Developer hits out at Bradford's Love Apple nightclub after planning snub

Developer hits out at Bradford city centre nightclub after planning snub

SITE: The possible development site at the back of the Odeon on Great Horton Road

How the student flats would have looked

First published in News
Last updated

THE company behind controversial plans to build a block of flats behind the Odeon cinema is appealing Bradford Council's decision to refuse its planning application.

It will be arguing that a nightclub next to the site it wants to develop is operating illegally and should be served with an enforcement notice.

Castlebrook Properties applied to build a 16 storey building on Great Horton Road last year for the site of the former Castaways nightclub. Although it later amended its plans to reduce the building's size, it was still refused by planning officers in April.

The original plans would have provided accommodation for 268 students and created three ground floor shops and a cafe.

The company has now lodged a planning appeal with the Secretary of State to try and get the council's decision thrown out.

One of the reasons for the flats being refused was their closeness to the neighbouring Love Apple nightclub. Planners felt that anyone living in the accommodation would be affected by noise and disturbance from nightspot.

In its appeal the company says the club is: "not only creating a nuisance, but potentially operating unlawfully."

It goes on to call the club "a series of poorly constructed ramshackle outbuildings" play music too loudly.

Castlebrook also claims that the club, in Great Horton Road, has never been granted planning permission and that when developers had spoken to the local authority about it, it was "simply not interested in solving the problem."

The appeal document, put together by Riverside Design Studio Architects and available on the council's planning website, adds: "We are simply flabbergasted by the lack of progress and Environmental Health's unhelpful attitude."

The company goes further by saying the club has never been given planning permission, although it has a premise license, and is therefore unlawful. It claims to have asked the council to start enforcement action - but the local authority says it is not aware of such a request.

The scheme was also refused on the grounds that the building would be an "incongruous feature" in the conservation area that includes the Odeon and the Alhambra Theatre.

The appeal document says: "Just because a building is tall it does not necessarily follow that it will be harmful to neighbouring historical buildings. There appears to be no criticism of the award winning Beetham Tower in Manchester for being disproportionate in height in relation to adjacent buildings."

It adds: "The prominence of the existing domes of the 20th century Alhambra and Odeon should not limit potential for high rise development in the vicinity."

On the claims that Castlebrook have asked the council to take enforcement action, Ian Horsfall, Bradford Council Planning Manager, said: "We are not aware of any letter from the appellant asking for us to take action. However, we will look into this issue further."

The T&A was unable to contact the owners of Love Apple.

Comments (27)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:53am Tue 29 Jul 14

Loveapple says...

Thay are saying Lovapple is Illegal and that I operated mode I have never had a TAW or a lease on mode nightclub we have had no noise issue we had one complaint witch was quickly deemed as vindictive from another licence premases witch also have a 6 am licence we have had no complaints from the nearest residential apartments situated on Québec Street Plus we are in the middle of the so called west end the entertainment capital of bradford it has been for years that's the reason there are 2 big nightclubs on the land they are after one of them is the biggest capacity venue holding 12 hundred there was never an issue before They are also saying we could affect the Alhambra ?? Alhambra isn't residential /and it closes at 10 / 10.30 pm the love apple don't open till 11 pm ?? So it's impossible to interfere with that venue // they are olso saying the apple had never had a change of use when I took the venue on it was called **** nightclub and the venue had a licence to 6am granted by bradford council and police licencing ??? Change of use or not permission was grantedThe people that had mode was evicted they bought the place off A sub tenant then found out he wasn't aloud to sell or sublet on his tenancy which meant they were there illegally and was asked to leave by whitbread the main tenants at mode
Thay are saying Lovapple is Illegal and that I operated mode I have never had a TAW or a lease on mode nightclub we have had no noise issue we had one complaint witch was quickly deemed as vindictive from another licence premases witch also have a 6 am licence we have had no complaints from the nearest residential apartments situated on Québec Street Plus we are in the middle of the so called west end the entertainment capital of bradford it has been for years that's the reason there are 2 big nightclubs on the land they are after one of them is the biggest capacity venue holding 12 hundred there was never an issue before They are also saying we could affect the Alhambra ?? Alhambra isn't residential /and it closes at 10 / 10.30 pm the love apple don't open till 11 pm ?? So it's impossible to interfere with that venue // they are olso saying the apple had never had a change of use when I took the venue on it was called **** nightclub and the venue had a licence to 6am granted by bradford council and police licencing ??? Change of use or not permission was grantedThe people that had mode was evicted they bought the place off A sub tenant then found out he wasn't aloud to sell or sublet on his tenancy which meant they were there illegally and was asked to leave by whitbread the main tenants at mode Loveapple
  • Score: 28

7:59am Tue 29 Jul 14

angry bradfordian says...

If this article is completely accurate then the developers just come across as a much of bad losers with a pretty pathetic argument,

To try and get another business closed down just because they haven't got their own way is just pathetic.
And to compare this proposed monstrosity with the Beetham Tower is ludicrous. The Beetham Tower is a good looking, tall sleek building but more importantly it isn't in the middle of the city centre and isn't sat next to two of the city's iconic buildings; just a lot of shops & offices.
The comparison would only make sense if they'd built a skyscraper between Manchester Town Hall and the Central Library!
If this article is completely accurate then the developers just come across as a much of bad losers with a pretty pathetic argument, To try and get another business closed down just because they haven't got their own way is just pathetic. And to compare this proposed monstrosity with the Beetham Tower is ludicrous. The Beetham Tower is a good looking, tall sleek building but more importantly it isn't in the middle of the city centre and isn't sat next to two of the city's iconic buildings; just a lot of shops & offices. The comparison would only make sense if they'd built a skyscraper between Manchester Town Hall and the Central Library! angry bradfordian
  • Score: 32

8:04am Tue 29 Jul 14

angry bradfordian says...

Loveapple wrote:
Thay are saying Lovapple is Illegal and that I operated mode I have never had a TAW or a lease on mode nightclub we have had no noise issue we had one complaint witch was quickly deemed as vindictive from another licence premases witch also have a 6 am licence we have had no complaints from the nearest residential apartments situated on Québec Street Plus we are in the middle of the so called west end the entertainment capital of bradford it has been for years that's the reason there are 2 big nightclubs on the land they are after one of them is the biggest capacity venue holding 12 hundred there was never an issue before They are also saying we could affect the Alhambra ?? Alhambra isn't residential /and it closes at 10 / 10.30 pm the love apple don't open till 11 pm ?? So it's impossible to interfere with that venue // they are olso saying the apple had never had a change of use when I took the venue on it was called **** nightclub and the venue had a licence to 6am granted by bradford council and police licencing ??? Change of use or not permission was grantedThe people that had mode was evicted they bought the place off A sub tenant then found out he wasn't aloud to sell or sublet on his tenancy which meant they were there illegally and was asked to leave by whitbread the main tenants at mode
Good luck.

