The Infrastructure Projects

[Paplane]

Season card renewals for supporters in the Peter Taylor Stand are temporarily on hold as the club finalises the construction programme for the stand along with awaiting the response to the planning application for the development.

As the stand development will involve the relocation of Peter Taylor Stand season card holders in to other parts of the stadium, the club feel it is wise to wait till the planning decision is made before beginning this process. By doing so, this will minimize disruption for supporters.

Furthermore, by allowing the other stands to renew first, any non renewed seats will be released to Peter Taylor Stand season card holders – offering them better relocation choice should the planning application be successful.


Peter Taylor Stand season card holders should be assured that they will have an exclusive window to renew and/or relocate in line with fans in the other three stands. It is likely to commence immediately after the initial renewal period for Brian Clough, Trent End and Bridgford Stand renewal period concludes.

The club shall keep supporters informed during the process.


Personally I don’t think any work will be done this Close season but like to be proved wrong

I'm more confident it will now although it's all a bit tight still IMO. It depends on if the planners are on-board or still at arms length.

As others have said, revised plans and info have been published on the Rushcliffe BC website, which is what I would have expected to have happened following an initial application of this size. Its a bit late but at least it's happened now (it shows that there's some negotiations going on). Normally for such a fundamental re-design the council would require the scheme to be re-consulted (ie the public and all internal & external agencies asked if they have any more comments) which means extending the determination period (ie pushing back the date on which the application is approved or rejected). But looking at the dates on the RBC website, the end date is still set at the original 28th Feb. That suggests to me that RBC might be supporting the club and working hard to get a decision made to enable work to start in this close season. I cant imagine any other development/developer being given this much leeway on dates.

I note that its only the flats that are subject to the re-design. The design on the stand itself remains as-is as far as I can tell. Accordingly it could be that off the back of a positive pre & post application negotiations with RBC, the detailed technical design and procurement process for the stand has been ongoing for a while now, with a view to starting in June. But, planning is a democratic process. The amount of objections raised by the public mean they will all get to have their say at a planning board meeting and it will be the local councilors, not the planners themselves, who make the final decision. If they reject under pressure from the local residents then we can kiss goodbye to things happening this summer apart from maybe a demolition of the stand, which would be a huge gamble for a football club to take, without a permission for a replacement being in place first.

One thing to bear in mind here, is the fact that the area around the City Ground will only have two or three at most, Councillors representing the views of the local residents. I am not sure how many Councillors sit on the Rushcliffe Development Committee, without looking, but I would hasten to bet there are between 10 & 15. Despite the local objections raised, the Councillors will also take into account the extra revenue the redevelopment will bring into the area, not only on matchdays, but also to the residents moving into the residential complex, the clubs new museum and other non matchday facilities the ground may offer in the future. 

When I was on the Nottingham City Council Development Committee, it wasn't unusual for a local Councillor to raise objections to particular planning applications, only for it to be passed at the Development Committee stage.

Yep the local councillors may vote against in the full knowledge that the others will push the application through anyway on a majority. Thus saving face with their electorate. 

Oh and the objection raised by a specialist consultant re the the right to light issue on behalf of the owner of one of the houses on Rosebery Avenue has been responded to by the club's consultants. Its a technical argument response to a technical objection.  The Highways objections also seem to have been responded to by the club's highways engineers. I have no intention of reading these documents as I have a life.

[TrickySte]

The Roseberry Ave home owner's objections seem to revolve around whether it's an urban area or not. They claim it's a suburban area and such structure's are inappropriate.

The club's consultant's have pointed out that the City Ground is situated within the 'Nottingham Urban Area' and several similar structure's are already in place - The rest of the CG, Environment Agency, new stands at Trent Bridge, the Rushcliffe building/new flats, etc

[PsychoStanleyStone]

The Roseberry Ave home owner's objections seem to revolve around whether it's an urban area or not. They claim it's a suburban area and such structure's are inappropriate.

The club's consultant's have pointed out that the City Ground is situated within the 'Nottingham Urban Area' and several similar structure's are already in place - The rest of the CG, Environment Agency, new stands at Trent Bridge, the Rushcliffe building/new flats, etc

just looked at Roseberry Ave on Google maps, difficult to spot being surrounded by rolling valleys, woodland and meadows as far as the eye can see

[Tricky]

The Roseberry Ave home owner's objections seem to revolve around whether it's an urban area or not. They claim it's a suburban area and such structure's are inappropriate.

