The Infrastructure Projects

[Sausage Roll]

I'd rather wait for the outcome of next week's meeting and subsequent updates from the club rather than present such a downbeat outlook.

[nffc93]

Still a way to go I fear regarding the City Ground Development. Forest unlikely to proceed with the £130 m development of the Peter Taylor Stand until they have purchased the freehold of the ground and that is unlikely until approval is granted for the redevelopment of the Bridgford Road Stand. Also there is the small matter of sorting alternative premises for the Boat Club and having it operational before ANY construction works can start.  All a bit of a vicious circle unfortunately and I really feel the commencement of The City Ground Development is still some years away.

What a shambles

[wassy04]

I'd rather wait for the outcome of next week's meeting and subsequent updates from the club rather than present such a downbeat outlook.

I was getting the impression things were looking positive after that Athletic update and that this meeting was going to rubber stamp everything.

[The reds]

I'd rather wait for the outcome of next week's meeting and subsequent updates from the club rather than present such a downbeat outlook.

I was getting the impression things were looking positive after that Athletic update and that this meeting was going to rubber stamp everything.

They released all the details of the S106 on RBC and it suggest everything is agreed.

[Sausage Roll]

I'd rather wait for the outcome of next week's meeting and subsequent updates from the club rather than present such a downbeat outlook.

I was getting the impression things were looking positive after that Athletic update and that this meeting was going to rubber stamp everything.

Hopefully it'll rubber-stamp everything for the Peter Taylor Stand but then I guess the process will need to be done again for the Bridgford.

[stirred]

On the one hand we desperately need a larger capacity, and greater revenues.

On the other I worry we can’t do what we want (need?) at the current site. Very glad we’ve got such an ambitious owner, but is it going to be constrained by the City Ground site and the councils?

[Salvatore Matrecano]

It looks like all the councillors who represent the local vicinity of the CG will object, 2 greens 1 labour possibly some others. There are more than enough to vote it through but depends how much sway the Nimbys have. The economic arguments are overwhelming but it upsets the tree huggers of Lady Bay who find it more difficult to park their Range Rovers for a couple of hours every other week.

Apparently we could have had a bigger stand but there is a garage at the end of someones garden on Roseberry street that we can’t interfere with.

[Sniffer Dog (Admin)]

It looks like all the councillors who represent the local vicinity of the CG will object, 2 greens 1 labour possibly some others. There are more than enough to vote it through but depends how much sway the Nimbys have. The economic arguments are overwhelming but it upsets the tree huggers of Lady Bay who find it more difficult to park their Range Rovers for a couple of hours every other week.

Apparently we could have had a bigger stand but there is a garage at the end of someones garden on Roseberry street that we can’t interfere with.

So they can let their dogs run free and leave their steaming smelly piles of shyte every where.

[Tricky]

It looks like all the councillors who represent the local vicinity of the CG will object, 2 greens 1 labour possibly some others. There are more than enough to vote it through but depends how much sway the Nimbys have. The economic arguments are overwhelming but it upsets the tree huggers of Lady Bay who find it more difficult to park their Range Rovers for a couple of hours every other week.

Apparently we could have had a bigger stand but there is a garage at the end of someones garden on Roseberry street that we can’t interfere with.

The planning committee is supposed to be A political and political alliances are supposed to non-existent. Don't for one minute let that kid you!!!

The Rushcliffe committee is made up of 6 Tories, 2 Labour and one each of Rushcliffe Independents, Leake Independents and the Green party. 

Providing the Tories are supportive of our ambitions: and as capitalists, why shouldn't they be, the minority groups, should they form an alliance would still not win the vote against planning permission.  The unknown element here are the two Independents and how supportive they are generally with the ruling Tories. 

There is only one Green Councillor from the Lady Bay ward actually on the planning committee so the other, her husband, cannot speak at the committee meeting, he can only send in his objections, should there be any, by written means and recorded and noted within the actual report. From my experiences on the City Council planning committee, objections were briefly mentioned and the name of the Councillor was not mentioned but would be referred to as the ward councillor for the reported area. 

I think both the Labour Councillors and the ruling Tory Councillors, will no doubt be briefed by their party's leadership and whips along the lines of 'if this planning application gets rejected, what could the future consequences be in future elections?' They will be well aware that the vast majority of their Forest supporting voters will happily not support them again if they vote down the planning application. Their votes are counted and recorded!

This is not a political point scoring post. This is the facts as I remember them from the 8 years I served on the City Council.

[Sniffer Dog (Admin)]

Big day today.

[stirred]

Is it worth a watch? 6pm

[Paplane]

Is it worth a watch? 6pm

I wouldn't bother. I've sat through many of these and they're by no means gripping entertainement.