St James' Park

[Paully]

[Stifler]

A great image in here of how extending the Gallowgate would look.

 

[Scoreboard82]

I know nufc.com have their critics, but I enjoyed the bit they did about the Gallowgate today. It's in the 'Park life' bit at the top of the page. Takes me back reading that. Such vivid memories of watching nufc in my teens. We seemed to be shite most of the time but hadn't known any different until KK arrived but it still seemed more enjoyable back then. I could almost smell the hot dogs from the little stalls, served by lads in white coats as I read it.

[Stifler]

If the council had have rejected the planning application it would have given the new owners the opportunity to buy the land back. Even if it had went to an appeal it would have taken time to do so.

 

The councillors who voted in favour of it need to be ousted, fucking shameful.

[Yorkie]

You can't refuse a planning application on those grounds though. There are policies the scheme was in conflict with imo (obscuring important views of a landmark, i.e. the stadium), but on balance it obviously wasn't bad enough to throw it out for that reason; or rather, the 'benefits' of the scheme outweighed the negatives in planning terms, i.e. the economic potential of the development, or whatever, outweighs the harm of the loss of the view. The fact that the scheme prevents an unknown future stakeholder from developing the site for the benefit of their asset probably never came into the discussion.

 

The villain, as always, is Ashley for selling the land in the first place. That being said, development's probably a long way off so they could buy it back. Doubt they would for the sake of 8,000 extra seats, mind you.

[Guest neesy111]

I'm very doubtful that development will go ahead as it is.

[Sir Toon]

Does anyone know who actually bought the land?  Be interesting if it was linked to the Reuben's

[Yorkie]

Not certain if they are the landowners but the developers are Helios Investment Partners and Marrico Asset Management LLP.

[nufcjb]

Just ask the Saudis to double the price and buy it back from the developers.

[Guest The Little Waster]

Be more than happy to revisit John Halls plans but with a bigger stadium from the off ( 80 000 ) presumably Dolly whatsherface is long gone and Canning Town showed what happens to green numpties when they get in the way of the wishes of ordinary people

[AyeDubbleYoo]

It has to stay in the city centre. If that limits the capacity, that’s something we’ll have to live with. Much better than moving.

[Guest neesy111]

  On 16/04/2020 at 16:20, Ian W said:

It has to stay in the city centre. If that limits the capacity, that’s something we’ll have to live with. Much better than moving.

[TheGuv]

  On 16/04/2020 at 16:20, Ian W said:

It has to stay in the city centre. If that limits the capacity, that’s something we’ll have to live with. Much better than moving.

 

[GWN]

Wasn’t there talk of moving to Kingston park at one point?

[TheGuv]

  On 16/04/2020 at 16:23, GWN said:

Wasn’t there talk of moving to Kingston park at one point?

 

Dreadful around there. It seems to have its own microclimate of ‘Tornado’ whenever I watch the Falcons. Gosforth (Newcastle Falcons) should never have moved to KP in all honesty. At the very least they should have bought the old county ground (now Asda) and rebuilt it from there. Gosforth would have been a much better ground with better infrastructure (pubs, metro etc) than where they are now.

 

You just can’t move to the middle of nowhere and it expect it to be the same.

[Greg]

  On 16/04/2020 at 15:53, Yorkie said:

You can't refuse a planning application on those grounds though. There are policies the scheme was in conflict with imo (obscuring important views of a landmark, i.e. the stadium), but on balance it obviously wasn't bad enough to throw it out for that reason; or rather, the 'benefits' of the scheme outweighed the negatives in planning terms, i.e. the economic potential of the development, or whatever, outweighs the harm of the loss of the view. The fact that the scheme prevents an unknown future stakeholder from developing the site for the benefit of their asset probably never came into the discussion.

 

The villain, as always, is Ashley for selling the land in the first place. That being said, development's probably a long way off so they could buy it back. Doubt they would for the sake of 8,000 extra seats, mind you.

 

100%. The Council made the right decision from a planning perspective when weighing up the benefits vs the harm.

 

The committee however could have played politics to delay it - but it would have come at significant cost of needed to defend an appeal they would have no chance of winning.

