The New Ground Will Not Go Ahead.....

[prittlewellshrimper]

if the Priory Crescent road widening scheme does not go ahead. Is this true ? A letter in tonights Echo raises a very important question regarding the future of SUFC , and states that if the tree huggers at Camp Bling get their way and the road widening is shelved then any further development on the Fossets Farm is a no no . For those of you who dont live locally the Borough Council plans to dual carriageway land adjacent to Priory Park , resulting in the removal of many established trees and tarmacking over one of the most important archeologlical burial sites to be found in Britain ever . Protesters have been camping on the site for 18 months and have built tree houses and dug undergound tunnels to prolong any eviction and more importantly to make it very expensive to have them removed . The Echo spoke of £500,000 being an estimate of the removal cost , money that Southend council does not have . The protesters have also collected 20,000 signatures in opposition although it has no been through all the chanels including a Full Public Enquiry which decided that the road should go ahead. Since then however there has been talk that Central Govt. may not have the money to build the road the cost of which has risen from something like £3 million to £28 million , making it the most expensive pice of road , yard for yard , in Europe. This my friends may be a huge fly in the new stadium ointment and as i havent seen it discussed on here thought it was about time we did so .

 

[londonblue]

From what I have heard the stadium is not dependent on the road widening scheme.

 

[number11]

Given the authority to do so Id happily remove those tree hugging scum of the earth leaches on society for far less then £500,000.

The stadium may not be dependent on the road widening but cuckoo corner coming from Eastern Avenue (ie direction new stadium would be) is an absolute nightmate at the best of times and tarmacing over camp bling will be a good start

 

[prittlewellshrimper]

Quote[/b] (londonblue @ May 18 2006,17:48)]From what I have heard the stadium is not dependent on the road widening scheme.

I hope you are right and would like to know where you have heard that but I think a fundemental reason for wanting to make that part of Priory Crescent dual-carriageway is that  central government wont give planning consent to further development on FF or the Shoebury area until there is dual-carriageway all the way in.

 

[C'mon you Blues]

good letter in the Echo where an old boy gpes over the top and says bulldoze them off.

What tickles me is the fact that without the road no one would have discoverd the Saxon king's burial site that they want to preserve. It was found during the preliminary excavations. As was a previous Saxon find when the railway was built. And not forgetting Priory Crescent that revealed some Saxon amd Roman finds I believe.
Oh the irony of it.

 

[prittlewellshrimper]

By the way Camp Bling does have a web site i beleive but im not techy enough to make one of them linky things for ya: Its www.savepriorypark.org

 

[Guest]

Quote[/b] (prittlewellshrimper @ May 18 2006,18:02)]By the way Camp Bling does have a web site i beleive but im not techy enough to make one of them linky things for ya:laugh:

Clicky

also:

More here

 

[shrimperman]

Quote[/b] (prittlewellshrimper @ May 18 2006,17:42)]if the Priory Crescent road widening scheme does not go ahead.   Is this true ?                           A letter in tonights Echo raises a very important question regarding the future of SUFC , and states that if the tree huggers at Camp Bling get their way and the road widening is shelved then any further development on the Fossets Farm is a no no .   For those of you who dont live locally the Borough Council plans to dual carriageway land adjacent to Priory Park , resulting in the removal of many established trees and tarmacking over one of the most important archeologlical burial sites to be found in Britain ever . Protesters have been camping on the site for 18 months and have built tree houses and dug undergound tunnels to prolong any eviction and more importantly to make it very expensive to have them removed . The Echo spoke of £500,000 being an estimate of the removal cost , money that Southend council does not have .  The protesters have also collected 20,000 signatures in opposition although it has no been through all the chanels including a Full Public Enquiry which decided that the road should go ahead. Since then however there has been talk that Central Govt. may not have the money to build the road the cost of which has risen from something like £3 million to £28 million , making it the most expensive pice of road , yard for yard , in Europe.      This my friends may be a huge fly in the new stadium ointment and as i havent seen it discussed on here  thought it was about time we did so .

Whats your view on the development? For or against? Only from what you have posted it would seem you are strongly against the road widening. If so, would you concede to road widening if it meant getting a new stadium?

 

[Perth Bambi]

Just been and looked at their website.

Can we just go down their and shoot all those c%&ts.

