Relatable.
-
Outline application for BC Stand redevelopment also approved (reportedly, as the live stream has crashed).
-
Representing the whiny gripes of their noisiest constituents, rather than the actual benefit of the area they are supposed to be acting in the interests of,
-
So, if I've understood correctly, we can't begin any building until we've addressed the safe movement of several thousand additional fans, which seemingly requires the building of a new bridge. Is that right?
-
That's kind of my take too. Though the answer doesn't have to be a new bridge.
This is why I'm not very optimistic that yesterday's meeting has really made any progress. A new bridge is surely a huge undertaking given where it'll need to be located.
-
The new foot bridge nearby took about 6 years to sort from what I've read
I hope we still stay the course with this though and don't use this to push for a new site miles out again
-
Trebuchet.
Tunnel.
Teleportation.
The three tees.
-
I don't get why the idea of closing one lane of Trent Bridge for an hour after the game has seemingly been abandoned.
-
I thought the new bridge was for the second part. But only because they seemed to say that the first stage had full planning permission.
-
Is that for any of the project to start or before the BC stand expansion can start?
I’m not sure a new bridge has to be a barrier in terms of cash, Would an extra (reported) £20m would derail a near £800m project? It’s just the time to get it through that could be ridiculous.
-
If we're going to try and do a bridge this is surely the location and land ....
-
I don't know - that was really what I was trying to clarify. You're absolutely right regarding the potential time.
-
It's unfortunate the way some of the process was reported and maybe the club were content because they knew fans would be cross with the councils.
Both the city and county had told Forest they were in full support of their ground expansion, but they couldn't agree to the club's proposal to permanently close lanes on Trent Bridge. They expected the club to remove this element before the application was submitted to Rushcliffe - it wasn't.
The councils had a deadline by which they had to submit their formal response to the planning committee ahead of the meeting. Neither could approve while the full lane-closure proposal remained in the papers.
I'm also fairly sure the club's safety certificate insists that the ground can be fully evacuated in seven or eight minutes in the event of an emergency. Lots of fan chatter scoffing at the idea of a footbridge but these considerations have to be made when you're talking about, in time, potentially 20,000 more people on match days pouring out towards the river.
Councils represent everyone in their constituent area, not just Forest fans who are, naturally, desperate for this to happen and frustrated by perceived barriers being put in place by standard planning laws and scrutiny in relation to developments on this scale.
-
Any insight on why the closing of a lane for an hour before/after has been abandoned?
-
I think it's purely a practicality thing. There are currently concrete bollards in place (mandated by Government a few years ago as an anti-terrorism measure to protect people on the pavements). Attempting to lift and move these to take out the inside lane before and after matches (therefore widen the pavement in effect) would take hours. It would be a huge undertaking every time there was a home game.
Trent Bridge also carries a lot of traffic and closing off lanes would seriously impact the network, north and south of the river, including while the bollards were being moved - you might even need to fully close the bridge to do that safely. I guess it could be revisited if council transport officers can find a way to make it work.
-
Leave them in place, and just do it with cones and temporary metal railings. It already happens anyway, that inside lane after a game turns into a walkway, this would just be making it a bit safer.
Aside ... I get why it was done after the terror attack in London - but putting those huge concrete bollards on bridges all over the country was, IMO, a total over-reaction to one incident.