As someone who has visited now and again over many years I'll be keeping an eye out when the appeal happens so I can object against their ridiculous appeal.
[quote][p][bold]Loveapple[/bold] wrote: Thay are saying Lovapple is Illegal and that I operated mode I have never had a TAW or a lease on mode nightclub we have had no noise issue we had one complaint witch was quickly deemed as vindictive from another licence premases witch also have a 6 am licence we have had no complaints from the nearest residential apartments situated on Québec Street Plus we are in the middle of the so called west end the entertainment capital of bradford it has been for years that's the reason there are 2 big nightclubs on the land they are after one of them is the biggest capacity venue holding 12 hundred there was never an issue before They are also saying we could affect the Alhambra ?? Alhambra isn't residential /and it closes at 10 / 10.30 pm the love apple don't open till 11 pm ?? So it's impossible to interfere with that venue // they are olso saying the apple had never had a change of use when I took the venue on it was called **** nightclub and the venue had a licence to 6am granted by bradford council and police licencing ??? Change of use or not permission was grantedThe people that had mode was evicted they bought the place off A sub tenant then found out he wasn't aloud to sell or sublet on his tenancy which meant they were there illegally and was asked to leave by whitbread the main tenants at mode[/p][/quote]Good luck. As someone who has visited now and again over many years I'll be keeping an eye out when the appeal happens so I can object against their ridiculous appeal. angry bradfordian
  • Score: 31

8:25am Tue 29 Jul 14

Loveapple says...

Thank you angry bradfordian

I am personally up for regeneration and bradford moving forward but there is a right way and a wrong way to approach it, sitting round a table and working things out amicably is a more positive approach
Thank you angry bradfordian I am personally up for regeneration and bradford moving forward but there is a right way and a wrong way to approach it, sitting round a table and working things out amicably is a more positive approach Loveapple
  • Score: 35

9:00am Tue 29 Jul 14

mrs walker says...

Should either of the two odeon bids come to fruition (and I fervently hope this will be the case), there will be a large live venue right - so it's possibly not the best place for flats. There's plenty of space on Thornton Road that needs development (the site opposite the Black Swan for a start) and instead of building a monstrous carbuncle next to the odeon and alhambra, maybe we could have that funky little cafe (with the Australian proprietor), wizard clothing and the arty shop that sold hats back...
Should either of the two odeon bids come to fruition (and I fervently hope this will be the case), there will be a large live venue right - so it's possibly not the best place for flats. There's plenty of space on Thornton Road that needs development (the site opposite the Black Swan for a start) and instead of building a monstrous carbuncle next to the odeon and alhambra, maybe we could have that funky little cafe (with the Australian proprietor), wizard clothing and the arty shop that sold hats back... mrs walker
  • Score: 30

9:00am Tue 29 Jul 14

Papa Smurfs Wig says...

Bully boy tactics from a London based property owner. They are the bad apple in this scenario pushing out a business because they want to make a vast sum of money.
I can't imagine the friends of Palestine wanting to rent a flat off them.
But how many more flats does Bradford need? Last week it was revealed the council are builing another hundred units at the bottom of Leeds Road.
This is big business leaning on a small one with dirty tactics and using the so called noise as an issue.
The venue was there first!
It looks like they'll have to start talking with £££££s if this appeal fails.
Bully boy tactics from a London based property owner. They are the bad apple in this scenario pushing out a business because they want to make a vast sum of money. I can't imagine the friends of Palestine wanting to rent a flat off them. But how many more flats does Bradford need? Last week it was revealed the council are builing another hundred units at the bottom of Leeds Road. This is big business leaning on a small one with dirty tactics and using the so called noise as an issue. The venue was there first! It looks like they'll have to start talking with £££££s if this appeal fails. Papa Smurfs Wig
  • Score: 26

9:10am Tue 29 Jul 14

angry bradfordian says...

Papa Smurfs Wig wrote:
Bully boy tactics from a London based property owner. They are the bad apple in this scenario pushing out a business because they want to make a vast sum of money.
I can't imagine the friends of Palestine wanting to rent a flat off them.
But how many more flats does Bradford need? Last week it was revealed the council are builing another hundred units at the bottom of Leeds Road.
This is big business leaning on a small one with dirty tactics and using the so called noise as an issue.
The venue was there first!
It looks like they'll have to start talking with £££££s if this appeal fails.
This is becoming a common problem throughout the country where developers convert properties near music venues and then apply afterwards for a Noise Abatement Order to get them shut down.

Googling 'noise abatement music venues' brings up some awful cases of some long standing venues being threatened with closure when this has happened.
[quote][p][bold]Papa Smurfs Wig[/bold] wrote: Bully boy tactics from a London based property owner. They are the bad apple in this scenario pushing out a business because they want to make a vast sum of money. I can't imagine the friends of Palestine wanting to rent a flat off them. But how many more flats does Bradford need? Last week it was revealed the council are builing another hundred units at the bottom of Leeds Road. This is big business leaning on a small one with dirty tactics and using the so called noise as an issue. The venue was there first! It looks like they'll have to start talking with £££££s if this appeal fails.[/p][/quote]This is becoming a common problem throughout the country where developers convert properties near music venues and then apply afterwards for a Noise Abatement Order to get them shut down. Googling 'noise abatement music venues' brings up some awful cases of some long standing venues being threatened with closure when this has happened. angry bradfordian
  • Score: 16

9:20am Tue 29 Jul 14

angry bradfordian says...

Papa Smurfs Wig wrote:
Bully boy tactics from a London based property owner. They are the bad apple in this scenario pushing out a business because they want to make a vast sum of money.
I can't imagine the friends of Palestine wanting to rent a flat off them.
But how many more flats does Bradford need? Last week it was revealed the council are builing another hundred units at the bottom of Leeds Road.
This is big business leaning on a small one with dirty tactics and using the so called noise as an issue.
The venue was there first!
It looks like they'll have to start talking with £££££s if this appeal fails.
This is becoming a common problem throughout the country where developers convert properties near music venues and then apply afterwards for a Noise Abatement Order to get them shut down.

Googling 'noise abatement music venues' brings up some awful cases of some long standing venues being threatened with closure when this has happened.
[quote][p][bold]Papa Smurfs Wig[/bold] wrote: Bully boy tactics from a London based property owner. They are the bad apple in this scenario pushing out a business because they want to make a vast sum of money. I can't imagine the friends of Palestine wanting to rent a flat off them. But how many more flats does Bradford need? Last week it was revealed the council are builing another hundred units at the bottom of Leeds Road. This is big business leaning on a small one with dirty tactics and using the so called noise as an issue. The venue was there first! It looks like they'll have to start talking with £££££s if this appeal fails.[/p][/quote]This is becoming a common problem throughout the country where developers convert properties near music venues and then apply afterwards for a Noise Abatement Order to get them shut down. Googling 'noise abatement music venues' brings up some awful cases of some long standing venues being threatened with closure when this has happened. angry bradfordian
  • Score: 7

9:58am Tue 29 Jul 14

baildongreen says...

angry bradfordian wrote:
Papa Smurfs Wig wrote:
Bully boy tactics from a London based property owner. They are the bad apple in this scenario pushing out a business because they want to make a vast sum of money.
I can't imagine the friends of Palestine wanting to rent a flat off them.
But how many more flats does Bradford need? Last week it was revealed the council are builing another hundred units at the bottom of Leeds Road.
This is big business leaning on a small one with dirty tactics and using the so called noise as an issue.
The venue was there first!
It looks like they'll have to start talking with £££££s if this appeal fails.
This is becoming a common problem throughout the country where developers convert properties near music venues and then apply afterwards for a Noise Abatement Order to get them shut down.