 

[prittlewellshrimper]

Quote[/b] (shrimperman @ May 18 2006,18:14)]

Quote[/b] (prittlewellshrimper @ May 18 2006,17:42)]if the Priory Crescent road widening scheme does not go ahead.   Is this true ?                           A letter in tonights Echo raises a very important question regarding the future of SUFC , and states that if the tree huggers at Camp Bling get their way and the road widening is shelved then any further development on the Fossets Farm is a no no .   For those of you who dont live locally the Borough Council plans to dual carriageway land adjacent to Priory Park , resulting in the removal of many established trees and tarmacking over one of the most important archeologlical burial sites to be found in Britain ever . Protesters have been camping on the site for 18 months and have built tree houses and dug undergound tunnels to prolong any eviction and more importantly to make it very expensive to have them removed . The Echo spoke of £500,000 being an estimate of the removal cost , money that Southend council does not have .  The protesters have also collected 20,000 signatures in opposition although it has no been through all the chanels including a Full Public Enquiry which decided that the road should go ahead. Since then however there has been talk that Central Govt. may not have the money to build the road the cost of which has risen from something like £3 million to £28 million , making it the most expensive pice of road , yard for yard , in Europe.      This my friends may be a huge fly in the new stadium ointment and as i havent seen it discussed on here  thought it was about time we did so .

Whats your view on the development? For or against? Only from what you have posted it would seem you are strongly against the road widening. If so, would you concede to road widening if it meant getting a new stadium?

Its a real tricky one for me , my kids play in Priory Park every day and I collected some of those 20,000 signatures myself but I of course want us to have a new ground and hope and beleive that we will be playing in one sooner rather than later, so as you can see I have real split loyalties. The ideal solution for me of course would be to have a new ground and no road widening which is why I raised the question because my understanding was that one wont come without the other , however there is no way any road widening will be complete before the start of 2008-09 season which is when Ron wants the ground open by so you have to read into that that he understands that he will get planning permission with the road as it is .

 

[C'mon you Blues]

I definitelty remember it being said a couple of years ago that the Fossett's development was not dependent on the road widening.

 

[rabbloke]

I am one hundered percent behind the plan for a new stadium. I am however less than one hundred percent against the views of the 'tree huggers' that are defending their perception of right. I expect hand on heart a number of you guys are similarly torn. I do not see pro-stadium protesters camped out in civic centre for eighteen months, lobbying town planning for the right to build at FF. Hats off to those with the conviction and moral fortitude to dedicate large parts of their lives to protect nature, history et al. The ' will-it, won't-it stadium merry-go-round' has turned time and again for decades. The same tune piping out, same orchestra but different conductors. Problems with the FF site would have been identified long before the possibility of a stadium there had been made public. The council has over the years repeatedly failed to give favour to the numerous sites suggested or to actively promote one of their own. If we get the go-ahead I will be elated and hope that it was not 'at any cost'. If we fail to get the green light then the debacle is not of the 'tree huggers' making but of the short-sightedness of a town that did less than it could to support the club. One thing for sure is that if plans went in tomorrow to convert Roots Hall in to a maximum twilight home for the dribbling and befuddled, the council would rubber stamp them before the evenings ovaltine had time to take effect.

 

[steveo1]

Quote[/b] ]Hats off to those with the conviction and moral fortitude to dedicate large parts of their lives to protect nature, history et al.

They dont do it because they are too lazy to work then?

 

[shrimper4life]

If they have 20,000 signatures for it not to go ahead, im sure we can get together at least 20,000+ signatures from blues fans to get the scheme going

 

[Bielzibubz]

Just a thought .... and you may disagree but.

I seriously doubt Uncle Ron would have gone ahead with the buyout of Delancy and the purchase of the FF site if he thought for one minute that the £10 million he's invested could be put at serious risk over what is a small plot of land. I'm sure there are things that have been agreed behind the scenes and out of the public domain that we as supporters don't know anything about.
To invest such a large sum of money in a future building project without making sure all your bases are covered seems a rather rash business decision to make.

The so called 'tree huggers' have been on that site for the best part of two years now (i think) and whilst I to respect their conviction for preserving what is part of our local history, not to mention the national interests of the site, I feel it shouldn't stand in the way of the town, it's prospects to continue growing and prospering and above all the future of our beloved SUFC.

Put all of this into the larger picture the DOE is determined to fulfill ie the Thames Gateway Project, with the expansion of the airport, the proposed Rochford/A130 link road, the A127 widening scheme and I don't think anything will stand in the way of the proposed widening of Priory Cresent and all the other major developments we are going to see in the future.

