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

Great stuff from Mike & Keith from Westhill For Kingsford

If someone can't pronounce "loch" their objection should be thrown out without second thought

 

Apparently the publicity for the stadium coupled with the stadium being beside two pipelines (which neither pipeline owner has expressed concerns over) has increased the risk of terrorist attacks on the stadium.

 

Same goes for the fans walking to the stadium being at risk of vehicle based terrorist attack.

 

What. A. Fucking. Tube.

If someone can't pronounce "loch" their objection should be thrown out without second thought

 

Seconded

The only boy who came cl,ose to putting a good case was the cycling gype Cruickshank, he spoiled it though by going on about it being a 24hr cycle route, which he personally had cause to use in the past at 1am, 2am, 6am, you know those really popular football kick off times? 

 

He was also rather confused about the A944, it would be chock ablock with the football traffic making it very dangerous, but at the same time the road often sees cars travelling at 80mph. He didn't quite square the circle of which it was, chock a block or the Nuebergring, but I can honestly say in my whole life I can't think of a time I've seen anyone driving close to 80, it's just not possible there, and even less now you have the extra roundabout for the AWPR.

 

It's like they just can;t help themselves, even when they have a smidgen of an argument, they exaggerate out of all credibility.

 

 

NKS have had an absolute mare today.

 

Didnt see web braodcast, seen a few comments popping up on Evening Express web site. NKS seemed to be talking pish ( and probably smelling of it, going by the age demographic of their demo the other day) clutching at straws.  1 - 0 to Yes I would say

What the last half hour showed me was how thick not only the NKS people are, but some of those councillors. The last three who asked questions of the head of hotels essentially asked the same question. His presentation was very clear. They just didn't like his point. If that's an example of what we're dealing with, it's going to be tough.

 

Caught a wee swatch of this at lunchtime.Not sure what stage in the process this is,but I was surprised at the simplicity of the questioning and comments,and lack of scrutiny...

Caught a fair chunk of the afternoon session and barring the odd well made point it was the same irrelevant pish trotted out by the NKS lot. Christ that heather brock woman didn't half give a masterclass in coming across as an entitled condescending know it all, her mate wasn't much better.

 

I've a really bad feeling the council will fail to see the big picture here and buy into the nimbyism

Caught a wee swatch of this at lunchtime.Not sure what stage in the process this is,but I was surprised at the simplicity of the questioning and comments,and lack of scrutiny...

the boy Allard (sp?) seemed to want to question every speaker, and every question was pish.

 

There were a couple of decent councilors (the young lads) who I thought oh here we go as they were hard on the NKS guys, but then turned round and were equally hard on pro camp, just that pro camp had actual answers.

 

That said I hope Ms Cleavage's clear bias towards No isn't typical.

The only boy who came cl,ose to putting a good case was the cycling gype Cruickshank, he spoiled it though by going on about it being a 24hr cycle route, which he personally had cause to use in the past at 1am, 2am, 6am, you know those really popular football kick off times? 

 

 

 

I think cyclists should have more access to inside the stadium.

 

They should build tracks that lead directly to their seats.

Heck, there should be a velodrome built as part of the stadium for their half time entertainment too.

 

On a more serious note...i agree with the threat of tvehicle based terrorism as a concern these days at large crowd events.

 

It doesnt cost a lot to put a few bollards in place to save perhaps 10 or 20 lives, maybe more and multiple serious injuries.

I think cyclists should have more access to inside the stadium.

 

They should build tracks that lead directly to their seats.

Heck, there should be a velodrome built as part of the stadium for their half time entertainment too.

 

On a more serious note...i agree with the threat of tvehicle based terrorism as a concern these days at large crowd events.

 

It doesnt cost a lot to put a few bollards in place to save perhaps 10 or 20 lives, maybe more and multiple serious injuries.

 

 

No. Vehicle based terrorism, in Aberdeen? Not a fucking chance. Every cunt in the UK knows it's a city that says no.the nimbys were well and truly pathetic, and I hope they pay for their words. I'm embarrassed for them.

