jess Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 A document which lists the multiple sites around the city and the reasons they were deemed unsuitable. How does that not have anything to do with the 'council has offered land' debate? I'm lost that you're asking this question. Nothing to do with land by the beach the council may have identified after the club indicated they were moving to Kingsford. Could you please also clarify your last statement about the Planner's not accepting these reasons? SDPA - However, this does not demonstrate the need to have co-location but merely that it is preferable for the club. The applicant has still not adequately addressed the need to co-locate activities on one site. In light of this, the sequential test should be approached on the basis of separating the stadium from the training facilities. It goes on and on after that about almost every aspect of it not being right. Back to the Kingslinks discussion you are actually correct in the Cricket Ground + Driving Range is 10 hectares (checked this on a CAD plan). The problem is the club needs 25 Hectares. The other issue (as stated in long post about the alternative sites) is Aberdeen's 2017 local plan has zoned the Kingslinks (including the cricket ground & Driving Range) as Urban Green space, Green Space network, and a Developed Coastal Management area. http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=74498&sID=9484 http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.asp?lID=74499&sID=9484 If you think trying to build on green-belt in the suburbs is hard, wait till you try to concrete over existing urban green-space. Many people still haven't forgiven the 1990s councils for allowing the loss of the grassland next to Codona's to build the Queen's links leisure park. Can't believe the time wasted on the wrong sites. 15 years since we were apparently first presented the opportunity of this site, these hurdles could have been passed long ago. We will continue to waste time on the wrong sites. The 2003 plan which you posted a couple of images from (Seem to recall from my Uni days that it included suggestions of a tram network) has been superseded several times and now no longer applicable. Where it says development opportunity may have been this newly identified land. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elgindon Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 Any thoughts on our line up the morn jessy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_widdows Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 I'm lost that you're asking this question. Nothing to do with land by the beach the council may have identified after the club indicated they were moving to Kingsford. The important word there is 'may'. No one has provided any evidence the council 'offered' land. In fact given the problems Aberdeen City Council have had over the last 2 decades regarding 'offering' and indeed 'selling' land to certain parties I would be very surprised to see anything. Since 100% AK went AWOL you seem to be the only one fixated on something that at this stage is an internet rumour. I've had a look back at the past local plans and back in the 2008 Local plan, Pittodrie + the Driving Range + Cricket pitch was shown as one large potential development site. However in 2009 the Council began drafting the first Local Development Plan for the City. This was finally approved in January 2012 and adopted in February 2012. That plan reduced the development site to cover only Pittodrie and designated the cricket pitch and driving range as 'urban Greenspace'. Whilst all this was happening the Loriston Stadium was granted Planning permission and the club actually named a contractor for the works, then in August 2012 the newly appointed ACC rejected the Calder Park Community Sports Complex effectively killing the whole project The club announced plans for Kingsford in May 2016 4 years after the Kingslinks and other green areas of the Beach were designated urban Green-space. The only development opportunity on the Kingslinks is a site smaller than Pittodrie next to the Bridge over the Don. In light of this can anyone now reveal the location of the land by the Beach the Council allegedly 'offered' when the club announced the Kingsford Plans? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunty Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 I'd be more interested in hearing about the sites offered by Aberdeenshire Council (which aren't a rumour, as they're in the Kingsford application). One of the sites is Balmedie. Maybe it's near Balmedie beach, and someone has heard this, and got their councils and beaches mixed up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A llad insane Posted September 17, 2017 Share Posted September 17, 2017 Lets get this thing passed & built, jeez ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garlogie_Granite Posted September 18, 2017 Share Posted September 18, 2017 Because, as he said at the end, they weren't relevant. He was actually entirely correct. The guy was asking if Kingsford was safer than Pittodrie, which is entirely irrelevant. Because his ludicrous argument was that there was a huge terrorist threat at Kingsford because of the pipeline, which only exists in that location (in terms of pur stadium development), so safety in comparison to Pittodrie, or anywhere else, is actually not relevant. The absurdity of his argument rendered most of the questions irrelevant, that was what was funny about it. They should have just not posed any questions and moved on. The only angle that I can possibly think he was looking for was that maybe the publicity would get some over-officious BP HSE person examining it. It's one of the only things that would knock the application dead in the water (if BP objected on pipeline grounds). His argument was plainly retarded though, and makes even me want to see Kingsford built to see the look on his face. As I said to Tamzarian earlier this evening, he should have brought up the risk of planes flying into it if it's underneath a flight path. A popular new stadium like that is certainly going to turn some hijacker's heads, that's for sure. Actually, it wasn't irrelevant at all. If the "terrorsts" were after a hiugh profile lcoal site to blow up for maximum impact, they wouldn't be going to Kingsford for the "pipelines", they'd be going to garlogie to hit the switching station, through which flows 70% of the UK gas supply, and has been in the past identified as a credible target. The only reason they'd switch to Kingsford would be for the mass of people, not the pipelines because they'd need a humungous car bomb to get down deep enough to affect them. So the councillor was right, Pittodrie in that respect is much more dangerous, but if they were going after a stadium at all, they'd be after on holding much more than 20,000, so if they bothered with a Scottish ground, clearly it's be Hampden or Murrayfield at a cup final/5 nations game. To actually give any credence to "terrorist guy" is laughable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jess Posted September 18, 2017 Share Posted September 18, 2017 The only reason they'd switch to Kingsford would be for the mass of people, not the pipelines because they'd need a humungous car bomb to get down deep enough to affect them. So the councillor was right, Pittodrie in that respect is much more dangerous, but if they were going after a stadium at all, they'd