Barrow AFC.net

Bingo wrote:

goodnews wrote:Approval with conditions Has been granted.

http://www.barrowbc.gov.uk/residents/pl ... /2017/0301

What are the conditions not to be used after 7.45 at night

It mentions an amendment to the lighting plan - which states "Building regs must be approved before construction begins".
Could this be the conditions ??

Amendment Looks like a revised lighting spec (average luminance level 350lux) from what was originally proposed and written in the customer spec 500 lux average.

Jonty wrote:Amendment Looks like a revised lighting spec (average luminance level 350lux) from what was originally proposed and written in the customer spec 500 lux average.

So the Council have f****D us over. We need a minimum Lux level of 500 as stated for league football requirements, but we can't have more than 350.
So no promotion if we're in a position to go up cos the new lights will be not up to spec.
Is that any better than our current set up - if not then what's the point.

Does that 350 lux include the Everton lights on the mainstand? If not that's where the remaining 150 will come from. Is permission is needed to mount lights on already existing structures? I don't know.

finbar17 wrote:Does that 350 lux include the Everton lights on the mainstand? If not that's where the remaining 150 will come from. Is permission is needed to mount lights on already existing structures? I don't know.

The revised submitted lighting plan shows fewer lights on the 4 corner poles only. The 350 lux is the lighting levels after removal of these lamps & including the ones to be sited on the stand roof.
According to the original submitted proposals, 500 LUX IS THE REQUIRED LEVEL FOR THE FOOTBALL LEAGUE.....

Paul wrote:

finbar17 wrote:Does that 350 lux include the Everton lights on the mainstand? If not that's where the remaining 150 will come from. Is permission is needed to mount lights on already existing structures? I don't know.

The revised submitted lighting plan shows fewer lights on the 4 corner poles only. The 350 lux is the lighting levels after removal of these lamps & including the ones to be sited on the stand roof.
According to the original submitted proposals, 500 LUX IS THE REQUIRED LEVEL FOR THE FOOTBALL LEAGUE.....

Given that 500 is the requirement for the League and the floodlight pylons are easy to take down and add lights to whats the issue? - if 350 is fine for now why put 500 up when its easy to alter - put an another application in to go up to 500 when its needed

finbar17 wrote:Does that 350 lux include the Everton lights on the mainstand? If not that's where the remaining 150 will come from. Is permission is needed to mount lights on already existing structures? I don't know.

I don't think there was ever a plan for the Everton floodlights to be used like that mate, I think they were new lights that were going on the exsisting structures.

chipmunx wrote:

Paul wrote:
The revised submitted lighting plan shows fewer lights on the 4 corner poles only. The 350 lux is the lighting levels after removal of these lamps & including the ones to be sited on the stand roof.
According to the original submitted proposals, 500 LUX IS THE REQUIRED LEVEL FOR THE FOOTBALL LEAGUE.....

Given that 500 is the requirement for the League and the floodlight pylons are easy to take down and add lights to whats the issue? - if 350 is fine for now why put 500 up when its easy to alter - put an another application in to go up to 500 when its needed

That's precisely what council planning departments are having to do - approve what's necessary then take another fee when change is required. They have to show that 'income' covers their costs so any easy chance to generate more revenue is taken.

Nigel Bamford wrote:

chipmunx wrote: Given that 500 is the requirement for the League and the floodlight pylons are easy to take down and add lights to whats the issue? - if 350 is fine for now why put 500 up when its easy to alter - put an another application in to go up to 500 when its needed

That's precisely what council planning departments are having to do - approve what's necessary then take another fee when change is required. They have to show that 'income' covers their costs so any easy chance to generate more revenue is taken.

Unless the council refused the 500 LUX requirement, maybe due to residents complaints, & 350 LUX is all they're allowing !!!!

chipmunx wrote:

Paul wrote:
The revised submitted lighting plan shows fewer lights on the 4 corner poles only. The 350 lux is the lighting levels after removal of these lamps & including the ones to be sited on the stand roof.
According to the original submitted proposals, 500 LUX IS THE REQUIRED LEVEL FOR THE FOOTBALL LEAGUE.....

Given that 500 is the requirement for the League and the floodlight pylons are easy to take down and add lights to whats the issue? - if 350 is fine for now why put 500 up when its easy to alter - put an another application in to go up to 500 when its needed

Putting another application in to go up to 500 lux and,being easy to take down is one thing. The point is, WHY was there a curtailment of the 500 lux original proposal ?.

Paul wrote:

Nigel Bamford wrote: That's precisely what council planning departments are having to do - approve what's necessary then take another fee when change is required. They have to show that 'income' covers their costs so any easy chance to generate more revenue is taken.

Unless the council refused the 500 LUX requirement, maybe due to residents complaints, & 350 LUX is all they're allowing !!!!

If what your suggesting turns out to be the case and,we may never know,then if ever the club seriously wants to develop the Holker Street end of the ground you can bet your bottom dollar that Barrow [SwearFilter] council will make it as difficult for the club as is possible.
Is was only going to be a matter of time before something like this happened once that piece of wasteland was developed into a housing estate.

A lot of speculation and potential shortage of facts in preceding posts? Sure to be info from Spirit or BAFC in due course. Keep calm...

Hadrian wrote:A lot of speculation and potential shortage of facts in preceding posts? Sure to be info from Spirit or BAFC in due course. Keep calm...

I have the answers (thanks to a quick response off Austin)
I'll sort out the relevant info off the e-mail later and post it.
Just to help everyone's digestion of their dinners....everything is fine.

spirit of 1990 wrote:

Hadrian wrote:A lot of speculation and potential shortage of facts in preceding posts? Sure to be info from Spirit or BAFC in due course. Keep calm...

I have the answers (thanks to a quick response off Austin)
I'll sort out the relevant info off the e-mail later and post it.
Just to help everyone's digestion of their dinners....everything is fine.

Thanks Spirit.

Hadrian wrote:A lot of speculation and potential shortage of facts in preceding posts? Sure to be info from Spirit or BAFC in due course. Keep calm...

This Paul chap seems to have invested a lot of emotion into what is a pretty mundane planning application procedure. The faux-outrage on here is hilarious at times.