help support t in the park move

[leeawill17]

Anyone interested in helping t in the parks bid for strathallan email Perth and Kinross council while using 15/00081/FLM as subject

[mattrik3]

Here's the link to add comments on the planning application on the P&K council website. There's quite a lot of objections, every positive comment helps

http://planningapps.pkc.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=NI7Z58MKGUR00

Edited February 12, 2015 by mattrik3

[leeawill17]

Here's the link to add comments on the planning application on the P&K council website. There's quite a lot of objections, every positive comment helps

http://planningapps.pkc.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=NI7Z58MKGUR00

Thanks for that

[LondonTom]

Construtive support statemenet

"Miss Fiona Muir (Supports)

Comment submitted date: Thu 12 Feb 2015

T IN THE PAAAAARK"

[Lor1]

Do the arseholes complaining not realise if it doesn't go ahead at strathallan this year there will be no titp 2015.

[Red Day]

Mrs Sheila Beattie (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Thu 12 Feb 2015

I wish to register my objection to these proposals. My main concern are for the (hopefully) returning nesting Ospreys

The nesting ospreys, probably a great band, although I've never heard of them, but in true T fashion they'll be on the line up every second year, so Sheila shouldn't worry

[leeawill17]

Thing what annoys me about these people are their saying that t havnt considered the problems but they obviously have

[LondonTom]

Do the arseholes complaining not realise if it doesn't go ahead at strathallan this year there will be no titp 2015.

I would guess the complainers don't care very much for it to go ahead

[Paulk2904]

I've mentioned before that I deal with planning applications regularly, I'm an architect by trade.

Objections are common place it doesn't mean anything. The only way that t in the park doesn't go ahead is if it did not meet the criteria set out in the councils planning policy.

Given that it's the same local authority as it's been for years I would be fairly confident that the council will be more than supportive of the event and T will be familiar in how to satisfy the councils requirements.

I was had an old guy draw what he would have done instead and send it in as part of an objection to an application we had made. It meant nothing. A wee old lady moany about traffic or the left over litter on the site will have zero bearing on the planners.

There is next to no chance the festival does not go ahead.

[cammie81]

Maybe I am being naive as I have absolutely no understanding of how any of this works but I thought that all of these concerns and the planing permission etc would have been sorted out long before they announced the new site.

[eFestivals]

Maybe I am being naive as I have absolutely no understanding of how any of this works but I thought that all of these concerns and the planing permission etc would have been sorted out long before they announced the new site.

erm.... logic fail.

Any regulatory permissions needed are a matter of public record, and so it's an impossibility to work these things out before the plan for the new site is made public. It all has to be done in public to allow the public the opportunity to voice any concerns they have.

They could have not formally announced the new site, but that would only lead to confusion amongst T-goers about what was going on and where the festival would be happening.

Having said all of that, it's exceedingly unlikely that T would have got to the point of deciding on and formally announcing the new site without first having some discussions with the council about whether it was a go-er.

I'm not familiar with Scotland's different licencing, but for England it's all very defined now, so that "I don't want a festival near-by" isn't a valid objection by itself.

[cammie81]

erm.... logic fail.

Any regulatory permissions needed are a matter of public record, and so it's an impossibility to work these things out before the plan for the new site is made public. It all has to be done in public to allow the public the opportunity to voice any concerns they have.

They could have not formally announced the new site, but that would only lead to confusion amongst T-goers about what was going on and where the festival would be happening.

Having said all of that, it's exceedingly unlikely that T would have got to the point of deciding on and formally announcing the new site without first having some discussions with the council about whether it was a go-er.

I'm not familiar with Scotland's different licencing, but for England it's all very defined now, so that "I don't want a festival near-by" isn't a valid objection by itself.

Ah I see, makes sense.