Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
Fox in the North

Stadium Expansion *APPROVED* Sept ‘22 - Details / Images Released on Planning Site

By Fox in the North, in Leicester City Forum

Recommended Posts

UHDrive

UHDrive

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Fox in the North said:

Now the community shield has been confirmed for 30 July, would the new target date of 31 July have been set with this in mind? Could imagine the owners wanting to tie it in for pr purposes.

I can't imagine so. The planning decision could be before that date or after. Planning decisions can't be approved to satisfy an external factor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spudulike

Spudulike

Posted
Posted

Not sure why the club didn't appeal the non-determination of the application when the original (and subsequent) date was missed by the LCC planners. Now onto the third target date which doesn't give much confidence that it will be met. Perhaps the delays have been caused by LCFC and they have come to some sort of agreement regarding timescales. In the meantime, the price of everything from materials to labour is increasing. They really need to get on with it. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chrysalis

Chrysalis

Posted
Posted
On 17/05/2022 at 13:09, MalletFox said:

Susan Whelan made it pretty clear in one of the sessions the club had with the fans regards the stadium expansion that there is further opportunity to expand other stands should the demand be there.

 

From memory I believe she cited “research” as being the reason for why the current expansion is upto 40k.

Whilst I think a half empty ground isnt great for show and atmosphere, we should be aiming to have capacity above what the known demand is, this is how new people get lured into supporting the club, right now its too hard to get a ticket as a casual match goer, I think 42-45k is more sensible.  Especially given the pace this is going at, it feels like it wont be done for a decade.  Take in to account FFP, the lure for signing players, this is even more important.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chocolate Teapot

Chocolate Teapot

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, Spudulike said:

Not sure why the club didn't appeal the non-determination of the application when the original (and subsequent) date was missed by the LCC planners. Now onto the third target date which doesn't give much confidence that it will be met. Perhaps the delays have been caused by LCFC and they have come to some sort of agreement regarding timescales. In the meantime, the price of everything from materials to labour is increasing. They really need to get on with it. 

It is caused by the club.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kenny

kenny

Posted
Posted
16 hours ago, Spudulike said:

Not sure why the club didn't appeal the non-determination of the application when the original (and subsequent) date was missed by the LCC planners. Now onto the third target date which doesn't give much confidence that it will be met. Perhaps the delays have been caused by LCFC and they have come to some sort of agreement regarding timescales. In the meantime, the price of everything from materials to labour is increasing. They really need to get on with it. 

Often applicants are given the option of voluntarily extending the application or insisting on the date being met. If the second option is chosen then the inevitable result is a rejection of the application.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyC74

JimmyC74

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, Chrysalis said:

Whilst I think a half empty ground isnt great for show and atmosphere, we should be aiming to have capacity above what the known demand is, this is how new people get lured into supporting the club, right now its too hard to get a ticket as a casual match goer, I think 42-45k is more sensible.  Especially given the pace this is going at, it feels like it wont be done for a decade.  Take in to account FFP, the lure for signing players, this is even more important.

Expanding the stadium in phases - responding to definite demand - I think is a sesnible move.

 

In the Championship years our average attendance was in the mid 20ks and further investment needs to be balanced against the impact on atmosphere and investment in the playing squad.

 

It will be interesting to see how the Union FS organised signing section and maybe a safe standing area helps the atmosphere 

 

Let’s get this project over the line and review in a few years. If success on the field continues and the demand is there then we can look at further redevelopment.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
snoopy87

snoopy87

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, JimmyC74 said:

Expanding the stadium in phases - responding to definite demand - I think is a sesnible move.

 

In the Championship years our average attendance was in the mid 20ks and further investment needs to be balanced against the impact on atmosphere and investment in the playing squad.

 

It will be interesting to see how the Union FS organised signing section and maybe a safe standing area helps the atmosphere 

 

Let’s get this project over the line and review in a few years. If success on the field continues and the demand is there then we can look at further redevelopment.

Getting this project going would be a start

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spudulike

Spudulike

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, kenny said:

Often applicants are given the option of voluntarily extending the application or insisting on the date being met. If the second option is chosen then the inevitable result is a rejection of the application.

Surely the application can only be rejected on planning matters and not because they have failed to meet the deadline? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kenny

kenny

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Spudulike said:

Surely the application can only be rejected on planning matters and not because they have failed to meet the deadline? 

If there was a single line in the 100 or so documents that needed updating then it could be refused.

 

So the offer is there to extend the time and give the applicant opportunities to work with the council or you insist on the deadline being met.

