Loirston chosen for new stadium

Aberdeen FC set to move

EXCLUSIVE

By Charlie Allan

 

Published: 03/04/2009

 

THE Evening Express can today reveal the preferred location for Aberdeen’s new community stadium.

 

The £38 million community facility, which will become home to Aberdeen FC, will be at Loirston Loch in the south of the city.

 

It follows a year-long series of feasibility studies to decide if the site at Nigg would be the best location for the stadium.

 

The report on the recommendation of the Nigg site will now go out to consultation and will be referred to the council’s policy and strategy committee on April 28.

 

A number of other potential sites across the city, including one at King’s Links, were examined by Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeen FC and it was decided all of them were unsuitable.

 

Aberdeen FC managing director Duncan Fraser, who is also a member of the Arena Project Advisory and Monitoring Board created to advise of the best site and stadium design, said: “These recommendations have still to be approved and at the appropriate time, there will be a full consultation process with fans.

 

“Their feedback will be important.â€

 

For more on this story, and an exclusive image of the new arena, pick up today’s Evening Express or check back later

ED and myself have had plenty of fun abusing them and calling them out on Twitter.  They are the biggest purveyors of fake news.  Seems like their campaign of lies is being run by a bunch of petulant kids (I acknowledge they're not).

 

Abusing is most definitely the wrong word to use there Manc! Calling out covers it.

Drove past one of the signs on the way to Kingswells the other day. "No to traffic chaos".  What?,you wont manage a couple of hours once a fortnight?,but you'll manage a new Tesco 24 hours a day,and those subsea buildings et al.

  Have they ever wondered how a more built up area like Pittodrie has coped all these years

   

Would certainly be interesting to see the numbers of people who live in the city and work in Westhill. Wouldn't be surprised if there were more cars using the dual carriageway during rush hour 10 times a week than there would be for a football match.

Flicking through some of the objections lodged with planning, I really do despair. Came across this beaut:

 

"As a resident of prperty within the eastern & northern elevated part of Westhill..........this not only affects me as a resident, but also as a keen golfer & walker in the area. I am also concerned on [sic] the impact that the significant effect on views may have on the resale value of my house"

 

How exactly does this affect Westhill golf club? (in fairness anything that did could only improve that fucking shitehole).

 

How does it affect his walking, the parks concerned are not a walking area.

 

His house price - yup that's a planning issue 

They really are getting desperate:

 

Dr Nicola Seal, speaking on behalf of the Say No to Kingsford group, read out a testimony from a former landfill worker claiming that asbestos, removed from the old stand at Pittodrie, had been dumped in the ground at Kingsford.

 

She quoted the worker and said: “While I was working for MPH (McIntosh Plant Hire) in the 90s, we demolished the old stand at Pittodrie – asbestos was discovered on site, a very large amount from the old beach end stand.

 

“It was ordered to be taken to England for safe disposal, but only a handful of loads ever went to England and the majority went to the Kingsford site – many, many loads.

 

“We were ordered to keep quiet – there are many thousands of tons of asbestos under that site, so you can imagine the horror just waiting to be uncovered.”

 

Dr Seal added: “The investigations for asbestos are woefully inadequate. Just four shallow soil samples have been tested at depths of 1-2metres, which is topsoil and not the building rubble underneath.”

 

Well if that's the case, the club will have to pay for the safe removal of the material, which would be the case anyway.  Shocking if it is true but it doesn't stop any development, just means they'll have to factor the removal works in and it'll cost a shit load.

Surely that should be a police matter too (if it's not - as is likely - horse shite)?

 

It could be part of a 20+ year conspiracy, featuring several other red-herring stadium proposals, where Stewarty and McIntosh have colluded to cover up asbestos dumping with the final part of the jigsaw being to cover the entire thing up (literally) with a fitba grun. It'll come to light after Johnny Hayes collapses on a training pitch as his lungs give-way after two years of belting up and down on top of a pile of ancient asbestos.

 

Think of all the hooligans that could get poisoned on their way to the game after shiteing in a local gairden.

https://publicaccess.aberdeencity.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OJMF3EBZIED00

 

Seems like a few people have lodged their objections more than once.  I'd like to hope that the council have a filter  which would check this sort of thing...

 

Edit: Not sure why that was in there Rico!

I'd like to hope that the council have a filter city

 

Me too, we could move the stadium there.

4489 for, 4443 against.

Obviously not ours, but this is quite progressive for the US!

 

MLS side Orlando City have opened their new stadium, which has a safe standing area and a special section for fans wanting to use flares at matches. (Daily Mail)

Obviously not ours, but this is quite progressive for the US!

 

MLS side Orlando City have opened their new stadium, which has a safe standing area and a special section for fans wanting to use flares at matches. (Daily Mail)

 

Why would anyone want to use a flare? I just don't get it. Wooo? Whee? What the fuck?

 

I reckon these cunts should read more and expand their horizons sufficiently that a bright light doesn't float their boats.