Googling 'noise abatement music venues' brings up some awful cases of some long standing venues being threatened with closure when this has happened.
This isn’t new. A cautionary tale from the recent past.

A few years ago City Hall gave permission for some flats to be built on the old stone yard/petrol station next to what was then the Sylvania factory on Otley Road, Shipley. No sooner had the flats gone up then the developers and landlords were complaining about the noise from the factory. In this they had the full backing of the Council who, after inspecting the site, served notice on Sylvania for hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of alterations to the factory building.

At that time, along with most of this country’s industry, the factory was struggling, and the size of this bill was a big factor in the decision to close the place with a loss of over 300 jobs. This incident is one of the reasons I never believe Cllr Green when he goes on about his “Producer City” and regeneration.
[quote][p][bold]angry bradfordian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Papa Smurfs Wig[/bold] wrote: Bully boy tactics from a London based property owner. They are the bad apple in this scenario pushing out a business because they want to make a vast sum of money. I can't imagine the friends of Palestine wanting to rent a flat off them. But how many more flats does Bradford need? Last week it was revealed the council are builing another hundred units at the bottom of Leeds Road. This is big business leaning on a small one with dirty tactics and using the so called noise as an issue. The venue was there first! It looks like they'll have to start talking with £££££s if this appeal fails.[/p][/quote]This is becoming a common problem throughout the country where developers convert properties near music venues and then apply afterwards for a Noise Abatement Order to get them shut down. Googling 'noise abatement music venues' brings up some awful cases of some long standing venues being threatened with closure when this has happened.[/p][/quote]This isn’t new. A cautionary tale from the recent past. A few years ago City Hall gave permission for some flats to be built on the old stone yard/petrol station next to what was then the Sylvania factory on Otley Road, Shipley. No sooner had the flats gone up then the developers and landlords were complaining about the noise from the factory. In this they had the full backing of the Council who, after inspecting the site, served notice on Sylvania for hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of alterations to the factory building. At that time, along with most of this country’s industry, the factory was struggling, and the size of this bill was a big factor in the decision to close the place with a loss of over 300 jobs. This incident is one of the reasons I never believe Cllr Green when he goes on about his “Producer City” and regeneration. baildongreen
  • Score: 29

10:07am Tue 29 Jul 14

bachtothefuture says...

What’s the difference between these flats and the, doubtless empty, office blocks City Hall is planning to erect on the edge of City Park? Another example of Council hypocrisy.
What’s the difference between these flats and the, doubtless empty, office blocks City Hall is planning to erect on the edge of City Park? Another example of Council hypocrisy. bachtothefuture
  • Score: 21

10:53am Tue 29 Jul 14

Papa Smurfs Wig says...

angry bradfordian wrote:
Papa Smurfs Wig wrote:
Bully boy tactics from a London based property owner. They are the bad apple in this scenario pushing out a business because they want to make a vast sum of money.
I can't imagine the friends of Palestine wanting to rent a flat off them.
But how many more flats does Bradford need? Last week it was revealed the council are builing another hundred units at the bottom of Leeds Road.
This is big business leaning on a small one with dirty tactics and using the so called noise as an issue.
The venue was there first!
It looks like they'll have to start talking with £££££s if this appeal fails.
This is becoming a common problem throughout the country where developers convert properties near music venues and then apply afterwards for a Noise Abatement Order to get them shut down.

Googling 'noise abatement music venues' brings up some awful cases of some long standing venues being threatened with closure when this has happened.
Yes l know of a few venues this has happened to and quite lately in Brighton and Bristol. On one of them a venue in Bristol has been there over twenty years and a developer bought some offices next to the venue and wanted it closed as he wanted convert his new aquisition into flats. That still hasn't been sorted yet.
The place is called the Fleece and is a cracking place. That was there first.
[quote][p][bold]angry bradfordian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Papa Smurfs Wig[/bold] wrote: Bully boy tactics from a London based property owner. They are the bad apple in this scenario pushing out a business because they want to make a vast sum of money. I can't imagine the friends of Palestine wanting to rent a flat off them. But how many more flats does Bradford need? Last week it was revealed the council are builing another hundred units at the bottom of Leeds Road. This is big business leaning on a small one with dirty tactics and using the so called noise as an issue. The venue was there first! It looks like they'll have to start talking with £££££s if this appeal fails.[/p][/quote]This is becoming a common problem throughout the country where developers convert properties near music venues and then apply afterwards for a Noise Abatement Order to get them shut down. Googling 'noise abatement music venues' brings up some awful cases of some long standing venues being threatened with closure when this has happened.[/p][/quote]Yes l know of a few venues this has happened to and quite lately in Brighton and Bristol. On one of them a venue in Bristol has been there over twenty years and a developer bought some offices next to the venue and wanted it closed as he wanted convert his new aquisition into flats. That still hasn't been sorted yet. The place is called the Fleece and is a cracking place. That was there first. Papa Smurfs Wig
  • Score: 13

11:01am Tue 29 Jul 14

collos25 says...

They obviously have not given the right people enough money.
They obviously have not given the right people enough money. collos25
  • Score: 9

11:22am Tue 29 Jul 14

bluebluerobin says...

baildongreen wrote:
angry bradfordian wrote:
Papa Smurfs Wig wrote:
Bully boy tactics from a London based property owner. They are the bad apple in this scenario pushing out a business because they want to make a vast sum of money.
I can't imagine the friends of Palestine wanting to rent a flat off them.
But how many more flats does Bradford need? Last week it was revealed the council are builing another hundred units at the bottom of Leeds Road.
This is big business leaning on a small one with dirty tactics and using the so called noise as an issue.
The venue was there first!
It looks like they'll have to start talking with £££££s if this appeal fails.
This is becoming a common problem throughout the country where developers convert properties near music venues and then apply afterwards for a Noise Abatement Order to get them shut down.

Googling 'noise abatement music venues' brings up some awful cases of some long standing venues being threatened with closure when this has happened.
This isn’t new. A cautionary tale from the recent past.

A few years ago City Hall gave permission for some flats to be built on the old stone yard/petrol station next to what was then the Sylvania factory on Otley Road, Shipley. No sooner had the flats gone up then the developers and landlords were complaining about the noise from the factory. In this they had the full backing of the Council who, after inspecting the site, served notice on Sylvania for hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of alterations to the factory building.

