New stadium thread

[Garlogie_Granite]

Seems folk have been hanging around westhill handing out tick box forms to anyone that'll take them and putting them in as objections

Aye, I imagine these pre-printed things will be treated with the contempt they deserve by ACC.

 

They're still talking about 90% of Westhill residents against, and yet, being in the same postcode, I know quite a number of wife-swappers, some are huns, some nae interested in fitba, some are even wifies, and yet not one is agaisnt the stadium.

 

I guess I only know people in the 10%, it's a remarkable coincidence.

[Garlogie_Granite]

Aberdeenshire council are objecting to the development - Item 7

 

http://committees.aberdeenshire.gov.uk/committees.aspx?commid=6&meetid=18435

[manc_don]

Aberdeenshire council are objecting to the development - Item 7

 

http://committees.aberdeenshire.gov.uk/committees.aspx?commid=6&meetid=18435

 

Looks like it's just Weshill & Elrick Community Council rather than the shire council, or have I missed something?

 

Regardless, absolutely small minded of them.

 

Edit: I haven't read the minutes of the main document, just item 7.

[RicoS321]

Looks like it's just Weshill & Elrick Community Council rather than the shire council, or have I missed something?

 

Regardless, absolutely small minded of them.

 

Edit: I haven't read the minutes of the main document, just item 7.

 

Really? In what way is it small minded? I've just read item 7 too, and I don't see anything small minded there at all. In fact, the concerns raised stand out like a massive fucking beacon and haven't been adequately answered. We cannot have fans walking alongside a dual carriageway, and the vague alternatives presented aren't good enough. It'd be completely irresponsible for a community council to recommend the development based on the current transport suggestions. They make an extremely valid point about the sustainability of the parking and general travel arrangements. It's about as sustainable as an out of town shopping centre, which they would definitely object to too. There are actually very few benefits to the local community from having the stadium there, so I'm not sure why you'd expect them to be in support of it? Airy fairy shite about it being great for the North East to have a successful team in a shiny new stadium are just as objectionable as the shite about hordes of hooligans destroying Westhill or the stadium lights blinding the locals. The community of Westhill doesn't owe AFC anything, and they certainly shouldn't feel obliged to accomodate them in anyway because of some sort of faux loyalty. 

 

If the club addressed some of the basic concerns, then they'd get a much easier ride from the community council. Expecting them to say nothing because it's AFC and it's great for the North East or some such shite and ignoring the overwhelming flaws in the plan - well that is where the small mindedness lies.

 

Anyway, I don't think they'll hold any sway whatsoever. It'll go ahead, I'm fairly confident of that. It'll be down to the dons affording it.

[Tyrant]

Really? In what way is it small minded? I've just read item 7 too, and I don't see anything small minded there at all. In fact, the concerns raised stand out like a massive fucking beacon and haven't been adequately answered. We cannot have fans walking alongside a dual carriageway, and the vague alternatives presented aren't good enough. It'd be completely irresponsible for a community council to recommend the development based on the current transport suggestions. They make an extremely valid point about the sustainability of the parking and general travel arrangements. It's about as sustainable as an out of town shopping centre, which they would definitely object to too. There are actually very few benefits to the local community from having the stadium there, so I'm not sure why you'd expect them to be in support of it? Airy fairy shite about it being great for the North East to have a successful team in a shiny new stadium are just as objectionable as the shite about hordes of hooligans destroying Westhill or the stadium lights blinding the locals. The community of Westhill doesn't owe AFC anything, and they certainly shouldn't feel obliged to accomodate them in anyway because of some sort of faux loyalty. 

 

If the club addressed some of the basic concerns, then they'd get a much easier ride from the community council. Expecting them to say nothing because it's AFC and it's great for the North East or some such shite and ignoring the overwhelming flaws in the plan - well that is where the small mindedness lies.

 

Anyway, I don't think they'll hold any sway whatsoever. It'll go ahead, I'm fairly confident of that. It'll be down to the dons affording it.

 

 

That's that fucked then. I'll start a GoFundMe to repair Pittodrie.

