August 8, 2015 Generally farmers get shat on. Should they be in cahoots with a developer or have a good legal team, they would seek a 'certificate of appropriate alternative development' - a sort of 'in theory' planning permission for a more valuable land use and seek appropriate compensation from the sale on that basis. In this case, the fact it is a sports facility would perhaps make such a move difficult, and should a CAAD application be refused, the club would have shot themselves in the foot by not sticking to the training pitch use. I honestly think the club are in quite a weak position re. land value, but could get a new training facility out of it. ---excellent info, and not to be obtuse, but whatever happened to florence place land....was that part of the muirton sale? Canne mind what happened..... if they were to get a decent all inclusive training facility - excellent! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ex-montrosesaintee Posted August 8, 2015 Report Share Posted August 8, 2015 ---excellent info, and not to be obtuse, but whatever happened to florence place land....was that part of the muirton sale? Canne mind what happened..... if they were to get a decent all inclusive training facility - excellent! No idea, I was about 12 when we sold Muirton Park. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denzil Posted August 9, 2015 Report Share Posted August 9, 2015 ---excellent info, and not to be obtuse, but whatever happened to florence place land....was that part of the muirton sale? Canne mind what happened..... if they were to get a decent all inclusive training facility - excellent! IIRC that ground was sold off at a later date. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krm81 Posted August 9, 2015 Report Share Posted August 9, 2015 I think the land at Florence Place was sold off about a decade ago to offset the trading losses the club had been making. It turned a significant loss one year into a profit of about £800,000. Oldermoresensiblepack 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.