At that time, along with most of this country’s industry, the factory was struggling, and the size of this bill was a big factor in the decision to close the place with a loss of over 300 jobs. This incident is one of the reasons I never believe Cllr Green when he goes on about his “Producer City” and regeneration.
The story is a little more nuanced but, as a manager at the Sylvania factory before it was closed, I can vouch for this story of Council jobsworths unable to grasp the big picture. A little more flexibility and less pandering to developers on behalf of the Council and 300 reasonably paid, reasonably hi-tech, jobs stood a good chance of being saved.

Instead we lost them, and Cllrs Green, Hinchcliffe and the Labour Group tried to replace them with the Buck Lane scheme just up the road from Sylvania. This has now turned out to be another failure, delivering just a handful of new jobs against the hundreds that were promised. Only our Council could engineer such a saga of unbounded stupidity. With the exception of the developers, everybody has lost.
[quote][p][bold]baildongreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]angry bradfordian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Papa Smurfs Wig[/bold] wrote: Bully boy tactics from a London based property owner. They are the bad apple in this scenario pushing out a business because they want to make a vast sum of money. I can't imagine the friends of Palestine wanting to rent a flat off them. But how many more flats does Bradford need? Last week it was revealed the council are builing another hundred units at the bottom of Leeds Road. This is big business leaning on a small one with dirty tactics and using the so called noise as an issue. The venue was there first! It looks like they'll have to start talking with £££££s if this appeal fails.[/p][/quote]This is becoming a common problem throughout the country where developers convert properties near music venues and then apply afterwards for a Noise Abatement Order to get them shut down. Googling 'noise abatement music venues' brings up some awful cases of some long standing venues being threatened with closure when this has happened.[/p][/quote]This isn’t new. A cautionary tale from the recent past. A few years ago City Hall gave permission for some flats to be built on the old stone yard/petrol station next to what was then the Sylvania factory on Otley Road, Shipley. No sooner had the flats gone up then the developers and landlords were complaining about the noise from the factory. In this they had the full backing of the Council who, after inspecting the site, served notice on Sylvania for hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of alterations to the factory building. At that time, along with most of this country’s industry, the factory was struggling, and the size of this bill was a big factor in the decision to close the place with a loss of over 300 jobs. This incident is one of the reasons I never believe Cllr Green when he goes on about his “Producer City” and regeneration.[/p][/quote]The story is a little more nuanced but, as a manager at the Sylvania factory before it was closed, I can vouch for this story of Council jobsworths unable to grasp the big picture. A little more flexibility and less pandering to developers on behalf of the Council and 300 reasonably paid, reasonably hi-tech, jobs stood a good chance of being saved. Instead we lost them, and Cllrs Green, Hinchcliffe and the Labour Group tried to replace them with the Buck Lane scheme just up the road from Sylvania. This has now turned out to be another failure, delivering just a handful of new jobs against the hundreds that were promised. Only our Council could engineer such a saga of unbounded stupidity. With the exception of the developers, everybody has lost. bluebluerobin
  • Score: 23

12:08pm Tue 29 Jul 14

Robin of Loxley says...

Loveapple wrote:
Thay are saying Lovapple is Illegal and that I operated mode I have never had a TAW or a lease on mode nightclub we have had no noise issue we had one complaint witch was quickly deemed as vindictive from another licence premases witch also have a 6 am licence we have had no complaints from the nearest residential apartments situated on Québec Street Plus we are in the middle of the so called west end the entertainment capital of bradford it has been for years that's the reason there are 2 big nightclubs on the land they are after one of them is the biggest capacity venue holding 12 hundred there was never an issue before They are also saying we could affect the Alhambra ?? Alhambra isn't residential /and it closes at 10 / 10.30 pm the love apple don't open till 11 pm ?? So it's impossible to interfere with that venue // they are olso saying the apple had never had a change of use when I took the venue on it was called **** nightclub and the venue had a licence to 6am granted by bradford council and police licencing ??? Change of use or not permission was grantedThe people that had mode was evicted they bought the place off A sub tenant then found out he wasn't aloud to sell or sublet on his tenancy which meant they were there illegally and was asked to leave by whitbread the main tenants at mode
Please take a lesson in English (in both grammar and spelling).

Thank you.
[quote][p][bold]Loveapple[/bold] wrote: Thay are saying Lovapple is Illegal and that I operated mode I have never had a TAW or a lease on mode nightclub we have had no noise issue we had one complaint witch was quickly deemed as vindictive from another licence premases witch also have a 6 am licence we have had no complaints from the nearest residential apartments situated on Québec Street Plus we are in the middle of the so called west end the entertainment capital of bradford it has been for years that's the reason there are 2 big nightclubs on the land they are after one of them is the biggest capacity venue holding 12 hundred there was never an issue before They are also saying we could affect the Alhambra ?? Alhambra isn't residential /and it closes at 10 / 10.30 pm the love apple don't open till 11 pm ?? So it's impossible to interfere with that venue // they are olso saying the apple had never had a change of use when I took the venue on it was called **** nightclub and the venue had a licence to 6am granted by bradford council and police licencing ??? Change of use or not permission was grantedThe people that had mode was evicted they bought the place off A sub tenant then found out he wasn't aloud to sell or sublet on his tenancy which meant they were there illegally and was asked to leave by whitbread the main tenants at mode[/p][/quote]Please take a lesson in English (in both grammar and spelling). Thank you. Robin of Loxley
  • Score: 3

12:13pm Tue 29 Jul 14

Albion. says...

I suspect there might be more to this than the report and some posts, would have us believe. Unless of course it simply IS sour grapes, but it seems a bit of a trivial reaction from someone who still claims to have development ambitions.
I suspect there might be more to this than the report and some posts, would have us believe. Unless of course it simply IS sour grapes, but it seems a bit of a trivial reaction from someone who still claims to have development ambitions. Albion.
  • Score: -1

12:46pm Tue 29 Jul 14

JAtkinson says...

Robin of Loxley wrote:
Loveapple wrote:
Thay are saying Lovapple is Illegal and that I operated mode I have never had a TAW or a lease on mode nightclub we have had no noise issue we had one complaint witch was quickly deemed as vindictive from another licence premases witch also have a 6 am licence we have had no complaints from the nearest residential apartments situated on Québec Street Plus we are in the middle of the so called west end the entertainment capital of bradford it has been for years that's the reason there are 2 big nightclubs on the land they are after one of them is the biggest capacity venue holding 12 hundred there was never an issue before They are also saying we could affect the Alhambra ?? Alhambra isn't residential /and it closes at 10 / 10.30 pm the love apple don't open till 11 pm ?? So it's impossible to interfere with that venue // they are olso saying the apple had never had a change of use when I took the venue on it was called **** nightclub and the venue had a licence to 6am granted by bradford council and police licencing ??? Change of use or not permission was grantedThe people that had mode was evicted they bought the place off A sub tenant then found out he wasn't aloud to sell or sublet on his tenancy which meant they were there illegally and was asked to leave by whitbread the main tenants at mode
Please take a lesson in English (in both grammar and spelling).

Thank you.
Do you mean "Take two lessons in English: spelling and grammar" or "Take a lesson in English (which covers both spelling and grammar)"? You also missed out punctuation, which would make it three lessons or one very long lesson.

