The Infrastructure Projects

[Paplane]

Pap latest projected development costs including the rebuild of BC stand are put at £1.5 billion and rising!

I work in the development game and this no no no attitude from the planners is typical these days. They should be rolling out the red carpet for EM and offering to build him a bridge, not the other way around. Politicians of all stripes wonder why there's no growth in the economy any more. This is why! £1.5billion pounds of investment on the line for the local economy and they're squabbling about closing a couple of lanes on a bridge for a couple of hours once a fortnight. Jesus H Christ.

And let's not forget, a new bridge will require planning permission. To be effective at disbursing a large football crowd it's got to be located within the direct locality of the ground, so between the Trent End and Trent Bridge. Trent bridge is listed. Any proposal seeking planning permission cannot harm the setting of a listed structure. Getting planning wont be straightforward.

[Sausage Roll]

Isn't this bridge idea just a proposal rather than a mandatory requirement for planning permission to be granted?

[ToryTom]

Let's go to Toton and build a 100,000-seat super stadium and complain when we only fill 50,000. Drink in corporate chain bars serving Bud and ecking street food. Then spend 3 hours waiting to get onto the M1 or onto a tram. No thanks.

Alternatively we can continue playing at the City Ground, generating increasingly less income in comparison to our competitors and just wait for the inevitable relegation.

[JohnG]

Isn't this bridge idea just a proposal rather than a mandatory requirement for planning permission to be granted?

I think it was a proposal but we'll see in the meeting if that's made a clause.

Re the land for a proposed bridge, surely that would need to be public land not owned by us. As surely after something like that is built it wouldn't be a private bridge?

It does sound like a suggestion that if taken up could draw out things yet again.

[Sausage Roll]

Isn't this bridge idea just a proposal rather than a mandatory requirement for planning permission to be granted?

I think it was a proposal but we'll see in the meeting if that's made a clause.

Re the land for a proposed bridge, surely that would need to be public land not owned by us. As surely after something like that is built it wouldn't be a private bridge?

It does sound like a suggestion that if taken up could draw out things yet again.

If it is made into a clause then surely whoever owns the land on either side would have to facilitate the permission and everything. Like you say it wouldn't be Forest's bridge - presumably whichever council(s) are involved would own the bridge but want Forest to pay for its construction.

[Salvatore Matrecano]

Think there are one or two extreme views above which probably isn’t the reality. From my limited understanding there needs to be further work on access and traffic flow but it wouldn’t necessarily stop initial approval with conditions. They could also grant a half way house of allowing PT stand but not allowing BC redevelopment until bridges etc are built. To actually build another road bridge is pie in the sky and will never happen, wonder if they can fudge things by a dedicated pedestrian and cycle lane though.

All of the noises coming out remain positive, all sides want this to happen. It goes to show how half arsed the previous application from 6 years ago was which didn’t address any of this stuff.

[JollyLollyAussie]

MU are getting taxpayers money towards their new stadium but that may be towards the infrastucture element, if that is indeed the case then Forest should be reinbursed for any outlay on this element of our own development dont you think?

[Paplane]

Isn't this bridge idea just a proposal rather than a mandatory requirement for planning permission to be granted?

Yes, it's a fudge really. The planners want to award planning and don't want to hinder the development but they cant get their Highways Authority to agree. They're going to award planning permission next week and as part of that all parties will have to enter into a Section 106 legal agreement which states that the new stadium wouldn't be allowed to be used at the increased capacity until the city and county highways authorities have been satisfied that the increased crowd can be disbursed safely. The club have previously proposed the temporary closure of Trent Bridge on matchdays. That idea was rejected. Then they proposed the permanent closure of two lanes of the bridge. That was rejected too. So the logical conclusion being assumed is that another bridge is required and the two highways authorities are on board with that idea. 

So once planning is secured for the stadium next week, the club can either spend a long time and a lot of money surveying and modelling traffic flows & people movements and demonstrate to the councils that there's a solution using the existing infrastructure, or they can avoid doing that all that and just build a bridge.

So we'll get a planning permission that will be dependent on reaching an agreement that couldnt previously be reached, or which cant be implemented unless another planning application is approved for something else. A massive fudge.

