nerdgas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 145
|
Post by nerdgas on Aug 14, 2017 22:26:57 GMT
out of interest does anyone have any idea of how much acreage would be needed to accommodate a new stadium away from The Mem? The plot at Ashton Gate is about 8.5 acres. The Mem site is only slightly smaller and is a more square plot than Ashton. Without an exhaustive search, I suspect most of the space greater than that size within the north of the City of Bristol is protected in one way or another, Passing the Rolls Royce site yesterday, although there is plenty of warehouse/industrial development, I noticed the hoarding was advertising an area much, much larger than this still available for development. By comparison: Portman Road - 6.1 acres - 30,311 Craven Cottage - 5.4 acres - 25700 Loftus Road - 4.2 acres - 18,439 Looking at some of the planning docs for the Mem and Ashton Gate there isn't a huge difference in size. The AG planning docs say site size is approx 4 hectares - just under 10 acres (this I imagine includes the car park which they haven't built on). The Mem docs says our site is just over 3.5 hectares - just over 8.5 acres and as you say is square. So I am really struggling to understand why fitting a decent sized stadium on the site is dismissed so readily by our fans. A planning approval precedent has already been set for the site being almost completely occupied by a stadium so why would it be an issue now? Have planning regs changed so much since that it would be dismissed out of hand?
|
|
Captain Jayho
Andy Tillson
Straight outta burrington...
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 472
|
Post by Captain Jayho on Aug 15, 2017 2:10:56 GMT
Doesn't it come down more to the fact that - given past events - any application for a stadium with a capacity similar to that of the proposed UWE (and therefore greater than the previous Mem upgrade proposal) is going to meet with staunch opposition from the local residents. Not to mention hurdling the various traffic and access obstacles.
I understand the precedent set by the previous planning application but that is still pretty limiting if we have any serious aspirations going forward.
|
|
|
Post by gasheadpirate on Aug 15, 2017 5:57:05 GMT
Doesn't it come down more to the fact that - given past events - any application for a stadium with a capacity similar to that of the proposed UWE (and therefore greater than the previous Mem upgrade proposal) is going to meet with staunch opposition from the local residents. Not to mention hurdling the various traffic and access obstacles. I understand the precedent set by the previous planning application but that is still pretty limiting if we have any serious aspirations going forward. Planning has actually become easier for developers since the last Mem proposals. However, any increase in capacity to those granted previously will receive huge opposition from locals. If the same capacity, there should be no problem as the planning history has already accepted capacitynof this size, though there was the student accommodation in the previous guise. So what Planning benefit will replace the student accommodation? I personally do not support the redevelopment of the Mem as the transport infrastructure to support a large stadium is not there. It is a struggle to find parking with average gates of 9k, unless you arrive very early.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Aug 15, 2017 6:00:12 GMT
Doesn't it come down more to the fact that - given past events - any application for a stadium with a capacity similar to that of the proposed UWE (and therefore greater than the previous Mem upgrade proposal) is going to meet with staunch opposition from the local residents. Not to mention hurdling the various traffic and access obstacles. I understand the precedent set by the previous planning application but that is still pretty limiting if we have any serious aspirations going forward. Planning has actually become easier for developers since the last Mem proposals. However, any increase in capacity to those granted previously will receive huge opposition from locals. If the same capacity, there should be no problem as the planning history has already accepted capacitynof this size, though there was the student accommodation in the previous guise. So what Planning benefit will replace the student accommodation? I personally do not support the redevelopment of the Mem as the transport infrastructure to support a large stadium is not there. It is a struggle to find parking with average gates of 9k, unless you arrive very early. I know RPZs were mentioned originally but what othwr transport provisions were in the section 106 agreement?
|
|
nerdgas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 145
|
Post by nerdgas on Aug 15, 2017 6:16:08 GMT
Planning has actually become easier for developers since the last Mem proposals. However, any increase in capacity to those granted previously will receive huge opposition from locals. If the same capacity, there should be no problem as the planning history has already accepted capacitynof this size, though there was the student accommodation in the previous guise. So what Planning benefit will replace the student accommodation? I personally do not support the redevelopment of the Mem as the transport infrastructure to support a large stadium is not there. It is a struggle to find parking with average gates of 9k, unless you arrive very early. I know RPZs were mentioned originally but what othwr transport provisions were in the section 106 agreement? planningonline.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/files/8D468DBD399A88E5AE4155358C0FF8F4/pdf/06_03850_F-SECTION_106_LEGAL_AGREEMENT-309649.pdfMain thing seemed to be the provision of supporters buses and an RPZ. Also worth noting that permission was provided when we had the rugby at the stadium and therefore more impact upon the local residents.....