The only boy who came cl,ose to putting a good case was the cycling gype Cruickshank, he spoiled it though by going on about it being a 24hr cycle route, which he personally had cause to use in the past at 1am, 2am, 6am, you know those really popular football kick off times? 

 

He was also rather confused about the A944, it would be chock ablock with the football traffic making it very dangerous, but at the same time the road often sees cars travelling at 80mph. He didn't quite square the circle of which it was, chock a block or the Nuebergring, but I can honestly say in my whole life I can't think of a time I've seen anyone driving close to 80, it's just not possible there, and even less now you have the extra roundabout for the AWPR.

 

It's like they just can;t help themselves, even when they have a smidgen of an argument, they exaggerate out of all credibility.

 

 

NKS have had an absolute mare today.

 

Great post GG. Raised a smile.

About a week old but something jarred when I heard one of the objectors 'summarise' the history of the stadium site planning.

 

https://www.kingsfordstadium.co.uk/sites-considered-new-aberdeen-stadium/

 

As part of the Kingsford planning application, there was detail provided exploring a number of sites within Aberdeen City that in theory had potential to accommodate the proposed development.  The sites discussed were as follows:

 

Pittodrie;

Loirston;

Calder Park;

Kings Links;

Former AECC, Bridge of Don;

Proposed AECC, Dyce;

Bellfield Farm, Kingswells

The Environmental Statement concluded that there are no suitable sites to be considered within Aberdeen City Centre or the two town centres of Rosemount and Torry set out in the Local Development Plan (LDP).

 

The new stadium and training development minimum site requirement is 25 hectares (ha) or more; or even for separate stadium and training facilities of 12.5ha each.

 

The Council requested an update on the availability and suitability of each of the above sites which are set out below:

 

Pittodrie

 

Site area 5.7ha

Ownership:  Aberdeen Football Club

LDP Status:  allocated as opportunity site OP87, suitable for residential development

The site is located close to Aberdeen Beach, outside of the City Centre boundary.  The site comprises the current Pittodrie Football Stadium and the rough parking area on Pittodrie Street.

 

Advantages:

 

Perceived advantage of location relatively close to City Centre (1.9km);

Accessible by range of transport modes;

Seen as the historic home of Aberdeen FC;

Football / leisure / event use already established;

Disadvantages:

 

The site is not physically suitable, in that it is not large enough to accommodate the required stadium structure and its associated infrastructure;

Without a larger pitch, UEFA standards would not be met.  The historic main stand dating from the early 20th century is not suitable for re-development;

There is a lack of dedicated facilities for the AFC Community Trust to carry out their work and increase their range of activities;

There is no scope to provide additional facilities for visitors proposed with new development such as the AFC Museum, AFC Cafe and memorial area;

There is no scope to provide the required adjacent training facilities that are currently lacking at Pittodrie

A previous Business Case prepared in conjunction with the Council in 2008 confirmed that the re-development of Pittodrie was unviable when the costs were compared against the limited stadium capacity that would be created (circa 12,000);

The current stadium is surrounded by residential use on three side.  Although the stadium has been in place for over 100 years, proposals to intensify this use through re-development would present a clear conflict with adjacent residential use.  The site benefits from Planning Permission in Principle for a residential development of around 350 houses.  This means that the site is a valuable asset owned by AFC, and proceeds from the sale of the site would be put towards the funding of the new stadium at Kingsford.  The Planning Permission in place and the LDP allocation reflect the acceptance of the residential redevelopment proposals.  There are no overriding justification not to follow this route, which has been an aspiration of AFC for a number of years.

 

Loirston

 

Site area: 15ha;

Ownership: Hermiston Securities / Aberdeen City Council;

LDP status:  Allocated opportunity site, mixed use including potential community football stadium / Cove Rangers football stadium;

The site is located in the south of the city adjacent to an existing commercial area close to the residential suburb of Cove.  The site is part of the mixed use development allocation and is presently scrubland adjacent to Loirston Loch.

