The Infrastructure Projects

[Salvatore Matrecano]

If we remain committed great, then tell us. “NFFC are proceeding with plans for Peter Taylor stand. After extensive consultations with RBC and our architects we have made some minor alterations and we are hopeful this will be considered by the planning committee in the spring with building work scheduled to commence in the Autumn” just something like that would help.

[Sniffer Dog (Admin)]

Give them time SM. The meeting was only yesterday!

[Paplane]

Someone would have said if the whole thing had been scrapped SM. It hasn't despite RBC dragging their heels. It sounds to me like NFFC have done evrything they were asked to do but once again they have now been asked to do more. EM could easily use this as an excuse to walk away but he hasn't.

Sniff it doesnt work like that. The planners say what will and wont be acceptable and are obliged to work constructively with applicants. If they dont the club can appeal to the government. Both versions of the propsed flats developemnt are over intensive for the site. The planners have obviouly voiced that opinion and the ball is in the club's court to reconsider and amend. The second version with the 14 storey tower is never going to get a permmsion imo unless they lop off 7 or 8 storeys.

[Jean_claude_killy]

I don’t expect communication from the club about our disappointing season but there really is no excuse for not giving a brief paragraph on where we are with this development.

Tell us they remain committed to the project.if there have been significant changes to original plans, Rough timeline of events, planning meeting, date building work planned to start, effect of Covid. None of that needs to go into great detail or specifics but just give us some reassurance that the whole thing hasnt been scrapped.

I think in this instance the best policy is to keep quiet.

One innocent remark taken out of context could increase opposition, and that is the last thing they need.

[Paplane]

I don’t expect communication from the club about our disappointing season but there really is no excuse for not giving a brief paragraph on where we are with this development.

Tell us they remain committed to the project.if there have been significant changes to original plans, Rough timeline of events, planning meeting, date building work planned to start, effect of Covid. None of that needs to go into great detail or specifics but just give us some reassurance that the whole thing hasnt been scrapped.

It's clear that it's been put on the back burner and who can blame them? The is no income being generated so massive losses currently being incurred, the club are languishing in the bottom half of the table so no realistic sign of premier league football until at least another 18 months. And despite all the pr spin by the club, they've had their original plans for a dual developement resisted, which would've gone a long way to funding the whole new stand. It just doesn't stack up at this point in time.

That's not a criticism from me by the way. All efforts and resources need to be directed at the on the pitch effort to get to the prem. If that happens, even if we're up there for just one season, then everything else follows and we can build from there.

[Tricky]

Someone would have said if the whole thing had been scrapped SM. It hasn't despite RBC dragging their heels. It sounds to me like NFFC have done evrything they were asked to do but once again they have now been asked to do more. EM could easily use this as an excuse to walk away but he hasn't.

Sniff it doesnt work like that. The planners say what will and wont be acceptable and are obliged to work constructively with applicants. If they dont the club can appeal to the government. Both versions of the propsed flats developemnt are over intensive for the site. The planners have obviouly voiced that opinion and the ball is in the club's court to reconsider and amend. The second version with the 14 storey tower is never going to get a permmsion imo unless they lop off 7 or 8 storeys.

I wholeheartedly agree with you there Pap. Those apartments are far too tall (as the application currently stands) to be considered for planning permission given the location and surrounding areas.

[Paplane]

Someone would have said if the whole thing had been scrapped SM. It hasn't despite RBC dragging their heels. It sounds to me like NFFC have done evrything they were asked to do but once again they have now been asked to do more. EM could easily use this as an excuse to walk away but he hasn't.

Sniff it doesnt work like that. The planners say what will and wont be acceptable and are obliged to work constructively with applicants. If they dont the club can appeal to the government. Both versions of the propsed flats developemnt are over intensive for the site. The planners have obviouly voiced that opinion and the ball is in the club's court to reconsider and amend. The second version with the 14 storey tower is never going to get a permmsion imo unless they lop off 7 or 8 storeys.

I wholeheartedly agree with you there Pap. Those apartments are far too tall (as the application currently stands) to be considered for planning permission given the location and surrounding areas.

