New stadium thread

[Edinburghdon]

 

It's a conspiracy by someone in favour of the stadium, of course it is...

[tom_widdows]

I feel the council planning are in a no win situation with this one.

After the debacle of the newly elected council randomly reversing previously approved planning applications (including as I recall the training facility section at Loriston) and the mess that was Union Terrace gardens they will be under alot of pressure from the Press & Public to not be seen as denying the City something which many see as a positive move.

However I sense approving the application will lead to legal challenges not too dis-similar to that used against the AWPR.

 

I have only skimmed over the No Kingsford stadium FB group but for me it seems to fall into the trap so many people do when protesting something. Social media can be a powerful weapon when used correctly and I have seen groups like this before. There will be a hardcore few behind it but their online conduct will hinder them from getting people who are in the 'I don't want the <insert development here> built here but I have more pressing concerns in my life so I'm really not bothered' to really support them. Those are a key demographic when protesting anything. A few publicity shots in the press will not make up for the mess the objections turned into - Never ever get a standard letter, or tick-box list and get multiple people to sign it. It is too easy to be hi-jacked/ faked and will count against you. The same applies to those campaigning in favour.

If you can get people to put their objections in their own words, the most powerful of which will still be the old fashioned formal letter then you will be taken more seriously. One letter signed on behalf of a group of people is better than the multiple copies of the same letter signed by different people

 

I recently advised some people about how best to object to a new housing development. The development itself was not against any local plans and it was most likely going to be approved (council would have been hard pressed to reject it) so in that situation the key was not to get angry and demand it be rejected but to use local knowledge to highlight things the Developers/ Designers either may have ignored or had little to know chance of even knowing. The result was the application was approved but was hit with some seriously difficult & expensive conditions all of which would delay the project and potentially make it so expensive the developer may have to cancel it altogether. The locals were able to download a copy of the conditions along with the planning officers contact details so should the Developer try to cut any corners the alert would be raised sharpish and enforcement action taken.

 

I will not be surprised if the decision is delayed well beyond the June 20th mark but I will be surprised if the Council issue an outright rejection. My money is on a few more months of negotiations followed by a conditional consent with a conditions list similar to what Tesco were hit with for their proposed Glasgow Harbour store (Now cancelled following their 'creative accounting' scandal).

[manc_don]

 

I will not be surprised if the decision is delayed well beyond the June 20th mark but I will be surprised if the Council issue an outright rejection. My money is on a few more months of negotiations followed by a conditional consent with a conditions list similar to what Tesco were hit with for their proposed Glasgow Harbour store (Now cancelled following their 'creative accounting' scandal).

 

Pretty much my thoughts as well. I don't think the council can afford to reject it but will use it to their advantage to appease all sides. I can see some serious changes to the traffic strategy and probably a bit of a widening on the sports available. I accept budget is an issue but I think we've missed a trick with not having an indoor facility.

 

Tom, are section 106's part of planning in Scotland? I presume there I'd something of the equivalent to it. I know plenty of schemes where the council use it to get something they want out of the scheme, I.e. A guaranteed bus route at the cost of the applicant. Obviously this is expensive but would be one way for the club to argue that bus provision is met

[tom_widdows]

Section 75 up here is the same thing. My experience of it in Glasgow has always been with residential conversions of Listed Buildings in which there is no scope for providing a garden area for the future residents.

As to whether the Section 75 payments are actually used to fund the public amenity/ green spaces it is supposed to.....

[manc_don]

Section 75 up here is the same thing. My experience of it in Glasgow has always been with residential conversions of Listed Buildings in which there is no scope for providing a garden area for the future residents.

As to whether the Section 75 payments are actually used to fund the public amenity/ green spaces it is supposed to.....

 

Same down here, a bit of a strong arm tactic by councils imo but if funding is being cut left right and centre I suppose we should applaud them. The issue its a client funding the bus company is that it is usually only for say 5 years, then it can be pulled. Likely to happen to a scheme I sat in on a planning committee review for.

 

I think the club should make more of the flexibility of the 3g surfaces we're providing as part of the stadium. Obviously good for not just football, albeit if it is to be used for football the "blades" will be longer, but still, at community level it still provides flexibility for rugby and hockey.

[100% Anti Kingsford]

Its a very sad state of affairs that the history of our club has declined to the depths of rival Facebook groups (Yes Kingsford v No Kingsford) arguing with one another as to whom is lying, telling the truth, knows best, submitting inillegibal votes etc etc

 

Over 100 Years at Pittodrie, home of the club, the spiritual historical home of the club and its sunk to the depths of arguments on Facebook over whether the club should move to a farmers field that is not even in Aberdeen.