 

Advantages:

 

Good location; southern gateway site with good accessibility;

Part of wider masterplan area in LDP for mixed use development;

Disadvantages:

 

No longer deliverable due to lack of land for training facilities and stadium parking;

In 2010-2011 detailed planning application for a 21,000 capacity stadium at Loriston and associated training facilities at Calder Park were submitted and progressed by AFC.  These applications were supported by the Council; however the applications were withdrawn by the applicant before the associated legal agreements were concluded, so planning permission was not released.  At an advanced stage of the planning process for the new stadium, the political leadership of Aberdeen City Council changed and proposals for a new City South Academy were progressed (planning reference 151082).  This rendered a planning permission for Loirston undeliverable due to the absence of land available for training facilities and stadium parking.

 

Calder Park

 

Site area: 11ha

Ownership: Aberdeen City Council

LDP status:  Allocated opportunity site, mixed use Cove Rangers football stadium

Close to Loirston, the site is located in the south of the city adjacent to an existing commercial area and close to the residential suburb of Cove.  The site is part of the development allocation for the development of a new football stadium for Cove Rangers.  The majority of the site is presently being developed through the construction of the new City South Academy and Cove Rangers new stadium, so is not available.

 

Advantages:

 

Good location, southern gateway site with good accessibility;

Part of wider masterplan area in LDP for mixed use development;

Disadvantages:

 

No longer available;

Calder Park includes part of the same site referred to at Loirston, where the associated training facilities for the Loirston Stadium were proposed.  As noted above, Aberdeen City Council progressed proposals for a new City South Academy on the part of the Calder Park side that was going to accommodate AFC’s training facilities.  In 2016, Cove Rangers secured planning permission (planning reference 160246) for a new football ground and stand in the north eastern part of the site.  This coupled with the City South Academy (now under construction) means that there is no land at Calder Park available for any other use.

 

King’s Links

 

Site area: 10ha

Ownership:  Aberdeen City Council

LDP status:  Green belt / Green Space Network / Developed Coastal Management Area

The site comprises the Kings Links driving range and adjacent area of open space.  Kings Links lies between the eastern edge of the built up area and the Beach area and has an open nature.

 

Advantages:

 

Good location; close to City Centre;

Close to AFC’s existing stadium at Pittodrie;

Disadvantages:

 

Loss of leisure facility (golfing);

Higher construction costs due to coastal location;

Too small in which to deliver the Club’s requirements;

Not available;

Aberdeen City Council confirmed that the land at King’s Links is not ‘common good’ land.  Although previously identified as a possible location for a new community stadium in the 2014 Strategic Development Plan, the more recent 2017 Local Development Plan has no such allocation and zones the land Green belt / Green Space Network / Developed Coastal Management Area in which there is a presumption against development.

 

Former AECC, Bridge of Don

 

Site area; 21ha

Ownership:  Aberdeen City Council

LDP status:  allocated for mixed use development opportunity, including space for a park and choose facility and a household waste recycling centre.

The former Aberdeen Exhibition and Conference Centre lies adjacent to the A90 trunk road, currently the main route into the City from the north.  This will change following the opening of the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Road (AWPR) in 2018.  The adjacent area is densely populated with various industrial uses and housing nearby.

 

Advantages:

 

Outwith City Centre but accessible by a range of transport modes;

Disadvantages:

 

The site is not directly accessed from the AWPR, and it is questionable if there would be capacity on the road network to accommodate the development, due to level of commercial development in the area;

The nature of the site does not lend itself to accommodating a stadium and training facilities of the scale required by AFC;

Aberdeen City Council (landowner) will be seeking a capital receipt from the site sale to invest in the new AECC at Dyce;

A Planning Permission in Principle allocation is currently pending for the mixed use redevelopment of the former AECC site.  A draft Masterplan has already been prepared on behalf of Aberdeen City Council as landowner and shows predominately residential scheme with some hotel and other commercial uses proposed.  There is no evidence to suggest that ACC would be willing to divert from these mixed use plans to pursue a new stadium with AFC.

 

Proposed AECC, Dyce

 

Site Area: 62ha

Ownership: University of Aberdeen

LDP Status:  Site boundaries match Rowett North, allocated for Aberdeen Exhibition and Conference Centre and complementary employment uses

The proposed replacement Aberdeen Exhibition and Conference Centre is presently under construction so is not available.

