The Infrastructure Projects

[BomberBowyer]

Still a way to go yet but it seems actual officers want it to happen so the agreements should go ahead with political interference moving forward.

Not so sure MR. The planning officers seemed happy for it to go ahead but some of the Councillors less so and given how many times the planning officer had to answer the same questions, on the same issues I don’t have too much hope the conditions will be resolved quickly. That is unless the club agree to fund everything including a new bridge, public transport costs, road improvements and anything else they want doing that has been neglected to be done by the council in the past how many years.  All yesterday appears to have done is get the green light to the plans but actual building of it will depend how much we want are willing to pay for it seems.

[Marinakis Red]

Still a way to go yet but it seems actual officers want it to happen so the agreements should go ahead with political interference moving forward.

Not so sure MR. The planning officers seemed happy for it to go ahead but some of the Councillors less so and given how many times the planning officer had to answer the same questions, on the same issues I don’t have too much hope the conditions will be resolved quickly. That is unless the club agree to fund everything including a new bridge, public transport costs, road improvements and anything else they want doing that has been neglected to be done by the council in the past how many years.  All yesterday appears to have done is get the green light to the plans but actual building of it will depend how much we want are willing to pay for it seems.

There is a lot in the 106 agreement that is already sorted mate, the leaders of the councils will have final sign off but both leaders are heavily supporting the project having listened to officers. Those Cllrs last night wont get that level of say anymore, they can go on to the sub group but ultimately the officers will make the decisions in the transport group.

[stirred]

So all being well satisfying the conditions, is there a timeline for starting work, and when the first set of extra seats ie higher capacity might become available?

[BomberBowyer]

Still a way to go yet but it seems actual officers want it to happen so the agreements should go ahead with political interference moving forward.

Not so sure MR. The planning officers seemed happy for it to go ahead but some of the Councillors less so and given how many times the planning officer had to answer the same questions, on the same issues I don’t have too much hope the conditions will be resolved quickly. That is unless the club agree to fund everything including a new bridge, public transport costs, road improvements and anything else they want doing that has been neglected to be done by the council in the past how many years.  All yesterday appears to have done is get the green light to the plans but actual building of it will depend how much we want are willing to pay for it seems.

There is a lot in the 106 agreement that is already sorted mate, the leaders of the councils will have final sign off but both leaders are heavily supporting the project having listened to officers. Those Cllrs last night wont get that level of say anymore, they can go on to the sub group but ultimately the officers will make the decisions in the transport group.

Good to know. Hopefully won’t take long to fully resolve then and work commence. Cheers
MR.

[stirred]

As good as the plans look, the lack of extension (of seats, upwards) for the Trent End bugs me. How about we build up the Trent End and connect it with a bridge from across the river. Would that help give it structural support? And solves the egress issue. And would surely make our stadium unique in world football!

[Paplane]

If anyone watched the live feed last night you'll now understand what it's like being in the development game. The planners were presented with a application by a team of talented (and expensive) designers who have devised a seriously complex and multifaceted scheme that responds to many requirements. The design has been developed as specialist consultants add in their own expertise and then further refined & adapted as the council's own technical consultees add in their individual specialist opinions. The planning officer drives the process, has a in depth knowledge of the scheme and makes a professional opinion on it's acceptability. Then, the whole thing, which in this case has probably got thousands of hours of professional scrutiny on the clock, gets presented for approval to a bunch of know-nowt idiots who can't tell their arse from their elbow. I can't tell you how frustrating it can be sitting in a council chamber, not being allowed to say anything, as a bunch of elected retards attempt to dissect your scheme when, at that point, you've been through a rigorous process of persuading the planning officers to recommend an approval.

[Sausage Roll]

Pap - You seem to know more than most on here about how this process works. Is there anything now stopping Forest getting shovels (well, JCBs or whatever) in the ground at the end of this season?

I read somewhere that work wouldn't be able to start until the Environment Agency had approved revised/increased flood defences - is that right? Is there anything else what would need to be approved before actual work can commence?

[Marinakis Red]

One thing i find interesting is the club have not commented on it or released anything over social media on the decision.

[Paplane]

One thing i find interesting is the club have not commented on it or released anything over social media on the decision.

Technically it still doesnt have planning permission. The section 106 agreement has to be signed by all parties first. Only then will the planners be able to issue the approval notice.

[Paplane]

Pap - You seem to know more than most on here about how this process works. Is there anything now stopping Forest getting shovels (well, JCBs or whatever) in the ground at the end of this season?

I read somewhere that work wouldn't be able to start until the Environment Agency had approved revised/increased flood defences - is that right? Is there anything else what would need to be approved before actual work can commence?

Depends on the way the conditions and the Section 106 is written. I've only quickly scanned through those docs. The club may be able to do some preparatory work now, for example the demo and the ground works, utilities etc. 

The big one's the bridge. The S106 restricts the use of the bigger stadium capacity until this is in place. So the club could start building before this is agreed/designed/built but all that will obviously be at the club's risk. Eg, the new bridge will need planning permission, will that be granted? It's no point building the stadium if there's still an issue with the crowd flow that would stop it being used.

I reckon we'll begin to see stuff happening, like the demo of the houses behind the bridford stand.

[Sausage Roll]

A few interesting points from one of The Athletic's articles on the planning approval:

What is a ‘Section 106′ agreement?
It is a legally binding contract between a local planning authority and a developer to make a proposed building project acceptable in planning terms. Effectively, it is the conditions and requirements that must be met, many of them revolving around the increased number of people requiring access to and from the stadium.

The club must contribute:
£1.75million ($2.4m) to improve bus services on matchdays
£990,000 to help implement parking restrictions in the surrounding area
Close to £400,000 to improve park-and-ride facilities
£170,000 for canal-side development, electronic transport information displays and e-bike docking stations
£100,000 in new signs surrounding the stadium
More than £400,000 for walking and cycle path improvements
In its statement after the decision, the supporters’ trust added: “NFST stands ready to help resolve any outstanding issues over transport and supporter flow.”

What about the rowing club? And access issues?
Another stumbling block has been Nottingham Rowing Club’s Britannia boathouse, which needs to be demolished and rebuilt, by Forest, in another location. Work on the development will also not be allowed to start until flood-defence plans are approved by the Environment Agency.

The most significant element of the Section 106 agreement in Forest’s case is the section surrounding how the club plans to ensure an additional 20,000 fans can safely get in and out of the stadium. Proposals to remove two of the six traffic lanes on Trent Bridge have not been approved by the Highways Agency, so it is down to the applicant — Forest — to find another solution.

So will another bridge across the Trent have to be built?
Very probably, yes.

Rushcliffe Borough Council planning officer Charlotte Thompson made it clear that no plans for a bridge have been put forward — and that this would need to be an entirely different planning process. There is no requirement in the Section 106 agreement that Forest build a river crossing — only that they solve the issue of fan traffic.

And, while work is planned to improve access under Trent Bridge and on Lady Bay Bridge, the reality is that a new bridge is the most likely solution. As Cllr Matt Barney said at the meeting, it is “highly likely” one will be needed. The Waterside Bridge, located a short way down the River Trent from the stadium, only opened in June, at a cost of around £18million. That will help the issue, but more will be required.

[Fumanchew]

It might add time to supporters journeys but close pedestrian crossing over the bridge on match days and if those coming from the city side funnel down the embankment cross further down and come up the riverside and under the bridge surely changing a little bit of the bank around the bridge to make it safer wouldn’t affect the listed status of the bridge?