+- COYR NOTTINGHAM FOREST FORUM (https://coyrforestforum.co.uk)
+-- Forum: NOTTINGHAM FOREST - A REBEL CLUB IN A REBEL CITY (https://coyrforestforum.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Nottingham Forest Fan Talk - Forest All Over The World (https://coyrforestforum.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: The Infrastructure Projects (/showthread.php?tid=23)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
RE: The 2 Infrastructure Projects - Paplane - 26-08-2020
And I've said it before on here. If it weren't for the planning application including a major residential development alongside, planning permission will have been in the bag for months now.
RE: The 2 Infrastructure Projects - Username - 26-08-2020
(26-08-2020, 02:14 PM)Paplane Wrote:(26-08-2020, 02:02 PM)Username Wrote: It's a shame that someone is dragging their heels, missed opportunity.
I think it's just circumstance, not necessarily dragging of heels. The club obviously had a strategy to achieve their goals but this went out the window when Covid struck. People have purchased tickets for the stand and it's going to get complicated again with refunds etc. anyway, without having to relocate people to other stands.
It really didn't.
Planning applications were still being processed during Covid albeit on a slower basis.
Construction continued largely as is other than some supply chain issues.
I've seen both issues first hand during lockdown.
Unfortunately the manner in which the Club communicate, or don't, at the moment leads to lots of speculation, some correct, some not.
RE: The 2 Infrastructure Projects - Paplane - 26-08-2020
(26-08-2020, 02:18 PM)Username Wrote:(26-08-2020, 02:14 PM)Paplane Wrote:(26-08-2020, 02:02 PM)Username Wrote: It's a shame that someone is dragging their heels, missed opportunity.
I think it's just circumstance, not necessarily dragging of heels. The club obviously had a strategy to achieve their goals but this went out the window when Covid struck. People have purchased tickets for the stand and it's going to get complicated again with refunds etc. anyway, without having to relocate people to other stands.
It really didn't.
Planning applications were still being processed during Covid albeit on a slower basis.
Construction continued largely as is other than some supply chain issues.
I've seen both issues first hand during lockdown.
Unfortunately the manner in which the Club communicate, or don't, at the moment leads to lots of speculation, some correct, some not.
I'm in the development industry myself and agree that where absolutely necessary things have carried on, subject as you say to a few supply issues. But what is around now is economic uncertainty, which is usually the biggest barrier to major developments happening or not. And as the club has major uncertainty around it's income, it's going to be a big factor in how they choose to proceed.
And re the planners, yes applications have continued to be approved during the lockdown but it could be that there's an ongoing negotiation happening with the club's lawyers and Rushcliffe BC, Nottingham City Council and perhaps even Notts County Council re a Section 106 agreement. The terms of S106 agreements are drawn up before permission is granted as the argument is that without one, then the application wouldn't be acceptable. They are a legal mechanism for council's to ask for associated improvements to the area/community facilities which are deemed necessary to offset the effect of the development. They normally involve the developer paying a cash sum to the council at an agreed point.
RE: The 2 Infrastructure Projects - ozzyten10 - 26-08-2020
A development of this size I would imagine would attract major sums for s106 funding for associated infrastructure. Is this the case?
RE: The 2 Infrastructure Projects - Paplane - 26-08-2020
(26-08-2020, 03:24 PM)ozzyten10 Wrote: A development of this size I would imagine would attract major sums for s106 funding for associated infrastructure. Is this the case?
I recall Nottm City suggested a contribution would be appropriate for public realm improvements to the northern side of the Trent Bridge area, but it that was Nottm City that requested that, not Rushcliffe BC.
RE: The 2 Infrastructure Projects - Tricky - 26-08-2020
(26-08-2020, 04:31 PM)Paplane Wrote:(26-08-2020, 03:24 PM)ozzyten10 Wrote: A development of this size I would imagine would attract major sums for s106 funding for associated infrastructure. Is this the case?
I recall Nottm City suggested a contribution would be appropriate for public realm improvements to the northern side of the Trent Bridge area, but it that was Nottm City that requested that, not Rushcliffe BC.
Apart from Nottm City Council being the land owners of the CG, I don't see where they can request anything from a S106 agreement. That would be down to Rushcliffe BC to make that call surely?
RE: The 2 Infrastructure Projects - ozzyten10 - 26-08-2020
Not if the development directly impacts NCC infrastructure which they argue it does
RE: The 2 Infrastructure Projects - Username - 26-08-2020
(26-08-2020, 02:51 PM)Paplane Wrote:(26-08-2020, 02:18 PM)Username Wrote:(26-08-2020, 02:14 PM)Paplane Wrote:(26-08-2020, 02:02 PM)Username Wrote: It's a shame that someone is dragging their heels, missed opportunity.
I think it's just circumstance, not necessarily dragging of heels. The club obviously had a strategy to achieve their goals but this went out the window when Covid struck. People have purchased tickets for the stand and it's going to get complicated again with refunds etc. anyway, without having to relocate people to other stands.
It really didn't.
Planning applications were still being processed during Covid albeit on a slower basis.
Construction continued largely as is other than some supply chain issues.
I've seen both issues first hand during lockdown.
Unfortunately the manner in which the Club communicate, or don't, at the moment leads to lots of speculation, some correct, some not.
I'm in the development industry myself and agree that where absolutely necessary things have carried on, subject as you say to a few supply issues. But what is around now is economic uncertainty, which is usually the biggest barrier to major developments happening or not. And as the club has major uncertainty around it's income, it's going to be a big factor in how they choose to proceed.
And re the planners, yes applications have continued to be approved during the lockdown but it could be that there's an ongoing negotiation happening with the club's lawyers and Rushcliffe BC, Nottingham City Council and perhaps even Notts County Council re a Section 106 agreement. The terms of S106 agreements are drawn up before permission is granted as the argument is that without one, then the application wouldn't be acceptable. They are a legal mechanism for council's to ask for associated improvements to the area/community facilities which are deemed necessary to offset the effect of the development. They normally involve the developer paying a cash sum to the council at an agreed point.
All guess work.
Unfortunately the club don’t think fit to tell us the actual truth.
RE: The 2 Infrastructure Projects - Username - 26-08-2020
Do we know that S106 negotiations are ongoing though?
RE: The 2 Infrastructure Projects - Paplane - 26-08-2020
(26-08-2020, 09:44 PM)Username Wrote: Do we know that S106 negotiations are ongoing though?
Nope, purely speculating.
RE: The 2 Infrastructure Projects - wassy04 - 27-09-2020
Anyone heard any updates?
RE: The 2 Infrastructure Projects - Tricky - 27-09-2020
(27-09-2020, 09:09 AM)wassy04 Wrote: Anyone heard any updates?
Not a thing!!