[RicoS321]

 

That's that fucked then. I'll start a GoFundMe to repair Pittodrie.

 

Ha ha, aye, that'll dee it. I think we'll have no problem getting a large mortgage and a pitiful naming rights agreement from SMG with caveats associated with paying those sums back at some point. I think we'll work the money from somewhere.

[OxfordDon]

Aberdeenshire council are objecting to the development - Item 7

 

http://committees.aberdeenshire.gov.uk/committees.aspx?commid=6&meetid=18435

Looks like it's just Weshill & Elrick Community Council rather than the shire council, or have I missed something?

 

Regardless, absolutely small minded of them.

 

Edit: I haven't read the minutes of the main document, just item 7.

 

I read it, mainly because i'm a right pedant.

 

There are no minutes because the  Garioch Area Committee meeting in question is not until the 21st Feb.  The linked document is a detailed consultation response written by Aberdeenshire Council Infrastructure Services, and includes Westhill & Elrick Community Council's own responses in the appendices.

 

Item 7 on the agenda in the original post is for Garioch Area Committee to discuss the consultation response and see if they want to add their own points, before presumably the whole lot is handed over to Aberdeen City Council as a formal document.

 

In terms of what those responses are, I've pasted Aberdeenshire Council's conclusion below.  The TL;DR version is that Aberdeenshire Council have fairly serious concerns over transportation and parking, a few over environmental health, and some minor ones.  They have recommended a holding objection on the planning application over transportation until these are addressed.  However, they are not against a new stadium per se, they just want to see it done properly, and they sound a bit peeved that they weren't involved (as they should have been) in the application process as part of the county-wide SDP, which still reflects the previous site.

 

If you read Westhill & Elrick Community Council's own responses in Appendix 3 though (which i haven't pasted), it's pretty clear they dinnae want it at all in what feels a fairly NIMBYish tone, although some of the points they raise are the same as Aberdeenshire Council and are just as valid.

 

Conclusions

 

2.16 The Planning Service has had a very limited role in pre-application

discussions and the environmental impact assessment scoping exercise, but

appreciates the involvement and opportunity to formally comment on the

application. Aberdeen City Council and the agent have also sought to engage

with the local community, community council and elected members and this is

welcomed.

 

2.17 Ultimately, it is not for Aberdeenshire Council to determine the planning

application, its role is limited to that of consultee, although it would be

expected that any material issues raised would be fully considered by

Aberdeen City Council. The delivery of a new community stadium is a key

proposal in the development plan, with two possible locations shown.

Unfortunately the community aspect is not fully apparent and the application

site is neither of the locations identified and has not come through the

development plan process.

 

2.18 The proposal is considered to be contrary to a number of policy objectives

within the Strategic Development Plan and consultation responses received

have raised a number of issues that are not considered to be fully addressed

or justified in the supporting information. Most significantly, a holding objection

has been received from Transportation, Environmental Health has a number

of concerns and significant reservations have been expressed by Westhill &

Elrick Community Council.

 

2.19 Due to the proximity to Westhill there is little doubt that any impact from the

development would be felt most acutely in this community, whether in terms of

traffic impact, amenity, or loss of greenbelt. However, it must also be

recognised the proposal could also provide considerable benefits for local

residents or the nearby community who would wish to access the facilities

available and for local businesses.

 

2.20 This report recommends that Garioch Area Committee consider the details of

the proposal along with consultee comments received and provide a view to

Infrastructure Services Committee.

 

2.21 The Head of Finance and Monitoring Officer within Business Services have

been consulted in the preparation of this report had no comments to make

and are satisfied that the report complies with the Scheme of Governance and

relevant legislation.

[Garlogie_Granite]

We cannot have fans walking alongside a dual carriageway, and the vague alternatives presented aren't good enough.

Why not?

 

The councillor for Sheddocksley has successfully retardedly got the speed limit reduced from Hazelehead to Westhill to 40mph, and there's a wide pavement all the way down the north side, which is where people would naturally walk.