 

The only works that have started on site are ground investigation works - if these guys have big pockets which they clearly do if they wanted to I'm sure they could buy the lease and then develop their own plans.

[Stifler]

  On 16/04/2020 at 16:55, Greg said:

  Quote

You can't refuse a planning application on those grounds though. There are policies the scheme was in conflict with imo (obscuring important views of a landmark, i.e. the stadium), but on balance it obviously wasn't bad enough to throw it out for that reason; or rather, the 'benefits' of the scheme outweighed the negatives in planning terms, i.e. the economic potential of the development, or whatever, outweighs the harm of the loss of the view. The fact that the scheme prevents an unknown future stakeholder from developing the site for the benefit of their asset probably never came into the discussion.

 

The villain, as always, is Ashley for selling the land in the first place. That being said, development's probably a long way off so they could buy it back. Doubt they would for the sake of 8,000 extra seats, mind you.

 

100%. The Council made the right decision from a planning perspective when weighing up the benefits vs the harm.

 

The committee however could have played politics to delay it - but it would have come at significant cost of needed to defend an appeal they would have no chance of winning.

 

The only works that have started on site are ground investigation works - if these guys have big pockets which they clearly do if they wanted to I'm sure they could buy the lease and then develop their own plans.

It was always going to be an uphill battle, however the councillors are supposed to be custodians of their city and to vote in respect of that. I don’t think that development benefits the city at all, or even fits in with it.

 

It’s all the more frustrating that we are just 4 months down the line and being sold to some of the richest people in the world, who presumably have big plans not just for the football club, but the city as well.

[ponsaelius]

A refusal would have definitely been allowed on appeal and a good chance of an award of costs against NCC.

 

The stadium itself has no protected status. The pitch is locally listed but that's it. It is very difficult to argue a decision based on protecting views of the stadium. You couldn't also refuse an application on a site that currently offers very little to the city, on the chance that hypothetically a future proposal may come forward that is better or preferable. That's simpy not how it works. It's frustrating, because I personally think the Strawberry Place development not befitting of the location nor setting of SJP - but little the LPA could do in this instance. And I don't blame councillors for following LPA recommendations - so often they get criticised for doing the opposite.

 

On a personal level, I'm strongly against a move away from the current location. SJP is in my opinion the best stadium I've been to because of it's central location, and its setting alongside Leazes Terrace and Leazes Park. These are layers of history that reflect the city's identity, and is almost completely unique in British football. Even if we can't wrangle back Strawberry Place for a Gallowgate expansion I'd still be against moving.

 

 

[Kanj]

If you HAD to move the stadium - is Leazes Park still the best place?

[Ameritoon]

Moving from the city center would be diabolical. I'm sure growing up there or attending a lot of matches you might take it for granted, but part of the club's charm is SJP's location. Thinking about the prematch before the Liverpool match last year, the streets and pubs were absolutely rammed with people. LFEE, I and a few others grabbed dinner after going to a pub, then took a 5-10 minute walk to the match. That doesn't happen in a lot of places. It's fucking magical.

[Matt]

The only obvious site is the arena and surrounding area, much of which seems to be sitting vacant waiting for the day a developer swings by.

[Guest neesy111]

  On 16/04/2020 at 17:38, Matt said:

The only obvious site is the arena and surrounding area, much of which seems to be sitting vacant waiting for the day a developer swings by.

 

Yeap.

[Guest The Little Waster]

  On 16/04/2020 at 17:32, Kanji said:

If you HAD to move the stadium - is Leazes Park still the best place?

 

???

[nufcjb]

No doubt these buyers know exactly that part of what makes the club and the city unique is having the stadium dead central in the city. That surely was one of the attractive points that would have enticed them. If we already had a stadium outside the city, there is no way the club would maintain its history, uniqueness and a level of attractiveness to potential buyers.

 

I trust these people know what they want to do with the stadium and the city. They'll probably hire the best engineers and architects to increase the stadium capacity and modernise it yet keep it in the same place. They've probably have earmarked what and how they'll go about  the stadiums redevelopment to compete with the rest. Look how Spurs did theirs. Its not impossible.

[Guest chopey]

8000 on the Gallowgate is probably the only real option