be after on holding much more than 20,000, so if they bothered with a Scottish ground, clearly it's be Hampden or Murrayfield at a cup final/5 nations game. To actually give any credence to "terrorist guy" is laughable. Not giving credence to him but for argument's sake that is bad logic. Terrorists don't always go to the biggest stadiums, arenas, clubs or streets. Tends to be the area they live and know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garlogie_Granite Posted September 18, 2017 Share Posted September 18, 2017 Not giving credence to him but for argument's sake that is bad logic. Terrorists don't always go to the biggest stadiums, arenas, clubs or streets. Tends to be the area they live and know. Fair point, one of the large red "45 years of Westhill" signs has been ripped down overnight by NKS jihadis at the entrance to Westhill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gosgka Posted September 18, 2017 Share Posted September 18, 2017 still think my idea of digging down 30 feet is the best way to go, it would make it a 20k seat stadium, would be the same hight so no complaints about that and if we hit oil we would be the richest club in Europe overnight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrant Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 still think my idea of digging down 30 feet is the best way to go, it would make it a 20k seat stadium, would be the same hight so no complaints about that and if we hit oil we would be the richest club in Europe overnight Aye but the amount of plastic sheeting we'd need makes it entirely unfeasible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gosgka Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 Aye but the amount of plastic sheeting we'd need makes it entirely unfeasible. we get it from B&Q on Wednesday using O.A.P. discount that would save us money Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrant Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 we get it from B&Q on Wednesday using O.A.P. discount that would save us money Wiggy is a sprightly 67 years old. Do you not have to be 68 to qualify as an OAP now? Unless B&Q have a different policy and offer it to over 60s or over 65s. Just another hurdle to get over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garlogie_Granite Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 You're being silly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsdaft Posted September 19, 2017 Share Posted September 19, 2017 By the time we get around to building this stadium we'll all qualify for OAP discount. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_widdows Posted September 26, 2017 Share Posted September 26, 2017 SFA backing the proposals + an updated shuttle bus plan https://publicaccess.aberdeencity.gov.uk/online-applications/files/F6E4BFBF821AB3F243819C12DB239905/pdf/170021_DPP-Supporter_Travel___Shuttle_Bus_Strategy-1556965.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc_don Posted September 27, 2017 Share Posted September 27, 2017 Doesn't seem to be working for me, is it an improvement? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jess Posted September 27, 2017 Share Posted September 27, 2017 Doesn't seem to be working for me, is it an improvement? Looks even worse to me when the choices are laid bare like that, and from only 2.5 hours before kick off? They say they'll add more stops or routes if they deem necessary after a survey... with what buses and what journey time? Dyce P&R Kingswells P&R Bridge of Don P&R Rose Street College Street Shiprow Bus station We can't seriously be planning on building a stadium you can only get to from there at those times, and only going back to there after a game. It's not good enough to me and would be fucking expensive to make it better than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brunstanesheep Posted September 27, 2017 Share Posted September 27, 2017 Is it too simple to suggest the club put on a bus from each town in the NE rather than expecting people to go to these limited choice of meeting points? There are dozens of bus companys in the north east- Maynes, Deveron, Watermill,Bains, Premier, the one at Tarves still on the go? Anyway thats just off the top of my head, surely to fuck the club would be better hiring a bus from each of the companies and have a bus from Broch, Peterhead, Banff/Macduff/Turriff, Ellon, Stoney, Inverurie/Kintore, Huntly etc. I bet there would be more uptake than the shuttles. Also not limiting your busses to First and Stagecoach if or when things go tits up. PS didnt even know Dyce had a Park and Ride, far the fuck is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gogsred Posted September 27, 2017 Share Posted September 27, 2017 PS didnt even know Dyce had a Park and Ride, far the fuck is it? Don't think it has been built yet. It will be up near the new AECC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsdaft Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 That's not Dyce Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garlogie_Granite Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 Is it too simple to suggest the club put on a bus from each town in the NE rather than expecting people to go to these limited choice of meeting points? Folk in the country drive cars. We're smert like at Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsdaft Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 I've been trying to be positive about this but let's face it. It's going to be shite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gogsred Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 That's not Dyce Aye, I know but I suppose Dyce Park and Ride sounds a bit better than Craibstone Park and Ride. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brunstanesheep Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 Folk in the country drive cars. We're smert like at Show off, all tractors up here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_widdows Posted October 2, 2017 Share Posted October 2, 2017 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-41468048 Let the merry go round commence on October 12th. For anyone wondering what a judicial review would mean Court challenges against planning decisions can only be taken in the highest civil court in Scotland, the Court of Session. If it is felt that a planning authority or Scottish Ministers have acted in any way unlawfully in coming to a decision, applicants, third parties or anyone with an interest can pursue the process of judicial review of that decision through the Court of Session. Any application must be lodged within 6 weeks of the decision. As judicial review is a complex legal procedure, which can be costly and time consuming, it is used rarely in the case of smaller developments. However, if you are considering applying to the court for a judicial review you can only do so through a lawyer or other professional agent who is recognised for access to the Court. The Court of Session will not be able to change a decision that has already been made by a public body, but it can quash or reduce its effect and force the planning authority to reconsider it to make sure it's acting within the law. Even so, it is possible that it may subsequently reach the same decision Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Germany v 
Scotland - kick-off 8pm
Germany v Scotland - kick-off 8pm
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.