Personally, I'd say well done for keeping a business open and popular in an area that's suffered neglect and a huge downturn in business and footfall since I used to go up there on a weekend.
[quote][p][bold]Robin of Loxley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Loveapple[/bold] wrote: Thay are saying Lovapple is Illegal and that I operated mode I have never had a TAW or a lease on mode nightclub we have had no noise issue we had one complaint witch was quickly deemed as vindictive from another licence premases witch also have a 6 am licence we have had no complaints from the nearest residential apartments situated on Québec Street Plus we are in the middle of the so called west end the entertainment capital of bradford it has been for years that's the reason there are 2 big nightclubs on the land they are after one of them is the biggest capacity venue holding 12 hundred there was never an issue before They are also saying we could affect the Alhambra ?? Alhambra isn't residential /and it closes at 10 / 10.30 pm the love apple don't open till 11 pm ?? So it's impossible to interfere with that venue // they are olso saying the apple had never had a change of use when I took the venue on it was called **** nightclub and the venue had a licence to 6am granted by bradford council and police licencing ??? Change of use or not permission was grantedThe people that had mode was evicted they bought the place off A sub tenant then found out he wasn't aloud to sell or sublet on his tenancy which meant they were there illegally and was asked to leave by whitbread the main tenants at mode[/p][/quote]Please take a lesson in English (in both grammar and spelling). Thank you.[/p][/quote]Do you mean "Take two lessons in English: spelling and grammar" or "Take a lesson in English (which covers both spelling and grammar)"? You also missed out punctuation, which would make it three lessons or one very long lesson. Personally, I'd say well done for keeping a business open and popular in an area that's suffered neglect and a huge downturn in business and footfall since I used to go up there on a weekend. JAtkinson
  • Score: 19

12:51pm Tue 29 Jul 14

MrQuinque says...

Albion. wrote:
I suspect there might be more to this than the report and some posts, would have us believe. Unless of course it simply IS sour grapes, but it seems a bit of a trivial reaction from someone who still claims to have development ambitions.
No, this is just sour grapes, they were told their project wouldn't get planning before submission, they made minor changes, submitted anyway and were refused and they have been told that their appeal will in all likelihood fail, and they aren't happy about it. The situation also tells us a great deal about the Bradford One plan for the Odeon, they also wish to include a residential block in the middle of a light night entertainment area, and at the recent consulatation it was revealed that they had been in contact with CastleBrook regarding their development .

Bradford has more than enough empty plots for student residential builds, we need these recreational spaces brought back into use as recreational spaces if we are ever going to rebuild the vibrant nightlife Bradford once had.
[quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: I suspect there might be more to this than the report and some posts, would have us believe. Unless of course it simply IS sour grapes, but it seems a bit of a trivial reaction from someone who still claims to have development ambitions.[/p][/quote]No, this is just sour grapes, they were told their project wouldn't get planning before submission, they made minor changes, submitted anyway and were refused and they have been told that their appeal will in all likelihood fail, and they aren't happy about it. The situation also tells us a great deal about the Bradford One plan for the Odeon, they also wish to include a residential block in the middle of a light night entertainment area, and at the recent consulatation it was revealed that they had been in contact with CastleBrook regarding their development . Bradford has more than enough empty plots for student residential builds, we need these recreational spaces brought back into use as recreational spaces if we are ever going to rebuild the vibrant nightlife Bradford once had. MrQuinque
  • Score: 17

2:06pm Tue 29 Jul 14

Grumpygirl says...

Robin of Loxley wrote:
Loveapple wrote:
Thay are saying Lovapple is Illegal and that I operated mode I have never had a TAW or a lease on mode nightclub we have had no noise issue we had one complaint witch was quickly deemed as vindictive from another licence premases witch also have a 6 am licence we have had no complaints from the nearest residential apartments situated on Québec Street Plus we are in the middle of the so called west end the entertainment capital of bradford it has been for years that's the reason there are 2 big nightclubs on the land they are after one of them is the biggest capacity venue holding 12 hundred there was never an issue before They are also saying we could affect the Alhambra ?? Alhambra isn't residential /and it closes at 10 / 10.30 pm the love apple don't open till 11 pm ?? So it's impossible to interfere with that venue // they are olso saying the apple had never had a change of use when I took the venue on it was called **** nightclub and the venue had a licence to 6am granted by bradford council and police licencing ??? Change of use or not permission was grantedThe people that had mode was evicted they bought the place off A sub tenant then found out he wasn't aloud to sell or sublet on his tenancy which meant they were there illegally and was asked to leave by whitbread the main tenants at mode
Please take a lesson in English (in both grammar and spelling).

Thank you.
Hi Hoff, nice to have you back. Did you enjoy Eid? Not too much of a hangover this morning, I trust.
[quote][p][bold]Robin of Loxley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Loveapple[/bold] wrote: Thay are saying Lovapple is Illegal and that I operated mode I have never had a TAW or a lease on mode nightclub we have had no noise issue we had one complaint witch was quickly deemed as vindictive from another licence premases witch also have a 6 am licence we have had no complaints from the nearest residential apartments situated on Québec Street Plus we are in the middle of the so called west end the entertainment capital of bradford it has been for years that's the reason there are 2 big nightclubs on the land they are after one of them is the biggest capacity venue holding 12 hundred there was never an issue before They are also saying we could affect the Alhambra ?? Alhambra isn't residential /and it closes at 10 / 10.30 pm the love apple don't open till 11 pm ?? So it's impossible to interfere with that venue // they are olso saying the apple had never had a change of use when I took the venue on it was called **** nightclub and the venue had a licence to 6am granted by bradford council and police licencing ??? Change of use or not permission was grantedThe people that had mode was evicted they bought the place off A sub tenant then found out he wasn't aloud to sell or sublet on his tenancy which meant they were there illegally and was asked to leave by whitbread the main tenants at mode[/p][/quote]Please take a lesson in English (in both grammar and spelling). Thank you.[/p][/quote]Hi Hoff, nice to have you back. Did you enjoy Eid? Not too much of a hangover this morning, I trust. Grumpygirl
  • Score: 6

2:40pm Tue 29 Jul 14

Papa Smurfs Wig says...

I've known the proprietor of the Love Apple for a number of years and even if his spelling and grammar may not be his forte, at least he gives his trade 100%

I know about this situation and he has strong case.

The council wouldn't give a premises licence to a company at a premises without planning permission or the council wouldn't be doing their job correctly. He has quite a long lease and custom so maybe the people wanting to acquire the premises do so with negotiation rather than trying a cheap way to get their hands on the property. Anything has a price bit sometimes that goes up the more someone wants it.

Some people would stay for years just for a principle.

Also there is a landlord who also has a say.
I've known the proprietor of the Love Apple for a number of years and even if his spelling and grammar may not be his forte, at least he gives his trade 100% I know about this situation and he has strong case. The council wouldn't give a premises licence to a company at a premises without planning permission or the council wouldn't be doing their job correctly. He has quite a long lease and custom so maybe the people wanting to acquire the premises do so with negotiation rather than trying a cheap way to get their hands on the property. Anything has a price bit sometimes that goes up the more someone wants it. Some people would stay for years just for a principle. Also there is a landlord who also has a say. Papa Smurfs Wig
  • Score: 11

2:51pm Tue 29 Jul 14

rosesrwhite says...

