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

[Spudulike]

1 hour ago, st albans fox said:

We have played Man City, arsenal and yanited 

 

of course it’s impressive given the other game was Burnley 

Wolves? 

[st albans fox]

14 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

Wolves? 

Wolves should be pretty much full with a strong away end 

[dayday]

I didn’t realise we had started the expansion already, 35,497 at the game yesterday according to MOTD stats 

[FoyleFox]

The proposal was submitted in April 2021 for reopening the Ivanhoe Line, there's also a petition accompanying. A station at the stadium would be terrific. 

 

https://www.change.org/p/grant-shapps-reopen-ivanhoe-line-for-passengers-6a538152-fa5a-4db0-9d97-1841a187153e?recruiter=874899300&recruited_by_id=a20ae4c0-5406-11e8-8cf2-0310b19f8e56&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=petition_dashboard

[Spudulike]

Another public comment regarding the outline part of the application on the planning portal. This latest one complaining about lack of car parking for the new residents of the tower block. 

[CosbehFox]

The thing about the tower block comments are that the planning permission is a hybrid where full details are not finalised to that section of the application. 
 

Edit : Spud above has got it, my bad 

Edited 22 November 2021 by Cardiff_Fox

[SecretPro]

Just bin it off, we're shit anyway with Rodgers in charge.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Spudulike]

It's all gone very quiet with only a couple of slightly anti-comments on the planning portal. As consultation ends in just over a week (7th Dec) I expected to see more comments. Unless the planners are not making them available to the public? 

 

Anyone heard owt? 

[Fox in the North]

33 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

It's all gone very quiet with only a couple of slightly anti-comments on the planning portal. As consultation ends in just over a week (7th Dec) I expected to see more comments. Unless the planners are not making them available to the public? 

 

Anyone heard owt? 

Not heard anything at all, I just check the 3 planning apps. That being said if there is no significant opposition (touch wood), that can only be good news. 

[Stevosevic]

Imagine actually opposing something like this that is for the greater good of the city. 

[StanSP]

20 minutes ago, Stevosevic said:

Imagine actually opposing something like this that is for the greater good of the city. 

 

Any excuse. 

[Fox in the North]

Consultation period ends today for the stadium planning application, I can’t see any further developments on the planning website.

 

Demolition of the national grid building was signed off on 30 November. No update on the enabling works for the infrastructure, but consultation for that doesn’t end until 17 December.

 

Can any planning buffs advise what happens during the period between a consultation period ending and the decision date? Is there just meetings and revised planning for the bits the council/other parties aren’t keen on?

[Spudulike]

On 07/12/2021 at 09:34, Fox in the North said:

Consultation period ends today for the stadium planning application, I can’t see any further developments on the planning website.

 

Demolition of the national grid building was signed off on 30 November. No update on the enabling works for the infrastructure, but consultation for that doesn’t end until 17 December.

 

Can any planning buffs advise what happens during the period between a consultation period ending and the decision date? Is there just meetings and revised planning for the bits the council/other parties aren’t keen on?

I thought that demolition of the National Grid building was part of the application for enabling works? 

 

It's encouraging (and surprising) the anti's haven't appeared so far (not sure if they can now given the public consultation has ended). Only negative comments that I can see involve parking on non-match days with more info requested about transport and the effect of shadowing on the cricket pitch. So no show stoppers, it seems. 

 

Support received from Sport England and the Canals & Rivers Trust (other than questions about building 6).

 

All seems positive as far as I can see. 

[davieG]

27 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

I thought that demolition of the National Grid building was part of the application for enabling works? 

 

It's encouraging (and surprising) the anti's haven't appeared so far (not sure if they can now given the public consultation has ended). Only negative comments that I can see involve parking on non-match days with more info requested about transport and the effect of shadowing on the cricket pitch. So no show stoppers, it seems. 

 

Support received from Sport England and the Canals & Rivers Trust (other than questions about building 6).

 

All seems positive as far as I can see. 

Do they publish handwritten letters because that's how any serious/protest like objections arrive.

[jammie82uk]

9 minutes ago, davieG said:

Do they publish handwritten letters because that's how any serious/protest like objections arrive.

Yes I believe they do upload the letters as I remember letters being uploaded for objections to the new training ground 

[Fox in the North]

Further documents uploaded on the hybrid planning application.

 

Just network rail providing their comments to protect their line.

 

2 additional public comments. 1 asking for a railway station added to rear of the multi storey car park on behalf of the Campaign to reopen the Ivanhoe line.

 

Another is a strong objection on climate change grounds due to increased traffic. Sounds a cheerful person.

[Lako42]

26 minutes ago, Fox in the North said:

 

 

2 additional public comments. 1 asking for a railway station added to rear of the multi storey car park on behalf of the Campaign to reopen the Ivanhoe line.

 

This one is a massive opportunity that will undoubtedly be missed 

[ajthefox]

On 29/11/2021 at 13:32, Spudulike said:

It's all gone very quiet with only a couple of slightly anti-comments on the planning portal. As consultation ends in just over a week (7th Dec) I expected to see more comments. Unless the planners are not making them available to the public? 

 

Anyone heard owt? 

Any objections are for the public record, but they won't necessarily all be in up before the consultation ends. 

[Spudulike]

2 minutes ago, ajthefox said:

Any objections are for the public record, but they won't necessarily all be in up before the consultation ends. 

The consultation ended over a week ago. 

[ajthefox]

4 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

The consultation ended over a week ago. 

Had a mare there 

[davieG]

27 minutes ago, Lako42 said:

This one is a massive opportunity that will undoubtedly be missed 

Not really as it will need to be constructed on Railway land both sides of the track with a footbridge which will need to be funded by the Government. As long as there's room for fans to alight and get down to ground level that's all LCFC need to ensure. 

 

Can't see why LCFC should pay for it when it will serve the whole area of Saffron, Aylestone, The Royal, Tigers etc for it to be viable to have a station there.

[Lako42]

1 minute ago, davieG said:

Not really as it will need to be constructed on Railway land both sides of the track with a footbridge which will need to be funded by the Government. As long as there's room for fans to alight and get down to ground level that's all LCFC need to ensure. 

 

Can't see why LCFC should pay for it when it will serve the whole area of Saffron, Aylestone, The Royal, Tigers etc for it to be viable to have a station there.

I don't think they should either and that is why it will be a missed opportunity. 

[Leicester_Loyal]

1 hour ago, Fox in the North said:

Further documents uploaded on the hybrid planning application.

 

Just network rail providing their comments to protect their line.

 

2 additional public comments. 1 asking for a railway station added to rear of the multi storey car park on behalf of the Campaign to reopen the Ivanhoe line.

 

Another is a strong objection on climate change grounds due to increased traffic. Sounds a cheerful person.

A railway station there would be fantastic, but I can't see it happening for a long long time, if ever.

[sacreblueits442]

37 minutes ago, davieG said:

Not really as it will need to be constructed on Railway land both sides of the track with a footbridge which will need to be funded by the Government. As long as there's room for fans to alight and get down to ground level that's all LCFC need to ensure. 

 

Can't see why LCFC should pay for it when it will serve the whole area of Saffron, Aylestone, The Royal, Tigers etc for it to be viable to have a station there.

...wouldn't this the time for the relevant parties recognise the benefit to the city and jointly fund this!!!

[davieG]

3 minutes ago, sacreblueits442 said:

...wouldn't this the time for the relevant parties recognise the benefit to the city and jointly fund this!!!

There's a bid in for the government to fund this, we've moved onto a short list having satisfied the main criteria so we're waiting on the government to get moving on this.