|
|
nerdgas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 145
|
Post by nerdgas on Aug 15, 2017 6:19:56 GMT
Doesn't it come down more to the fact that - given past events - any application for a stadium with a capacity similar to that of the proposed UWE (and therefore greater than the previous Mem upgrade proposal) is going to meet with staunch opposition from the local residents. Not to mention hurdling the various traffic and access obstacles. I understand the precedent set by the previous planning application but that is still pretty limiting if we have any serious aspirations going forward. And yet them lot down the road managed to get 27k past the planners... That's in a residential area albeit with some parking provision on the site but their car park doesn't have provision for 5000 supporters to park there? More like a few hundred cars at most?
|
|
|
Post by fatherjackhackett on Aug 15, 2017 6:31:54 GMT
Doesn't it come down more to the fact that - given past events - any application for a stadium with a capacity similar to that of the proposed UWE (and therefore greater than the previous Mem upgrade proposal) is going to meet with staunch opposition from the local residents. Not to mention hurdling the various traffic and access obstacles. I understand the precedent set by the previous planning application but that is still pretty limiting if we have any serious aspirations going forward. And yet them lot down the road managed to get 27k past the planners... That's in a residential area albeit with some parking provision on the site but their car park doesn't have provision for 5000 supporters to park there? More like a few hundred cars at most? They use the Park and Rides at Bris and Shire with direct buses, also use that for the peanut huggers. In addition there is another one now in use from Whitchurch / Hengrove. All of this takes cars away from the streets of BS3. Bizarrely they are blocked from using the Ashton P & R, as is the balloon fiesta. In North Bristol / South Glos there isn't really any equivalent Rovers can use. Maybe Parkway station, but there really needs to be something take take traffic away from the Kingswood / Fishponds direction. I would suggest that Worst Bus upping the frequency of the 17 route to every 5 minutes on a match day would be a start. The club needs to be showing that it is doing every thing it can to discourage fans from driving to the Mem. I have noticed now many houses now have drop down kerbing and driveways, this must have halved the amount of available street parking in the last 10 years.
|
|
Peter Parker
Global Moderator
Richard Walker
You have been sentenced to DELETION!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,920
|
Post by Peter Parker on Aug 15, 2017 7:03:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Aug 15, 2017 7:04:19 GMT
Doesn't it come down more to the fact that - given past events - any application for a stadium with a capacity similar to that of the proposed UWE (and therefore greater than the previous Mem upgrade proposal) is going to meet with staunch opposition from the local residents. Not to mention hurdling the various traffic and access obstacles. I understand the precedent set by the previous planning application but that is still pretty limiting if we have any serious aspirations going forward. As we have all become planning experts in the last few years, we all expect opposition and legal hurdles as an integral part of the process. What is interesting to me is that one of the central elements of the TRASH opposition to the Sainsbury's development was the Carstairs argument of the whole ground being the Memorial and the following incorporation of the site as an asset of community value by the council at the request of the Bishopston society. Developing the ground is supported by these arguments. I also note that Wael has mentioned the need for constructive dialogue with the local community on the proposals that will emerge. Will it stop any opposition? Unlikely, but many of the inveterate complainers would seem to be getting what they want if Dwane Sports proceed to redevelop the stadium.
|
|
|
Post by laughinggas on Aug 15, 2017 9:37:26 GMT
Muller Road bus depot Turn into car park. Can be used for Mem and County Ground. Maybe park and ride for other days.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2017 10:08:13 GMT
Muller Road bus depot Turn into car park. Can be used for Mem and County Ground. Maybe park and ride for other days. That's a bloody good suggestion, in my opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2017 10:39:32 GMT
Muller Road bus depot Turn into car park. Can be used for Mem and County Ground. Maybe park and ride for other days. That's a bloody good suggestion, in my opinion. That along with the new Muller Road trainstation the the B&Q site, we're cooking.
|
|
Captain Jayho
Andy Tillson
Straight outta burrington...