Robin of Loxley wrote:
Loveapple wrote:
Thay are saying Lovapple is Illegal and that I operated mode I have never had a TAW or a lease on mode nightclub we have had no noise issue we had one complaint witch was quickly deemed as vindictive from another licence premases witch also have a 6 am licence we have had no complaints from the nearest residential apartments situated on Québec Street Plus we are in the middle of the so called west end the entertainment capital of bradford it has been for years that's the reason there are 2 big nightclubs on the land they are after one of them is the biggest capacity venue holding 12 hundred there was never an issue before They are also saying we could affect the Alhambra ?? Alhambra isn't residential /and it closes at 10 / 10.30 pm the love apple don't open till 11 pm ?? So it's impossible to interfere with that venue // they are olso saying the apple had never had a change of use when I took the venue on it was called **** nightclub and the venue had a licence to 6am granted by bradford council and police licencing ??? Change of use or not permission was grantedThe people that had mode was evicted they bought the place off A sub tenant then found out he wasn't aloud to sell or sublet on his tenancy which meant they were there illegally and was asked to leave by whitbread the main tenants at mode
Please take a lesson in English (in both grammar and spelling).

Thank you.
Same pedantic rubbish from "Robin". Thought you were against prejudice judging by your other comments? Grow up.
[quote][p][bold]Robin of Loxley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Loveapple[/bold] wrote: Thay are saying Lovapple is Illegal and that I operated mode I have never had a TAW or a lease on mode nightclub we have had no noise issue we had one complaint witch was quickly deemed as vindictive from another licence premases witch also have a 6 am licence we have had no complaints from the nearest residential apartments situated on Québec Street Plus we are in the middle of the so called west end the entertainment capital of bradford it has been for years that's the reason there are 2 big nightclubs on the land they are after one of them is the biggest capacity venue holding 12 hundred there was never an issue before They are also saying we could affect the Alhambra ?? Alhambra isn't residential /and it closes at 10 / 10.30 pm the love apple don't open till 11 pm ?? So it's impossible to interfere with that venue // they are olso saying the apple had never had a change of use when I took the venue on it was called **** nightclub and the venue had a licence to 6am granted by bradford council and police licencing ??? Change of use or not permission was grantedThe people that had mode was evicted they bought the place off A sub tenant then found out he wasn't aloud to sell or sublet on his tenancy which meant they were there illegally and was asked to leave by whitbread the main tenants at mode[/p][/quote]Please take a lesson in English (in both grammar and spelling). Thank you.[/p][/quote]Same pedantic rubbish from "Robin". Thought you were against prejudice judging by your other comments? Grow up. rosesrwhite
  • Score: 2

2:58pm Tue 29 Jul 14

andrewbradford says...

MrQuinque wrote:
Albion. wrote:
I suspect there might be more to this than the report and some posts, would have us believe. Unless of course it simply IS sour grapes, but it seems a bit of a trivial reaction from someone who still claims to have development ambitions.
No, this is just sour grapes, they were told their project wouldn't get planning before submission, they made minor changes, submitted anyway and were refused and they have been told that their appeal will in all likelihood fail, and they aren't happy about it. The situation also tells us a great deal about the Bradford One plan for the Odeon, they also wish to include a residential block in the middle of a light night entertainment area, and at the recent consulatation it was revealed that they had been in contact with CastleBrook regarding their development .

Bradford has more than enough empty plots for student residential builds, we need these recreational spaces brought back into use as recreational spaces if we are ever going to rebuild the vibrant nightlife Bradford once had.
As this development has (quite rightly) been refused then it would seem that Bradford One's plans for the odeon are not viable either.

Who at Bradford One thought that it would be feasible to have a live music venue and a residential development together in the same site?
"The redevelopment of the former Odeon, expected to cost a total of £20m for the entire site, is to proceed in two stages; (1) refurbishment of the Odeon, and (2) development of the rear of the site for student housing."

As for this developer, it really does seem like sour grapes.
They plan to turn the site of a nightclub into a residential development and then they have the audacity to complain about potential noise from a nearby night club!

As for this developer, it really does seem like sour grapes.
They plan to turn the site of a nightclub into a residential development and then they have the audacity to complain about potential noise from a nearby night club!

The nightime economy in Bradford is virtually non-existent in Bradford and it is not going to improve
[quote][p][bold]MrQuinque[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: I suspect there might be more to this than the report and some posts, would have us believe. Unless of course it simply IS sour grapes, but it seems a bit of a trivial reaction from someone who still claims to have development ambitions.[/p][/quote]No, this is just sour grapes, they were told their project wouldn't get planning before submission, they made minor changes, submitted anyway and were refused and they have been told that their appeal will in all likelihood fail, and they aren't happy about it. The situation also tells us a great deal about the Bradford One plan for the Odeon, they also wish to include a residential block in the middle of a light night entertainment area, and at the recent consulatation it was revealed that they had been in contact with CastleBrook regarding their development . Bradford has more than enough empty plots for student residential builds, we need these recreational spaces brought back into use as recreational spaces if we are ever going to rebuild the vibrant nightlife Bradford once had.[/p][/quote]As this development has (quite rightly) been refused then it would seem that Bradford One's plans for the odeon are not viable either. Who at Bradford One thought that it would be feasible to have a live music venue and a residential development together in the same site? "The redevelopment of the former Odeon, expected to cost a total of £20m for the entire site, is to proceed in two stages; (1) refurbishment of the Odeon, and (2) development of the rear of the site for student housing." As for this developer, it really does seem like sour grapes. They plan to turn the site of a nightclub into a residential development and then they have the audacity to complain about potential noise from a nearby night club! As for this developer, it really does seem like sour grapes. They plan to turn the site of a nightclub into a residential development and then they have the audacity to complain about potential noise from a nearby night club! The nightime economy in Bradford is virtually non-existent in Bradford and it is not going to improve andrewbradford
  • Score: 10

3:50pm Tue 29 Jul 14

Robin of Loxley says...

Grumpygirl wrote:
Robin of Loxley wrote:
Loveapple wrote:
Thay are saying Lovapple is Illegal and that I operated mode I have never had a TAW or a lease on mode nightclub we have had no noise issue we had one complaint witch was quickly deemed as vindictive from another licence premases witch also have a 6 am licence we have had no complaints from the nearest residential apartments situated on Québec Street Plus we are in the middle of the so called west end the entertainment capital of bradford it has been for years that's the reason there are 2 big nightclubs on the land they are after one of them is the biggest capacity venue holding 12 hundred there was never an issue before They are also saying we could affect the Alhambra ?? Alhambra isn't residential /and it closes at 10 / 10.30 pm the love apple don't open till 11 pm ?? So it's impossible to interfere with that venue // they are olso saying the apple had never had a change of use when I took the venue on it was called **** nightclub and the venue had a licence to 6am granted by bradford council and police licencing ??? Change of use or not permission was grantedThe people that had mode was evicted they bought the place off A sub tenant then found out he wasn't aloud to sell or sublet on his tenancy which meant they were there illegally and was asked to leave by whitbread the main tenants at mode
Please take a lesson in English (in both grammar and spelling).

