6 hours ago
(This post was last modified: 6 hours ago by 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.
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.