 

Sad state of affairs.

 

Shake head.....

[OxfordDon]

inillegibal

 

I tried reading this but it doesn't make sense, fit does it mean?

 

 

[tom_widdows]

I thought the arguments were about car-parking and bus services. Two things that have always been bones of contention in Aberdeen.

[100% Anti Kingsford]

The squabbles have moved onto various "Facebook" groups No v Yes and members in these groups accusing each other e.g. lying, fabricating votes, complaints, letters to council, letters to EE, virtual threats as regards votes general public made via ACC planning portal.

 

Arguments over 'who' put in the better objections or better letters of support.

 

As mentioned and already said it makes no difference.  The club have messed up big time with the plan submission - its a crap transport plan and site is deemed a flood risk in various places. It's not going to get approved in June and the club have a big decision to make as to whether they go through a cycle of planning again for the same site (even though problems will not go away) or they actually try and throw dice again for somewhere else.

 

The sensible thing for this now is that Aberdeen FC partner and collaborate with ACC and take advice from Council as to 'where' a new stadium can be built i.e. Council identify suitable sites, advise club, submit a plan, avoid conflicts and move the club forward FFS.

 

There is not gonna be any community backlash over Kingslinks.

 

 

 

 

[OxfordDon]

Maybe you should just stay off Facebook min, and pursue the debate in the sanity of the real world.  Folk will argue over anything to the back teeth on there, rationality doesn't get a look-in.

 

I doubt the planning proposal will be booted out in June, although i can't see it getting the green light either.  My uninformed guess would be that be that there would be some form of moratorium with a requirement for more clarity over certain issues, like transport, at the heart of the non-facebook objections.

 

However, there are folk on here with far more knowledge of the legalities of planning processes than me, who may be able to clarify the likelihood of this.

[100% Anti Kingsford]

I don't use Facebook.  But I have followed this stadium mullarky since 1999.

 

The local council are already in state of execution via the club as regards Kingsford at the moment.  The club have already had maybe 14 or 15 points of 'improvement' i.e. things that they have to do as regards roads, flooding etc which they say they are working on.  They call it an 'open dialogue', its not its ACC saying we want to see this or else.

 

However, many of the fixes are non practically solved - unless George Yule can build a slip-road flyover like you get in Taiwan to access the stadium then there is no way of mitigating the issues.  The ACC cannot say to Aberdeen FC you need to fix X,Y,Z and the only answer is 'we will run shuttle buses'.

 

The shuttle buses are not going to work.  People want to take cars and park where they want. 

 

In laymans terms, how can I explain this, Aberdeen FC have made a 'punt' with Kingsford.  Its a plan, a design and a throw of the dice.  But the materials that accompany that are poor with the roads, transportation plans a shambles.

 

Do you know that road A944? Have you drive on it?  Do you know how it links up these places i.e. Kingswells, Westhill, Elrick etc?  Have you driven out to these towns and seen on an ordinary day the problems with traffic?  Have you seen the roundabouts?  Bus lanes proposal is nonsensical.

 

The ACC could give the a moratorium in June sure - but for what just to put off the reality of the fact that the stadium at Kingsford is not practically possible and there will be huge problems for fans, club?

[Edinburghdon]

I don't use Facebook.

 

Yet you're having a wee moan about people arguing over the stadium on facebook?...

 

Do you know that road A944? Have you drive on it?  Do you know how it links up these places i.e. Kingswells, Westhill, Elrick etc?  Have you driven out to these towns and seen on an ordinary day the problems with traffic?  Have you seen the roundabouts?  Bus lanes proposal is nonsensical.

 

Not sure about anyone else on here but I drive the road daily, took me 25 mins to drive to Westhill from my house in the city centre this morning...

 

Sure at peak times it can be busy but it's hardly catastrophic gridlock, traffic for the match wont be hugely different to peak rush hour traffic. The concerns bordering on hysterical on some things.

[RicoS321]

Not sure about anyone else on here but I drive the road daily, took me 25 mins to drive to Westhill from my house in the city centre this morning...

 

Sure at peak times it can be busy but it's hardly catastrophic gridlock, traffic for the match wont be hugely different to peak rush hour traffic. The concerns bordering on hysterical on some things.

 

This. I don't believe traffic is that bad from/to Westhill having worked there quite a few times recently. Given the timings of the matches in general, I don't believe the additional traffic will cause anything but a short delay at very specific - and non-peak - times.