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 472
|
Post by Captain Jayho on Aug 15, 2017 10:56:22 GMT
Doesn't it come down more to the fact that - given past events - any application for a stadium with a capacity similar to that of the proposed UWE (and therefore greater than the previous Mem upgrade proposal) is going to meet with staunch opposition from the local residents. Not to mention hurdling the various traffic and access obstacles. I understand the precedent set by the previous planning application but that is still pretty limiting if we have any serious aspirations going forward. As we have all become planning experts in the last few years, we all expect opposition and legal hurdles as an integral part of the process. What is interesting to me is that one of the central elements of the TRASH opposition to the Sainsbury's development was the Carstairs argument of the whole ground being the Memorial and the following incorporation of the site as an asset of community value by the council at the request of the Bishopston society. Developing the ground is supported by these arguments. I also note that Wael has mentioned the need for constructive dialogue with the local community on the proposals that will emerge. Will it stop any opposition? Unlikely, but many of the inveterate complainers would seem to be getting what they want if Dwane Sports proceed to redevelop the stadium. Good luck with that. Whilst acknowledging the issues residents had with a superstore on the site you seem to be happy to fairly gloss over the significant opposition to the original stadium redevelopment plans, albeit they were ultimately conditionally accepted with changes and concessions. Sure you might have Carstairs onside but history shows that he's not the only thorn in our side here. You don't need to work in the planning field (although I do as it happens) to see that this is going to be a complete and utter minefield compared to the UWE planning. Still, if Wael can pull it off then more power to him!
|
|
|
Post by iwasborn on Aug 15, 2017 11:20:17 GMT
Not sure if anyone else would agree with me but im not convinced that the UWE deal is dead in the water yet. My reasoning is this. The sticking point seems to be that Wael wants to buy the ground and UWE want to lease it to us. UWE were given a deadline to agree the sale or we would pull out. I get this and agree that leasing isn't the way forward, but why a dead line date of 31 July. There's nobody at the UWE in July and August, there all on holiday. Universities are semi independent from government but receive government money and there all on holiday too. Seems an odd date to give as a dead line when the decision makers are not available. Also the UWE stand to loose a great deal of money if this doesn't go ahead. Think of all the students that they would have been able to attract with the facilities the stadium would offer which may now go elsewhere. 500 extra students equates to roughly 4.5 million pounds in course fee's lost a year. It wouldn't surprise me that come September when all the power brokers and interested parties are back that talks begin again. Both parties here stand to loose.
If not then we are f**ked, does any one on here really believe we would get planning permission on refurbishing the mem. Slim at best.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2017 11:40:21 GMT
does any one on here really believe we would get planning permission on refurbishing the mem. Slim at best. Yes. Bristol City Council have never turned down a planning application by us.
|
|
nerdgas
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 145
|
Post by nerdgas on Aug 15, 2017 11:45:03 GMT
I f not then we are f**ked, does any one on here really believe we would get planning permission on refurbishing the mem. Slim at best.Yes.
Why not?
We haven't had a single planning application turned down by BCC.
The last one involved a stadium development that encompassed most of the site and severely reduced the parking provision on the site. The club had to commit to a number of mitigating measures to get planning - I'd expect the same this time.
If them lot can get 27k through with mitigating measures why can't we do the same on a smaller scale?
I see no reason whatsoever at the moment to state there is no chance of getting planning.
Making that statement flies in the face of past evidence with clearly show obtaining planning, whilst challenging, has never been a problem.
We even managed to get planning through for a bloody massive supermarket with thousands visiting on a daily basis!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2017 11:54:24 GMT
There's nobody at the UWE in July and August, there all on holiday. We do work through the summer.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2017 12:19:41 GMT
There's nobody at the UWE in July and August, there all on holiday. We do work through the summer. Arguable.
|
|
strung out
Administrator
Paul Hardyman
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 758
|
Post by strung out on Aug 15, 2017 12:34:08 GMT
We do work through the summer. Arguable. Working hard or hardly working?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2017 12:53:20 GMT
Working hard or hardly working? You don't have to be mad to work here, but it helps.
|
|