Thank you.
Hi Hoff, nice to have you back. Did you enjoy Eid? Not too much of a hangover this morning, I trust.
Hi Neo-Zionist.

It was good, thanks. Appreciate your good wishes.
[quote][p][bold]Grumpygirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Robin of Loxley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Loveapple[/bold] wrote: Thay are saying Lovapple is Illegal and that I operated mode I have never had a TAW or a lease on mode nightclub we have had no noise issue we had one complaint witch was quickly deemed as vindictive from another licence premases witch also have a 6 am licence we have had no complaints from the nearest residential apartments situated on Québec Street Plus we are in the middle of the so called west end the entertainment capital of bradford it has been for years that's the reason there are 2 big nightclubs on the land they are after one of them is the biggest capacity venue holding 12 hundred there was never an issue before They are also saying we could affect the Alhambra ?? Alhambra isn't residential /and it closes at 10 / 10.30 pm the love apple don't open till 11 pm ?? So it's impossible to interfere with that venue // they are olso saying the apple had never had a change of use when I took the venue on it was called **** nightclub and the venue had a licence to 6am granted by bradford council and police licencing ??? Change of use or not permission was grantedThe people that had mode was evicted they bought the place off A sub tenant then found out he wasn't aloud to sell or sublet on his tenancy which meant they were there illegally and was asked to leave by whitbread the main tenants at mode[/p][/quote]Please take a lesson in English (in both grammar and spelling). Thank you.[/p][/quote]Hi Hoff, nice to have you back. Did you enjoy Eid? Not too much of a hangover this morning, I trust.[/p][/quote]Hi Neo-Zionist. It was good, thanks. Appreciate your good wishes. Robin of Loxley
  • Score: -6

5:30pm Tue 29 Jul 14

Bone_idle18 says...

Robin of Loxley wrote:
Grumpygirl wrote:
Robin of Loxley wrote:
Loveapple wrote:
Thay are saying Lovapple is Illegal and that I operated mode I have never had a TAW or a lease on mode nightclub we have had no noise issue we had one complaint witch was quickly deemed as vindictive from another licence premases witch also have a 6 am licence we have had no complaints from the nearest residential apartments situated on Québec Street Plus we are in the middle of the so called west end the entertainment capital of bradford it has been for years that's the reason there are 2 big nightclubs on the land they are after one of them is the biggest capacity venue holding 12 hundred there was never an issue before They are also saying we could affect the Alhambra ?? Alhambra isn't residential /and it closes at 10 / 10.30 pm the love apple don't open till 11 pm ?? So it's impossible to interfere with that venue // they are olso saying the apple had never had a change of use when I took the venue on it was called **** nightclub and the venue had a licence to 6am granted by bradford council and police licencing ??? Change of use or not permission was grantedThe people that had mode was evicted they bought the place off A sub tenant then found out he wasn't aloud to sell or sublet on his tenancy which meant they were there illegally and was asked to leave by whitbread the main tenants at mode
Please take a lesson in English (in both grammar and spelling).

Thank you.
Hi Hoff, nice to have you back. Did you enjoy Eid? Not too much of a hangover this morning, I trust.
Hi Neo-Zionist.

It was good, thanks. Appreciate your good wishes.
So speaks the Neo-Jihadist!
[quote][p][bold]Robin of Loxley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Grumpygirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Robin of Loxley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Loveapple[/bold] wrote: Thay are saying Lovapple is Illegal and that I operated mode I have never had a TAW or a lease on mode nightclub we have had no noise issue we had one complaint witch was quickly deemed as vindictive from another licence premases witch also have a 6 am licence we have had no complaints from the nearest residential apartments situated on Québec Street Plus we are in the middle of the so called west end the entertainment capital of bradford it has been for years that's the reason there are 2 big nightclubs on the land they are after one of them is the biggest capacity venue holding 12 hundred there was never an issue before They are also saying we could affect the Alhambra ?? Alhambra isn't residential /and it closes at 10 / 10.30 pm the love apple don't open till 11 pm ?? So it's impossible to interfere with that venue // they are olso saying the apple had never had a change of use when I took the venue on it was called **** nightclub and the venue had a licence to 6am granted by bradford council and police licencing ??? Change of use or not permission was grantedThe people that had mode was evicted they bought the place off A sub tenant then found out he wasn't aloud to sell or sublet on his tenancy which meant they were there illegally and was asked to leave by whitbread the main tenants at mode[/p][/quote]Please take a lesson in English (in both grammar and spelling). Thank you.[/p][/quote]Hi Hoff, nice to have you back. Did you enjoy Eid? Not too much of a hangover this morning, I trust.[/p][/quote]Hi Neo-Zionist. It was good, thanks. Appreciate your good wishes.[/p][/quote]So speaks the Neo-Jihadist! Bone_idle18
  • Score: 5

6:40pm Tue 29 Jul 14

Robin of Loxley says...

Bone_idle18 wrote:
Robin of Loxley wrote:
Grumpygirl wrote:
Robin of Loxley wrote:
Loveapple wrote:
Thay are saying Lovapple is Illegal and that I operated mode I have never had a TAW or a lease on mode nightclub we have had no noise issue we had one complaint witch was quickly deemed as vindictive from another licence premases witch also have a 6 am licence we have had no complaints from the nearest residential apartments situated on Québec Street Plus we are in the middle of the so called west end the entertainment capital of bradford it has been for years that's the reason there are 2 big nightclubs on the land they are after one of them is the biggest capacity venue holding 12 hundred there was never an issue before They are also saying we could affect the Alhambra ?? Alhambra isn't residential /and it closes at 10 / 10.30 pm the love apple don't open till 11 pm ?? So it's impossible to interfere with that venue // they are olso saying the apple had never had a change of use when I took the venue on it was called **** nightclub and the venue had a licence to 6am granted by bradford council and police licencing ??? Change of use or not permission was grantedThe people that had mode was evicted they bought the place off A sub tenant then found out he wasn't aloud to sell or sublet on his tenancy which meant they were there illegally and was asked to leave by whitbread the main tenants at mode
Please take a lesson in English (in both grammar and spelling).

Thank you.
Hi Hoff, nice to have you back. Did you enjoy Eid? Not too much of a hangover this morning, I trust.
Hi Neo-Zionist.

It was good, thanks. Appreciate your good wishes.
So speaks the Neo-Jihadist!
I guess all those non-Muslims against vile Israeli terrorist scum are jihadis too?