 

What's the difference between walking down King Street, Golf Road, the Esplanade, or even across a golf course?

 

 

 

 

It'd be completely irresponsible for a community council to recommend the development based on the current transport suggestions. They make an extremely valid point about the sustainability of the parking and general travel arrangements.

The Community Council at the final Westhill Inn meeting, having now been taken over by the NO brigade, are actively blocking, or attempting to block, all reasonable suggestions for parking overspill in the area. Despite that the Dons have secured already, over 600 spaces in Arnhall Ind Est. No doubt more will come.

 

I know for instance that my local is intending running shuttle buses, come the time parking will be fine.

[Tyrant]

That wide pavement is also a cycle path. Cue the objections from the cyclists.

[Garlogie_Granite]

That wide pavement is also a cycle path. Cue the objections from the cyclists.

They can cycle on the road, it'll be at a standstill remember  :rofl:

[RicoS321]

Why not?

 

The councillor for Sheddocksley has successfully retardedly got the speed limit reduced from Hazelehead to Westhill to 40mph, and there's a wide pavement all the way down the north side, which is where people would naturally walk.

 

What's the difference between walking down King Street, Golf Road, the Esplanade, or even across a golf course?

 

 

 

The Community Council at the final Westhill Inn meeting, having now been taken over by the NO brigade, are actively blocking, or attempting to block, all reasonable suggestions for parking overspill in the area. Despite that the Dons have secured already, over 600 spaces in Arnhall Ind Est. No doubt more will come.

 

I know for instance that my local is intending running shuttle buses, come the time parking will be fine.

 

Great points. I'm not suggesting that the problems can't be overcome, I'm saying that they don't appear in the linked documents. I'd say there's a massive difference between a 40mph (I wid never dee 40 there, as I suspect you wouldn't either) zone with little congestion to naturally reduce speed and King Street and so forth which are regularly reduced to 20mph at most before and after games. Sensible (I ken, it's nae) policy would be to put in temporary 20mph zone from the Arnhall crossing bit to perhaps the bus park or nae quite as far that came into play for an hour before and an hour after similar to outside schools. It shouldn't be required, as we're all adults, but it's about mitigating the complaints and getting it down on paper so that these objections can be quickly and easily thrown out. Again, I didn't see any mention of having secured 600 spaces at Arnhall either, which would surely crush further objections.

 

However, neither of the above addresses the sustainability issue. To me, the whole thing stinks of out of town shopping centre - it's all very get there, get out. It might not feel that way when built, but the walk along a carriageway doesn't even compare to a walk down a populated King St and into the heart of the city. That's not sentimental bollocks, it's just good architecture and design. To me, the stadium should be the forefront of the community. This isn't.

 

Anyway, there's plenty can be done to mitigate the parking etc, and the Arnhall spaces should be a good start. Will they be free parking, or some cunts looking to make a buck?

 

Edit: Just saw Tyrant's post. Why wouldn't cyclists object? They fucking should. And the club should do everything possible in its design to not fuck it up for others. How much - as a percentage of total - would it cost the dons to add in alternative unobstructed cycle routes for match days? Fuck all I expect. It's a totally valid objection, and should be treated as such. If we can't even address minor issues like this quickly and cost-efficiently then we shouldn't be building anything.

[OxfordDon]

*cough*

 

Pedant here again.  Cyclists are allowed to cycle on the road (unless it's a motorway), regardless of whether there is a cycle path.  Whether they may want to is a different matter.

[RicoS321]

*cough*

 

Pedant here again.  Cyclists are allowed to cycle on the road (unless it's a motorway), regardless of whether there is a cycle path.  Whether they may want to is a different matter.

 

It's not whether they want to, is whether they should have to. It's a valid objection, but it shouldn't be something that affects the decision (yes or no), it should just be a caveat of the application to create a suitable alternative for cyclists on match days. I couldn't give a fuck about the cycle route myself, I just don't get the need to be snide about genuine objections. It doesn't do the pro-stadium side any favours, in the same way as citing ridiculous objections about hooliganism and so forth doesn't do the anti-stadium side any favours - both are as pathetic as each other.

[OxfordDon]

It's not whether they want to, is whether they should have to. It's a valid objection, but it shouldn't be something that affects the decision (yes or no), it should just be a caveat of the application to create a suitable alternative for cyclists on match days. I couldn't give a fuck about the cycle route myself, I just don't get the need to be snide about genuine objections. It doesn't do the pro-stadium side any favours, in the same way as citing ridiculous objections about hooliganism and so forth doesn't do the anti-stadium side any favours - both are as pathetic as each other.

 

 

I'm not being snide, and my reply wasn't even to your post, it was to Garlogie_granite's post.   

 

For the record, I have no great opinions about the stadium location either way - it's been over 10 years since i last set foot in Pittodrie and that was for a conference.  I definitely agree with the need for a new one for the club's benefit, but personally i'd prefer if they built it in Oxford.

 

Don't heckle the pedants or you'll get a 14-page putdown.

[RicoS321]

 

I'm not being snide, and my reply wasn't even to your post, it was to Garlogie_granite's post.   

 

For the record, I have no great opinions about the stadium location either way - it's been over 10 years since i last set foot in Pittodrie and that was for a conference.  I definitely agree with the need for a new one for the club's benefit, but personally i'd prefer if they built it in Oxford.

 

Don't heckle the pedants or you'll get a 14-page putdown.

 

Aye, so it was, my apologies. Do you ging to Oxford games? Is their ground part of the city? Or an out-of-town shopping precinct?

[manc_don]

Aye, so it was, my apologies. Do you ging to Oxford games? Is their ground part of the city? Or an out-of-town shopping precinct?

 

I believe its part of the city but it's not in the city centre and isn't exactly surrounded by housing or streets.

 

In response to your earlier post, I don't necessarily disagree with what they're trying to say, I think it's more who is and how they're saying it. There are things which shouldn't have a say on whether it does or doesn't go ahead, but should be tagged along as a section 106 ( Tom not sure what the planning codes are in Scotland) and a requirement or condition of the development.

 

I have no issues with people walking alongside a dual carriageway providing there is sufficient and safe space to do so. It's not ideal but not a deal breaker in my eyes. Unless at the loss of cycle space then I know ED would understand my position

 

The club are billing this as a community stadium and they should probably sell it a bit more. I'd imagine theyd class the corporate suites and rooms as being open for community use as the non sporting community use. The comments sound like they're trying to hold the club to ransom with a view to getting in the way of any development. Small mindedness imo.

 

The bit about all 60 busses leaving within 2 minutes cracked me up though, surely this was a typo on the club's part? I'd be intrigued to see where this was though. Presumably The design and access statement or transport assessment?

[OxfordDon]

Aye, so it was, my apologies. Do you ging to Oxford games? Is their ground part of the city? Or an out-of-town shopping precinct?

 

Nae worries min

 

I dinnae go to the Oxford games, but the stadium is on the edge of Blackbird Leys, a less than salubrious estate just outside the ring road that encircles the city.  It's also next to an out-of town shopping precinct.

Here's a scorrie's view.

 

If the Dons fancy moving there, i can put a word in.

[Edinburghdon]

 

I have no issues with people walking alongside a dual carriageway providing there is sufficient and safe space to do so. It's not ideal but not a deal breaker in my eyes. Unless at the loss of cycle space then I know ED would understand my position

 

 

I'm all in favour of the cycle path, keeps the twats off the road when I'm trying to get to work 

 

In all Seriousness though, having to walk alongside the dual carriageway is a non issue, it's a 40mph road for fuck sake hardly a motorway. I'm also  sure provisions can be made to ensure cyclists aren't inconvenienced by pedestrians also using the path... can't say I've noticed many cyclists actually using it though.

[tlg1903]

Have a few underpasses so people can cross over without going near cars, the road is not even built yet so it couldn't be that hard to incorporate into plans you would think.  It seems a very resolvable issue if you ask me. 