 

I'm not sure, exactly, how the bypass will help or not. A lot will depend on the design around that area and how accommodating it is. It would have been better to have had this sorted a couple of years back and stadium access integrated into the design rather than an afterthought which will end up being half-arsed. It'll be interesting to see it in action.

 

However, those are just my thoughts, I don't know the legalities, or planning considerations, around it but I expect they won't be onerous.

[donsdaft]

It's a ridiculous idea building a stadium this far from the city centre.

Any park and ride, shuttle bus, monorail ideas are just "imagine if"

 

I accept I'm not the future of the AFC fan base but then again, I've never been likely to miss a game because it is raining or because I'm playing some computer game.

 

Stay at Pittodrie, Do it up by all means but stay at Pittodrie.

[Garlogie_Granite]

 

 

Do you know that road A944? Have you drive on it?  Do you know how it links up these places i.e. Kingswells, Westhill, Elrick etc?  Have you driven out to these towns and seen on an ordinary day the problems with traffic?  Have you seen the roundabouts?  Bus lanes proposal is nonsensical.

 

<<<<<The clue is in my username.

 

Yes, traffic is bad, thoguh even during rush hour, by 9am and by 6pm traffic is normal.

 

And of course, there's nothing like the traffic for a fitba match that there is during rush hour. So fit's the issue?

[100% Anti Kingsford]

The planning and transport considerations in the case of this are more than onerous.  They are pivotal.

 

Everyone's perceptions are different as well. I drove down A944 on Friday at 3pm and it is not far from Hazlehead but the road was very busy, lots of roundabouts.

 

The 'key' here is its not mine or anyone's else's perceptions of the road access its the ACC and its teams views. 

 

These are the people who know about regulations, transport plans, road layouts.  And the view at the moment is that the transport plans are a shambles.    Aberdeen Fc can't just mitigate these issues other than build a new road but that is impossible.

 

It is a ridiculous idea to build where they are currently proposing.  Rationality has gone out the window - partner the Council and find a suitable location FFS.

 

[Garlogie_Granite]

The planning and transport considerations in the case of this are more than onerous.  They are pivotal.

 

Everyone's perceptions are different as well. I drove down A944 on Friday at 3pm and it is not far from Hazlehead but the road was very busy, lots of roundabouts.

 

 

There is ONE roundabout, plus the temporary one under the AWPR flyover.

[Obanred]

 

monorail ideas are just "imagine if"

 

[donsdaft]

Yeah Oban, that was the thought.

[manc_don]

 

I said the exact same thing to ED last week

 

That, or an Edinburgh Tram system 

[donsdaft]

Nithing wrang with the combino tram system, I'm a big fan.

 

Just nae in Edinburgh

[100% Anti Kingsford]

All perception whether for or against Kingsford.

 

Quick look on planning site - selected list of issues with the plans and problems ACC Transport/roads identified:

 

Plan Lacks detail

Lacks impartiality in assessment (no methodology used)

No split assessments of travel plans of fans (Big games v small games)

Too many assumptions

No detail of eastern access by foot

Cyclist access provision queried and questioned

Pedestrian safety queried

Need transport management plan before planning consent is granted.

Need pick up points identified in city centre for shuttle buses

No drop off points post match identified

 

etc etc etc

 

There are also lots of technical queries.

 

 

 

 

[Garlogie_Granite]

All perception whether for or against Kingsford.

 

Quick look on planning site - selected list of issues with the plans and problems ACC Transport/roads identified:

 

Plan Lacks detail

Lacks impartiality in assessment (no methodology used)

No split assessments of travel plans of fans (Big games v small games)

Too many assumptions

No detail of eastern access by foot

Cyclist access provision queried and questioned

Pedestrian safety queried

Need transport management plan before planning consent is granted.

Need pick up points identified in city centre for shuttle buses

No drop off points post match identified

 

etc etc etc

 

There are also lots of technical queries.

i've lost faith in your obvious self-confidence since your failure to count one roundabout between Hazelhead and Kingsford correctly.

[RicoS321]

i've lost faith in your obvious self-confidence since your failure to count one roundabout between Hazelhead and Kingsford correctly.

 

But surely those points you quoted - regardless of the messenger - are pretty valid points raised? Or, more correctly, questions unanswered.

 

I don't imagine ACC will just blindly pass this. For those in the know: is it likely there will be an approval subject to conditions or is it more likely, given the points raised by ACC, that they'd just reject it and leave it up to AFC to come back with better plans?

[jess]

i've lost faith in your obvious self-confidence since your failure to count one roundabout between Hazelhead and Kingsford correctly.

 

There's Hazlehead roundabout then one for those coming off Lang Stracht then the one for Kingswells?