{rolleyes}
[quote][p][bold]Bone_idle18[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Robin of Loxley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Grumpygirl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Robin of Loxley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Loveapple[/bold] wrote: Thay are saying Lovapple is Illegal and that I operated mode I have never had a TAW or a lease on mode nightclub we have had no noise issue we had one complaint witch was quickly deemed as vindictive from another licence premases witch also have a 6 am licence we have had no complaints from the nearest residential apartments situated on Québec Street Plus we are in the middle of the so called west end the entertainment capital of bradford it has been for years that's the reason there are 2 big nightclubs on the land they are after one of them is the biggest capacity venue holding 12 hundred there was never an issue before They are also saying we could affect the Alhambra ?? Alhambra isn't residential /and it closes at 10 / 10.30 pm the love apple don't open till 11 pm ?? So it's impossible to interfere with that venue // they are olso saying the apple had never had a change of use when I took the venue on it was called **** nightclub and the venue had a licence to 6am granted by bradford council and police licencing ??? Change of use or not permission was grantedThe people that had mode was evicted they bought the place off A sub tenant then found out he wasn't aloud to sell or sublet on his tenancy which meant they were there illegally and was asked to leave by whitbread the main tenants at mode[/p][/quote]Please take a lesson in English (in both grammar and spelling). Thank you.[/p][/quote]Hi Hoff, nice to have you back. Did you enjoy Eid? Not too much of a hangover this morning, I trust.[/p][/quote]Hi Neo-Zionist. It was good, thanks. Appreciate your good wishes.[/p][/quote]So speaks the Neo-Jihadist![/p][/quote]I guess all those non-Muslims against vile Israeli terrorist scum are jihadis too? {rolleyes} Robin of Loxley
  • Score: 5

7:18pm Tue 29 Jul 14

Papa Smurfs Wig says...

You wouldn't like who the developer is then.
You wouldn't like who the developer is then. Papa Smurfs Wig
  • Score: 1

10:25am Wed 30 Jul 14

basil fawlty says...

bluebluerobin wrote:
baildongreen wrote:
angry bradfordian wrote:
Papa Smurfs Wig wrote:
Bully boy tactics from a London based property owner. They are the bad apple in this scenario pushing out a business because they want to make a vast sum of money.
I can't imagine the friends of Palestine wanting to rent a flat off them.
But how many more flats does Bradford need? Last week it was revealed the council are builing another hundred units at the bottom of Leeds Road.
This is big business leaning on a small one with dirty tactics and using the so called noise as an issue.
The venue was there first!
It looks like they'll have to start talking with £££££s if this appeal fails.
This is becoming a common problem throughout the country where developers convert properties near music venues and then apply afterwards for a Noise Abatement Order to get them shut down.

Googling 'noise abatement music venues' brings up some awful cases of some long standing venues being threatened with closure when this has happened.
This isn’t new. A cautionary tale from the recent past.

A few years ago City Hall gave permission for some flats to be built on the old stone yard/petrol station next to what was then the Sylvania factory on Otley Road, Shipley. No sooner had the flats gone up then the developers and landlords were complaining about the noise from the factory. In this they had the full backing of the Council who, after inspecting the site, served notice on Sylvania for hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of alterations to the factory building.

At that time, along with most of this country’s industry, the factory was struggling, and the size of this bill was a big factor in the decision to close the place with a loss of over 300 jobs. This incident is one of the reasons I never believe Cllr Green when he goes on about his “Producer City” and regeneration.
The story is a little more nuanced but, as a manager at the Sylvania factory before it was closed, I can vouch for this story of Council jobsworths unable to grasp the big picture. A little more flexibility and less pandering to developers on behalf of the Council and 300 reasonably paid, reasonably hi-tech, jobs stood a good chance of being saved.

Instead we lost them, and Cllrs Green, Hinchcliffe and the Labour Group tried to replace them with the Buck Lane scheme just up the road from Sylvania. This has now turned out to be another failure, delivering just a handful of new jobs against the hundreds that were promised. Only our Council could engineer such a saga of unbounded stupidity. With the exception of the developers, everybody has lost.
This is one the most distubing stories i've ever read about the Council. Corruption?
[quote][p][bold]bluebluerobin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]baildongreen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]angry bradfordian[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Papa Smurfs Wig[/bold] wrote: Bully boy tactics from a London based property owner. They are the bad apple in this scenario pushing out a business because they want to make a vast sum of money. I can't imagine the friends of Palestine wanting to rent a flat off them. But how many more flats does Bradford need? Last week it was revealed the council are builing another hundred units at the bottom of Leeds Road. This is big business leaning on a small one with dirty tactics and using the so called noise as an issue. The venue was there first! It looks like they'll have to start talking with £££££s if this appeal fails.[/p][/quote]This is becoming a common problem throughout the country where developers convert properties near music venues and then apply afterwards for a Noise Abatement Order to get them shut down. Googling 'noise abatement music venues' brings up some awful cases of some long standing venues being threatened with closure when this has happened.[/p][/quote]This isn’t new. A cautionary tale from the recent past. A few years ago City Hall gave permission for some flats to be built on the old stone yard/petrol station next to what was then the Sylvania factory on Otley Road, Shipley. No sooner had the flats gone up then the developers and landlords were complaining about the noise from the factory. In this they had the full backing of the Council who, after inspecting the site, served notice on Sylvania for hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of alterations to the factory building. At that time, along with most of this country’s industry, the factory was struggling, and the size of this bill was a big factor in the decision to close the place with a loss of over 300 jobs. This incident is one of the reasons I never believe Cllr Green when he goes on about his “Producer City” and regeneration.[/p][/quote]The story is a little more nuanced but, as a manager at the Sylvania factory before it was closed, I can vouch for this story of Council jobsworths unable to grasp the big picture. A little more flexibility and less pandering to developers on behalf of the Council and 300 reasonably paid, reasonably hi-tech, jobs stood a good chance of being saved. Instead we lost them, and Cllrs Green, Hinchcliffe and the Labour Group tried to replace them with the Buck Lane scheme just up the road from Sylvania. This has now turned out to be another failure, delivering just a handful of new jobs against the hundreds that were promised. Only our Council could engineer such a saga of unbounded stupidity. With the exception of the developers, everybody has lost.[/p][/quote]This is one the most distubing stories i've ever read about the Council. Corruption? basil fawlty
  • Score: 3

8:12pm Wed 6 Aug 14

Born on the 5th December says...

There's just something about people making comments about things they know nothing about which really makes me laugh.

What could you possibly know about the situation in Palestine from a city in the north of England?! Oh yes..the beacons of truth that are the TV or newspaper told you. ..well done to the government and media I say...1984 is a reality where the indoctrination of the debt slave sheeple is complete.

Go use the brain that you were given to find out what is really going on in the world...try not to get ddistracted by Page 3 of the The Sun on the way..oh too late...he's a goner!
There's just something about people making comments about things they know nothing about which really makes me laugh. What could you possibly know about the situation in Palestine from a city in the north of England?! Oh yes..the beacons of truth that are the TV or newspaper told you. ..well done to the government and media I say...1984 is a reality where the indoctrination of the debt slave sheeple is complete. Go use the brain that you were given to find out what is really going on in the world...try not to get ddistracted by Page 3 of the The Sun on the way..oh too late...he's a goner! Born on the 5th December
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree