18-02-2020, 05:57 PM
(This post was last modified: 18-02-2020, 05:58 PM by Salvatore Matrecano.)
Would urge everyone to reply to the public comments on the planning application, say something constructive on grounds of community and economic benefits job creation etc.
I have pasted below an objection letter that has been lodged by numerous West Bridgford residents. If any of you can counter any of these arguments in a rational and evidence based manner then please do so.
am writing to object to Nottingham Forest application 19/02589/HYBRID which seeks to build 250 residential units in two new buildings, and redevelop the Peter Taylor stand to accommodate 5000 more seats.
I object for the following reasons:
1. The two residential buildings are higher than surrounding buildings, dominate the south bank of Trent Bridge, and are not in keeping with surrounding architecture.
2. The Nottingham Forest stands and new residential blocks are too intense in such a small area.
3. No affordable housing is being provided.
4. Only 43 car parking spaces are being provided for 250 residential units.
5. 5000 extra seating capacity will create more cars and traffic in an already busy and bottlenecked area of Trent Bridge. Mid-week matches will overlap with rush hour causing more gridlocks.
6. Despite a seating capacity of a proposed 35000 people, the application proposes to reduce the number of Nottingham Forest football car park spaces to 256 in total (392 average - 136 net reduction).
7. The proposal will aggravate access and parking for residents in surrounding areas. Residents frequently have to change plans to accommodate football traffic. They also find it difficult or impossible to find a car parking space anywhere near their residence on match days.
8. Rushcliffe have proposed no (satisfactory) alternative to current or proposed car parking issues or traffic.
9. The increase in people and cars in such a dense and busy area are likely to have health and safety issues, including access by emergency services.
10. The survey is limited to an area 1.25km from the ground but football traffic and parking extends further than that.
11. Statistics are often not representative of the real situation - numbers on a page are no substitute for experiencing match day mayhem and inconvenience.
12. The survey uses Blackburn Rovers football club as a base for its statistics which is not representative of matches where the away team is closer to home.
13. Unnecessary destruction of local heritage in the form of the Britannia Boat Club.
14. The application and public consultation have not been widely publicised to residents in the surrounding area.
I have pasted below an objection letter that has been lodged by numerous West Bridgford residents. If any of you can counter any of these arguments in a rational and evidence based manner then please do so.
am writing to object to Nottingham Forest application 19/02589/HYBRID which seeks to build 250 residential units in two new buildings, and redevelop the Peter Taylor stand to accommodate 5000 more seats.
I object for the following reasons:
1. The two residential buildings are higher than surrounding buildings, dominate the south bank of Trent Bridge, and are not in keeping with surrounding architecture.
2. The Nottingham Forest stands and new residential blocks are too intense in such a small area.
3. No affordable housing is being provided.
4. Only 43 car parking spaces are being provided for 250 residential units.
5. 5000 extra seating capacity will create more cars and traffic in an already busy and bottlenecked area of Trent Bridge. Mid-week matches will overlap with rush hour causing more gridlocks.
6. Despite a seating capacity of a proposed 35000 people, the application proposes to reduce the number of Nottingham Forest football car park spaces to 256 in total (392 average - 136 net reduction).
7. The proposal will aggravate access and parking for residents in surrounding areas. Residents frequently have to change plans to accommodate football traffic. They also find it difficult or impossible to find a car parking space anywhere near their residence on match days.
8. Rushcliffe have proposed no (satisfactory) alternative to current or proposed car parking issues or traffic.
9. The increase in people and cars in such a dense and busy area are likely to have health and safety issues, including access by emergency services.
10. The survey is limited to an area 1.25km from the ground but football traffic and parking extends further than that.
11. Statistics are often not representative of the real situation - numbers on a page are no substitute for experiencing match day mayhem and inconvenience.
12. The survey uses Blackburn Rovers football club as a base for its statistics which is not representative of matches where the away team is closer to home.
13. Unnecessary destruction of local heritage in the form of the Britannia Boat Club.
14. The application and public consultation have not been widely publicised to residents in the surrounding area.