[ToryTom]

Isn't this bridge idea just a proposal rather than a mandatory requirement for planning permission to be granted?

Yes, it's a fudge really. The planners want to award planning and don't want to hinder the development but they cant get their Highways Authority to agree. They're going to award planning permission next week and as part of that all parties will have to enter into a Section 106 legal agreement which states that the new stadium wouldn't be allowed to be used at the increased capacity until the city and county highways authorities have been satisfied that the increased crowd can be disbursed safely. The club have previously proposed the temporary closure of Trent Bridge on matchdays. That idea was rejected. Then they proposed the permanent closure of two lanes of the bridge. That was rejected too. So the logical conclusion being assumed is that another bridge is required and the two highways authorities are on board with that idea. 

So once planning is secured for the stadium next week, the club can either spend a long time and a lot of money surveying and modelling traffic flows & people movements and demonstrate to the councils that there's a solution using the existing infrastructure, or they can avoid doing that all that and just build a bridge.

So we'll get a planning permission that will be dependent on reaching an agreement that couldnt previously be reached, or which cant be implemented unless another planning application is approved for something else. A massive fudge.

The upshot being there is no spades in the ground to build new stands until another river trent crossing is built. How long will that take if ever and how much will that cost.

[ToryTom]

It took us two and half hours to get out of Liverpool two weeks ago because of the traffic congestion around Anfield. That is something other Cities are prepared to experience to maintain a premier league football club attracting 50, 000 +, especially if located in the City and not some out of City venue. There would be 25 occasions at most every 9 months when this traffic congestion would be in place and not for full days. It seems obvious planning authorities responsible for the City Ground do not want a flourishing premier league club as much as other cities.

[Sausage Roll]

Isn't this bridge idea just a proposal rather than a mandatory requirement for planning permission to be granted?

Yes, it's a fudge really. The planners want to award planning and don't want to hinder the development but they cant get their Highways Authority to agree. They're going to award planning permission next week and as part of that all parties will have to enter into a Section 106 legal agreement which states that the new stadium wouldn't be allowed to be used at the increased capacity until the city and county highways authorities have been satisfied that the increased crowd can be disbursed safely. The club have previously proposed the temporary closure of Trent Bridge on matchdays. That idea was rejected. Then they proposed the permanent closure of two lanes of the bridge. That was rejected too. So the logical conclusion being assumed is that another bridge is required and the two highways authorities are on board with that idea. 

So once planning is secured for the stadium next week, the club can either spend a long time and a lot of money surveying and modelling traffic flows & people movements and demonstrate to the councils that there's a solution using the existing infrastructure, or they can avoid doing that all that and just build a bridge.

So we'll get a planning permission that will be dependent on reaching an agreement that couldnt previously be reached, or which cant be implemented unless another planning application is approved for something else. A massive fudge.

That's a great explanation - thanks. 

[Username]

Why?

Because the new financial regulations restrict how much you can spend to a fixed percentage of a clubs income. Without a much bigger capacity and massively improved hospitality Forest will not be able to compete in the premier league. Nearly all premier league clubs have either fairly recently moved to much bigger stadiums or enlarging capacity at existing stadiums and upgrading hospitality facilities. Hence Forest plans to upgrade the City Ground to potentially 52,500 capacity and improved facilities. A direction to build a new bridge  over the River Trent before any expansion scuppers that at least in the foreseeable future. It will entail further planning permission, purchasing suitable plots of land, formulating building plans and significant expenditure. In the meantime our competitors get on with developing their stadiums, maximising income as Forest fall behind. It is more than possible that objectors to City Ground expansion know that this direction by the planning authority scuppers the plans for an expanded City Ground. Who knows. Alternatively Forest could find a new site to build the stadium they need to compete in the premier league, which does not have the complications and objections expanding the City Ground has generated. As i say asking the club to build a new river trent crossing probably stops the expansion from ever happening. We need the increased income from a bigger stadium and we are not going to get that at the City Ground. So that is why.

I thought that Ground related expansion/building didn’t come under SCR?

Like when Everton built their ground.