The club's consultant's have pointed out that the City Ground is situated within the 'Nottingham Urban Area' and several similar structure's are already in place - The rest of the CG, Environment Agency, new stands at Trent Bridge, the Rushcliffe building/new flats, etc

just looked at Roseberry Ave on Google maps, difficult to spot being surrounded by rolling valleys, woodland and meadows as far as the eye can see

:D :D :D

[wassy04]

The Roseberry Ave home owner's objections seem to revolve around whether it's an urban area or not. They claim it's a suburban area and such structure's are inappropriate.

The club's consultant's have pointed out that the City Ground is situated within the 'Nottingham Urban Area' and several similar structure's are already in place - The rest of the CG, Environment Agency, new stands at Trent Bridge, the Rushcliffe building/new flats, etc

just looked at Roseberry Ave on Google maps, difficult to spot being surrounded by rolling valleys, woodland and meadows as far as the eye can see

:D

[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.

[ozzyten10]

I actually may have a go at this. Parking and traffic - park and ride from Clifton I use regularly. The apartments without parking are obviously for young professionals who use public transport - etc

[Tricky]

I actually may have a go at this. Parking and traffic - park and ride from Clifton I use regularly. The apartments without parking are obviously for young professionals who use public transport - etc

The revised proposal will also have at least one secure bicycle stand for each apartment, thus encouraging and making provision for cleaner, more environmentally friendly and healthier modes of transport.

The proposal intends to increase the revenue in the area, not only on matchday but for non matchday events, which is estimated could be as many as 250 per year (i think, it said that), thus being beneficial to local business and may provide job opportunities in some areas.
Just a few thoughts from me to support your idea Ozzy

[Widdow]

They could always move away from the area, I am sure others would love to live so close to the ground
Living so close to the City Ground and Trent Bridge Cricket then they know they will be in a hub of traffic.

If the new flats have limited parking then won’t be loads more cars. Forest players / officials even on match will have to park at the Academy and get a bus in.

And as for the size how did Trent Bridge get away with there new stand, that’s massive ?

[zicorice]

I am a local resident these days and some of the points they make are valid. There is currently a push for another bridge over the Trent, which would be great and negate many of the infrastructure points- so get that done too. Also it would be good if the Tram could be slightly extended somehow to reach closer to the ground. 

In this day and age I think the green argument has to be put forward. However, Rushcliffe cant have it both ways. Huge amount of redevelopment on the old Sharphill Farm was agreed with no doubt plenty of money into Council coffers-especially when you factor in Council Tax. Yet the local Secondary schools have yet to be extended to accommodate the families moving in for instance. Instead they have agreed to a drive through McDonalds, Costa and Aldi, more cash for the coffers in the area and a small Primary School.

Here's a bonus for local residents: Bigger stand and promotion would mean 4 less home league games to go all nimby about. 

The big stand and apartments plan is actually fantastic looking and IS in keeping with the local area, in fact it meshes perfectly with the Rushcliffe Civic Centre development.

[optimistic_red]

I am a local resident these days and some of the points they make are valid. There is currently a push for another bridge over the Trent, which would be great and negate many of the infrastructure points- so get that done too. Also it would be good if the Tram could be slightly extended somehow to reach closer to the ground. 

In this day and age I think the green argument has to be put forward. However, Rushcliffe cant have it both ways. Huge amount of redevelopment on the old Sharphill Farm was agreed with no doubt plenty of money into Council coffers-especially when you factor in Council Tax. Yet the local Secondary schools have yet to be extended to accommodate the families moving in for instance. Instead they have agreed to a drive through McDonalds, Costa and Aldi, more cash for the coffers in the area and a small Primary School.

Here's a bonus for local residents: Bigger stand and promotion would mean 4 less home league games to go all nimby about. 

The big stand and apartments plan is actually fantastic looking and IS in keeping with the local area, in fact it meshes perfectly with the Rushcliffe Civic Centre development.

They could easily branch the tram along the embankment, stopping North Side of Trent bridge. Wouldn't be that expensive. 
Trams could go straight to Clifton P&R and Town etc

[Salvatore Matrecano]

Not having a go at your suggestions above but extending the tram would cost millions and take many years plus its own planning enquiries to complete. That wont help us here and now.

Any response to mitigate the issues raised would help eg greater economic benefit from having world class facilities etc. The club have produced their own info on environmental impact and how it can be addressed. Any cost effective and easily implemented suggestions such as shuttle buses, how you would use such facilities yourself, would help our current case.