The FF development fits well into the overall plan this council and the new DPP and DOE has for Southend and it's outlying areas so fear not my fellow supporters..........it WILL happen. They said the same about the Newbury bypass and look what happened there......a few people camped up some trees and taking dumps in holes in the ground, no matter how well meaning they are, will not get in the way of economical progress.

 

[Xàbia Shrimper]

Quote[/b] (shrimper4life @ May 18 2006,21:09)]If they have 20,000 signatures for it not to go ahead, im sure we can get together at least 20,000+ signatures from blues fans to get the scheme going

You think so? I remember when the SOS (Save Our Southend) and SUSCT tried to get a petition up and running in support of the Fossetts Farm scheme a few years ago; it attracted barely enough signatures to fill that small section at the very end of the East Stand! It was amazing to see how many people attending games at Roots Hall would actually REFUSE to sign it! I'm sure (hope?) it might be different now the club has given the town something of which to be proud ...

 

[Firestorm]

Quote[/b] (Xàbia Shrimper @ May 18 2006,20:44)]

Quote[/b] (shrimper4life @ May 18 2006,21:09)]If they have 20,000 signatures for it not to go ahead, im sure we can get together at least 20,000+ signatures from blues fans to get the scheme going

You think so? I remember when the SOS (Save Our Southend) and SUSCT tried to get a petition up and running in support of the Fossetts Farm scheme a few years ago; it attracted barely enough signatures to fill that small section at the very end of the East Stand! It was amazing to see how many people attending games at Roots Hall would actually REFUSE to sign it! I'm sure (hope?) it might be different now the club has given the town something of which to be proud ...

I think it depends on the criteria for obtaining the sigs .

The save priory park campaign obtained 20,000 signatures using a massive campaign of misinformation aimed ant the many thousand of out of borough visitors who did not know that the plan was to shave off a sliver of the outside of the park as opposed to concrete over the whole thing.

I could imagine An equally exaggerated petition circulated amongst football fans around the country drawing as many signatures.

(Not that is is nessecary as I am sure the two schemes (FF and PC) are not mutually excusive)

 

[CSWICKFORDSHRIMPER]

Quote[/b] (Xàbia Shrimper @ May 18 2006,20:44)]

Quote[/b] (shrimper4life @ May 18 2006,21:09)]If they have 20,000 signatures for it not to go ahead, im sure we can get together at least 20,000+ signatures from blues fans to get the scheme going

You think so? I remember when the SOS (Save Our Southend) and SUSCT tried to get a petition up and running in support of the Fossetts Farm scheme a few years ago; it attracted barely enough signatures to fill that small section at the very end of the East Stand! It was amazing to see how many people attending games at Roots Hall would actually REFUSE to sign it! I'm sure (hope?) it might be different now the club has given the town something of which to be proud ...

No true Mike .... When all this started with the Carers going rd peoples houses for signatures against the Forsetts development I’m sure they gathered 1000 or so then I remember Southend Supporters doing a counter partition at one Home game and getting 4000 plus signatures

Maybe a Supporters Club member can confirm this


One Team In Essex
SOUTHEND UNITED FC

 

[Bob Cratchitt]

Quote[/b] (Firestorm @ May 19 2006,08:44)]The save priory park campaign obtained 20,000 signatures using a massive campaign of misinformation aimed ant the many thousand of out of borough visitors who did not know that the plan was to shave off a sliver of the outside of the park as opposed to concrete over the whole thing.

Exactly, something that gets my goat about this whole god damn affair.

Another thing that winds me up is the number of people who write to the Echo supporting these Tree Huggers all seem to live in the west of the town, and as such do not even use the road enough to be able to be frustrated by the congestion what builds up there every f**kin day.

And the ones who live on the road are frighthened about their property prices dropping due to the bigger road outside their house, purely financial reasons more than a social moral stance.

I guess the biggest problem the pro campaign faces is apathy. I reckon to get the biggest number of signatures will be to walk up the stationary line of traffic, people would sign the petition then.

 

[Einstein]

Quote[/b] (Yorkshire Bambi @ May 18 2006,18:28)]Just been and looked at their website.

Can we just go down their and shoot all those c%&ts.

 

 

It's an interesting angle and obviously the most diplomatic course of action. Let us know how you get on!