Exactly PhillipaIt seems to me the biggest objection and concern from the original application would've been parking and trafficDue to the footprint of the site they are looking to circumvent this by two massive spin arguementsThe statement that most of the current users travel by public transport is quite frankly BS! Even when there is a small function at the place now the streets are clogged and parking impossible. Also with a potential 1am license what public transport will be available at the end of the night and who'd use it?!?!As for people parking away from the local streets and using a park and ride type facility - do me a favour!!! Users may well park in these areas but only after local streets saturated. It's human nature that people travelling somewhere will look to park as close as possible, I'd be the same myself. Who would use a remote car park and wait in the cold and dark for a shuttle minibus dealing with anything up to the 500 capacity?!? Those that can and have had to use these remote car parks would walk the streets to and from the venue, ergo noise and rubbish.Then there's the expense. Just how long could anyone afford to keep this park and ride facility running for? Not long I'd sayTheir remedial plan to traffic, parking and associated noise is so badly flawed I'd suggest it is no more that a fop to the plannersThen there's all the issues with fume pollution from catering, noise from 500 people, rubbish generation and storage, light pollution from the glass box design, the peripheral problems such licensed events bring and the fact the local community at large will not benefit one iota from this expanded centreAs you can tell....... I'm somewhat against it!!!
Colin Goodman ● 4543d