No precedence or other structure in the area of that kind of height. It would dwarf the Trent Bridge cricket stand and that's massive, let alone the boat club buildings which are single and two storey. I do wonder if it were submitted that high to enable a simple negotiation on number of storeys to be conducted. The club go in at 14, RBC suggest 6, both compromise on 10 or something.

[Jean_claude_killy]

Someone would have said if the whole thing had been scrapped SM. It hasn't despite RBC dragging their heels. It sounds to me like NFFC have done evrything they were asked to do but once again they have now been asked to do more. EM could easily use this as an excuse to walk away but he hasn't.

Sniff it doesnt work like that. The planners say what will and wont be acceptable and are obliged to work constructively with applicants. If they dont the club can appeal to the government. Both versions of the propsed flats developemnt are over intensive for the site. The planners have obviouly voiced that opinion and the ball is in the club's court to reconsider and amend. The second version with the 14 storey tower is never going to get a permmsion imo unless they lop off 7 or 8 storeys.

I wholeheartedly agree with you there Pap. Those apartments are far too tall (as the application currently stands) to be considered for planning permission given the location and surrounding areas.

No precedence or other structure in the area of that kind of height. It would dwarf the Trent Bridge cricket stand and that's massive, let alone the boat club buildings which are single and two storey. I do wonder if it were submitted that high to enable a simple negotiation on number of storeys to be conducted. The club go in at 14, RBC suggest 6, both compromise on 10 or something.

There are other considerations relating to the height.

Anything over 10 stories is now classed as high rise; a lot of mortgage providers will not offer mortgages on high rise properties after Grenfell.

[Tricky]

Someone would have said if the whole thing had been scrapped SM. It hasn't despite RBC dragging their heels. It sounds to me like NFFC have done evrything they were asked to do but once again they have now been asked to do more. EM could easily use this as an excuse to walk away but he hasn't.

Sniff it doesnt work like that. The planners say what will and wont be acceptable and are obliged to work constructively with applicants. If they dont the club can appeal to the government. Both versions of the propsed flats developemnt are over intensive for the site. The planners have obviouly voiced that opinion and the ball is in the club's court to reconsider and amend. The second version with the 14 storey tower is never going to get a permmsion imo unless they lop off 7 or 8 storeys.

I wholeheartedly agree with you there Pap. Those apartments are far too tall (as the application currently stands) to be considered for planning permission given the location and surrounding areas.

No precedence or other structure in the area of that kind of height. It would dwarf the Trent Bridge cricket stand and that's massive, let alone the boat club buildings which are single and two storey. I do wonder if it were submitted that high to enable a simple negotiation on number of storeys to be conducted. The club go in at 14, RBC suggest 6, both compromise on 10 or something.

There are other considerations relating to the height.

Anything over 10 stories is now classed as high rise; a lot of mortgage providers will not offer mortgages on high rise properties after Grenfell.

Slightly off subject, but a point worth making (IMO) is the fact that within the last 10 years, there have been 13 'High Rise' buildings that have been demolished in Nottingham, most of which were 15+ storeys high.

There are a couple of 'High Rise' buildings Planning Applications that have been submitted to Nottingham City Council, but these are more or less within the City Centre limits. The nearest to the City Ground is, I do believe, on the former Boots Island site.

The highest building in Nottingham is the Victoria Flats complex and we all know how ugly those are!

[Sausage Roll]

Paul Taylor
@nottmtails
#NFFC have issued an update on plans to redevelop the City Ground - and hope the next step will happen before end of March

‘After more positive dialogue the club and its appointed consultants are finalising the last few outstanding documents for the planning submission. Most of this relates to further transportation data that is required (and the impact of Covid). We’re hopeful the application will be submitted in the first quarter of 2021.’

[Tricky]

Paul Taylor
@nottmtails
#NFFC have issued an update on plans to redevelop the City Ground - and hope the next step will happen before end of March

‘After more positive dialogue the club and its appointed consultants are finalising the last few outstanding documents for the planning submission. Most of this relates to further transportation data that is required (and the impact of Covid). We’re hopeful the application will be submitted in the first quarter of 2021.’

Well that's encouraging news! Thanks SR  :shy:

[Marinakis Red]

Don't think so. More like RBC keep on asking for more every time there is a deadline. That's how it looks to me anyway.

Confirmed now mate, we need to submit more proposals and documentation.