[RicoS321]

In all Seriousness though, having to walk alongside the dual carriageway is a non issue, it's a 40mph road for fuck sake hardly a motorway. I'm also  sure provisions can be made to ensure cyclists aren't inconvenienced by pedestrians also using the path... can't say I've noticed many cyclists actually using it though.

 

Absolutely, yer right. I just think that we've left several avenues for genuine objection open that would have been easy to close off, make little difference to the overall cost and make it look even more like the club are trying to accommodate the locals. I'm probably being harsh.

[Garlogie_Granite]

Have a few underpasses so people can cross over without going near cars, the road is not even built yet so it couldn't be that hard to incorporate into plans you would think.  It seems a very resolvable issue if you ask me.

Wrong road min, we're talking about the A944. Fans walking from the kingswells park & ride will walk under the AWPR as it is a flyover where it crosses the A944.

[Edinburghdon]

Absolutely, yer right. I just think that we've left several avenues for genuine objection open that would have been easy to close off, make little difference to the overall cost and make it look even more like the club are trying to accommodate the locals. I'm probably being harsh.

 

Isn't it in the plans to have shuttle buses from the park and ride too? There has been some work put into it which seems to have been overlooked (or totally ignored) by some of the protest groups, but I agree it's not perfect.

 

The shuttle buses will cut the numbers walking along it at least, admittedly some folk will still walk so work into that aspect of the planning is probably required.

[Garlogie_Granite]

https://www.facebook.com/MarkMcDonaldSNP/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED&fref=nf

 

Constituency MP comes out in favour.....

 

 

I have today issued the following statement in relation to the proposal by Aberdeen Football

Club to build a new stadium at Kingsford:

After taking the time to scrutinise the proposals put forward, and speak to AFC officials it is clear to me that this development would be fantastic, not only for the football club, but for the wider Aberdeen city and shire region.

There is an opportunity here to deliver first class training and playing facilities not only for professional footballers, but for the local communities as well. One of the best things about Aberdeen Football Club is the excellent work by the Community Trust to engage children and adults with playing sport, leading healthier lifestyles, and taking part in charitable activity; it would be fantastic to see that reach out across communities.

For me this decision has been well thought-through, as I know the importance of considering the potential challenges in any major development. I am aware of concerns about the impact a new stadium may have on traffic and parking management in nearby streets, but I am confident that the plans the club have to implement parking restrictions, similar to those that exist around Pittodrie on match days at present, will ensure residents are not inconvenienced.

I believe the proximity of the ground to the AWPR junction will mean the vast majority of traffic to and from the ground will enter neither Kingswells or Westhill villages. Having attended many matches at Pittodrie over the years, I have yet to encounter any form of disorder either inside or outside the ground, nor in the communities nearby before or after a match.

For cities to thrive and be successful they need a good balance of diversity and interest, and a £50million investment in a fit-for-purpose first class stadium is exactly the sort of boost Aberdeen needs. Whilst I cannot influence the decision making on this proposal I felt as the MSP whose constituency the development is proposed for it was only fair that I voice my own opinion on the matter. The consultation on this proposal is open until Monday February 27th and I sincerely hope those who want to see a strong future for AFC and for our region will show their support.

[Tyrant]

Seems like a sensible loon.

 

I took a run out to Costco yesterday. Half expected folk to have petitions all up in my grill but all I was was about two dozen banners against the proposal.

 

The No group have badly let themselves and everyone who is against the stadium down by being a bunch of irrational naive fuds. I think they've fucked any chance of successfully opposing the proposal.

 

As much as I'd prefer to stay at Pittodrie (whether it's practical or not is by the by) I'm still looking forward to seeing these cretins' coupons when Sir Alex Ferguson inevitably cuts the ribbon.

[Garlogie_Granite]

The No group have badly let themselves and everyone who is against the stadium down by being a bunch of irrational naive fuds. I think they've fucked any chance of successfully opposing the proposal.

Have to agree, and been saying so for a while. All the talk of rampaging drunks, blocked roads, cinemas, just deflects from the few real areas of concern.

 

If they'd stuck to real points and hammered them they may have had more leverage.