 

The planners hold all the cards and they know it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Yes

Yes

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, Chrysalis said:

Whilst I think a half empty ground isnt great for show and atmosphere, we should be aiming to have capacity above what the known demand is, this is how new people get lured into supporting the club, right now its too hard to get a ticket as a casual match goer, I think 42-45k is more sensible.  Especially given the pace this is going at, it feels like it wont be done for a decade.  Take in to account FFP, the lure for signing players, this is even more important.

I do like the idea of an even bigger stadium but I think the clubs gone down the sensible route, which is probably the right thing to do, if we consistently sold it out for a few years a further expansion would probably happen sooner rather than later, maybe another 8k taking us up to 48k.

 

Just a shame we haven’t got this phase of the plan done sooner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
davieG

davieG

Posted
Posted

40K is probably the maximum we can achieve with the East Stand and further increase would mean extending the North or South  stands then you're probably getting towards 50k plus a lot more expense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
UHDrive

UHDrive

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, kenny said:

If there was a single line in the 100 or so documents that needed updating then it could be refused.

 

So the offer is there to extend the time and give the applicant opportunities to work with the council or you insist on the deadline being met.

 

The planners hold all the cards and they know it.

That's not entirely correct. 

 

During the planning process there are many associated reports whether that be enhanced trafficic mitigations requested by the planning officer, or perhaps from the applicant themselves, for example questioning the noise reports as submitted in luie of sacrificial as built sound testing. There can be many many issues. 

 

Planners would never negotiate additional time save for additional info requested from consultees/objections that the determining officer deems relevant. 

 

Insist on the deadlines being met? That is like hanging yourself in planning terms as they will throw your application straight out. What happens legally is subsuqeunt to legal requests not being satisfactory received by the applicant to the LA then the responsibility falls on the applicant to appeal the application as it was left

This then puts the application back by 9 months and, very importantly, means it becomes a one shot one application deal I.e. you win or lose and that's that. This is why we will carry on until the planning officer is satisfied. Unfortunately, however long that takes!!

 

On a hybrid development this big, with the design phased in. With the development consent issued to start the works as outlined and issued. It has nothing to do with 'if there were a single line in a hundred or so'. 

 

There are dozens and dozens of reports that will have a knock on local residents objections and the applicants time constraints, construction timeframe and fee budgets. 

 

I agree with you that the council can do what they they want in this climate I.e. lack of qualified staff, mainly. That said however, the application has been determined as approval recommended by the planning officer to the committee for approval. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kenny

kenny

Posted
Posted
39 minutes ago, UHDrive said:

That's not entirely correct. 

 

During the planning process there are many associated reports whether that be enhanced trafficic mitigations requested by the planning officer, or perhaps from the applicant themselves, for example questioning the noise reports as submitted in luie of sacrificial as built sound testing. There can be many many issues. 

 

Planners would never negotiate additional time save for additional info requested from consultees/objections that the determining officer deems relevant. 

 

Insist on the deadlines being met? That is like hanging yourself in planning terms as they will throw your application straight out. What happens legally is subsuqeunt to legal requests not being satisfactory received by the applicant to the LA then the responsibility falls on the applicant to appeal the application as it was left

This then puts the application back by 9 months and, very importantly, means it becomes a one shot one application deal I.e. you win or lose and that's that. This is why we will carry on until the planning officer is satisfied. Unfortunately, however long that takes!!

 

On a hybrid development this big, with the design phased in. With the development consent issued to start the works as outlined and issued. It has nothing to do with 'if there were a single line in a hundred or so'. 

 

There are dozens and dozens of reports that will have a knock on local residents objections and the applicants time constraints, construction timeframe and fee budgets. 

 

I agree with you that the council can do what they they want in this climate I.e. lack of qualified staff, mainly. That said however, the application has been determined as approval recommended by the planning officer to the committee for approval. 

 

 

You have agreed with everything I said, albeit wrote more words 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicesterseddon

leicesterseddon

Posted
Posted

For comparison, here's an informative (and rather entertaining) summary of Forest's current attempts to expand the City Ground to 35,000:

 

https://theathletic.com/3328440/2022/05/26/forest-city-ground-redevelopment/ 

 

They seem to have got Nottingham City Council to back down from its initial attempt to make them pay for work on bridges over the Trent, bus stops and cycle paths.

 

However, Nottinghamshire County Council are still trying to get them to contribute to new schools, a park-and-ride scheme and electronic information signs.

 

And that's before you consider negotiations with two local rowing clubs. At least we don't have that problem! 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...