 

https://publicaccess.aberdeencity.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OJMF3EBZIED00

 

Seems like a few people have lodged their objections more than once.  I'd like to hope that the council have a filter  which would check this sort of thing...

 

Edit: Not sure why that was in there Rico!

 

I had a (very) quick scan, there are definitely duplications, but indications would be that they are not directly by the residents themselves - rather the duplicates tend to be where a resident has completed the tickbox form the opposition group have been getting folk to sign, and the same form has been submitted more than once.

 

There are also a number of other errors in their bulk submissions.

 

Examples:

 

170021_DPP-Objects__LRep_-_A_Scott-1461161.pdf and 170021_DPP-Objects__LRep_-_A_Scott-1463054.pdf are two separate scans of the same completed form.  The handwriting is identical but the redaction of the signatures is different, indicating it was scanned, modified and submitted twice.

 

170021_DPP-Objects___LRep_-_A_Stewart-1477420.pdf  No checkboxes ticked, therefore no concrete objection, plus also potential duplicate of 170021_DPP-Objects___LRep_-_A_Stewart-1477423.pdf (although this could be a husband/relative at the same address with a forename beginning with A).  In both cases, the name submitted is Stewart whereas the actual resident's name is Stuart.

 

170021_DPP-Objects__LRep_-_A_Duncan-1470391.pdf submitted claiming to be on someone else's behalf, which is invalid, AFAIK.  Also a duplicate of 170021_DPP-Objects__LRep_-_A_Duncar-1470388.pdf, which has been incorrectly entered as "A Duncar", instead of "A Duncan".

 

That was in a 30 second check of 4 potential groups of duplicate names, where 3 of those groups showed the errors above. That doesn't suggest a lot of confidence in the quality of the data inputting of these forms (by the opposition group directly or by the council - whoever created these records).

 

 

Disclaimer:  i am neither for nor against the proposed stadium location, but shoddy handling of information gets my goat every time.

Links don't work, OD. Do you have to sign in to view them all?

Links don't work, OD. Do you have to sign in to view them all?

 

Nope, they work for me - they just go straight to the PDFs.  What you trying to open them on?

Nope, they work for me - they just go straight to the PDFs.  What you trying to open them on?

 

Chrome?

 

This is the message it comes up with:

 

Document Unavailable

This document is unavailable for viewing at this time.

Chrome?

 

This is the message it comes up with:

 

 

Hah, right enough - just tried it both in chrome and an icognito firefox window and it does the same.

 

I guess you have to have accessed the link from the planning documents list first, or something.  That's a pain.

 

Edit - that's indeed what it is - there's a unique token generated in the link when you click from the planning documents list.  If it is removed, it still gives the error message so can't get round it that way either.  Pain in the arse.

 

I'm afraid you'll have to go to the original link and find them individually if you want to view them.

Hah, right enough - just tried it both in chrome and an icognito firefox window and it does the same.

 

I guess you have to have accessed the link from the planning documents list first, or something.  That's a pain.

 

Edit - that's indeed what it is - there's a unique token generated in the link when you click from the planning documents list.  If it is removed, it still gives the error message so can't get round it that way either.  Pain in the arse.

 

I'm afraid you'll have to go to the original link and find them individually if you want to view them.

 

cheers, will have a look when I get home 

I'm afraid you'll have to go to the original link and find them individually if you want to view them.

 

We'll just believe you... the whole objections thing is a farce on these types of development anyway. An objection should only be allowed to be registered once, with duplicates of the same objection just up-voted or similar. Number of up-votes should have little to no relevance. Something is either a valid objection or not, regardless of how many agree.

 

Anyway, you've been pretty quiet on the loanee updates since McKenna got sent off for a murderous challenge on McGinn against hibees last week. That was an amazing challenge.

4489 for, 4443 against.

 

 

  What would those those figures mean (if anything) as far as the planning going ahead?

 

  What would those those figures mean (if anything) as far as the planning going ahead?

 

basically means the project has to be determined by Committee rather than the designated Planning Officer.

Given the size of the development that was pretty much going to happen anyway.

Even if it had been completely one sided (for or against) that would only have a slight bearing on the final decision.

 

There is an art to objecting to/ Supporting a planning application and I reckon more than 50% of those comments are in the bin already.

 

Cheers, have a 50% Simmie surge

Anyway, you've been pretty quiet on the loanee updates since McKenna got sent off for a murderous challenge on McGinn against hibees last week. That was an amazing challenge.

 

True, i've got a long train journey tomorrow so i might dae it when i'm bored of watching sheep whizz past backwards

According to the BBC the shire are due to deliver their verdict on the stadium today:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-39290459

 

 

and....they object.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-39290459

and....they object.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-39290459

 

at the end of the day though, does their objection hold any sway over the Aberdeen Councils decision?

 

Would it be like me objecting to a boy three streets away putting up an extension?