 

Advantages:

 

Large enough to accommodate the development proposal;

Good connectivity to A96 and AWPR;

Part of wider development area;

Disadvantages:

 

The site is entirely occupied by the new Aberdeen Exhibition and Conference Centre proposal which is now under construction;

In summary, this site may have been a possible location for the proposed development prior to 2012, but has not been available since then due to progressing the AECC development.

 

Bellfield Farm, Kingswells

 

Site area: 48ha

Ownership: Multiple

LDP status: Majority of site in Green belt, southern extent part of Countesswells development allocation

The land at Bellfield Farm is generally open agricultural land, with some woodland to the east.  The site is bounded to the north by the A944 Westhill road.  The land is close to the village of Kingswells.  Early phase sof the Countesswells development are under construction to the south.

 

Advantages:

 

Closer to Aberdeen City Centre;

Significant studies have been previously carried out in considering a large stadium in this location;

Disadvantages:

 

Proximity to existing and proposed housing;

Green belt status;

Further from AWPR junction than Kingsford;

We also understand that the land is no longer available for this use;

In 2002, land at Bellfield Farm, Kingswells, was the subject of an application for Outline Planning Permission for a Regional Centre for Sporting and Leisure Excellence incorporating a 30,000 capacity Football Stadium.  This application was supported by Aberdeen City Council as planning authority.  The application was progressed in line with the 2008 bid to host the Euro championship football tournament, which was ultimately awarded to Austria and Switzerland.  The status of the land at Bellfield Farm has dramatically changed since it was progressed as a suitable site for a stadium in 2003.  A 165ha area to the south has permission for, and is currently being built out as the Countesswells ‘new community’ in the west of the City.  It is no longer available, or particularly suitable for accommodating a new stadium and training facilities.

 

Opportunity Sites Review

 

As it stands the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017 contained 116 opportunity sites for future development.

 

The largest allocated development opportunity site within the defined Aberdeen City Centre area is Denburn/Woolmanhill at 1.9ha.  Other brownfield sites within the city centre include George Street / Crooked Lane at 0.96ha and Marischal Square at 0.9ha;

There is no allocated, or potential brownfield redevelopment sites within the city centre area which extend to 25ha;

On the edge of the city, larger development allocations include Broadford Works at 3.6ha and Pittodrie (residential) at 6ha.  Neither site is available and both are too small to meet the minimum size requirement;

There are no allocated or potential brownfield redevelopment sites with the edge (walking distance) of the city centre area which extend to 25ha;

Widening the search to all allocated sites of 25ha or more highlight 19 opportunity sites (see table below).  These have not taken account of sites at Nigg Bay, Skene Road, Hazlehead and Blackhills Quarry as these are specialist harbour, cemetery and quarry related uses.

Using the example of even a 12.5ha site requirement to accommodate a site for either a stadium or training facilities does not highlight any suitable site allocated in the LDP.

In summary, this process has not  highlighted any further sequentially preferable sites.

Site Zoning Area (ha) Notes

Murcar Commercial 27.8 Not available. Part of the 'The Core' business park - approved and under construction

Berryhill, Murcar Commercial 68.4 Not available. Part of the 'The Core' business park - approved and under construction

Grandhome Residential 323 Not available. Development Framework agreed for entire site. Planning Permission in Principle approved. Detailed approvals granted for early phases. Development commenced

Dubford Commercial 35.8 Not available. Approved and under construction.

Davidsons Mill Residential 29.5 Not available. Approved and under construction.

Stoneywood Residential 42.3 Not available. Approved and under construction.

Rowett North Residential 63.9 Not available. Referred to in alternative sites considered. New AECC under approved and under construction.

Craibstone South Residential 42.6 Not available. Development Framework agreed for entire site. Planning Permission in Principle approved.

Rowett South Residential 106.85 Not available. Development Framework agreed for entire site.

Greenferns Residential 69.6 Not available. Development Framework agreed for entire site.

Dyce Drive Commercial 108 Not available. Approved and under construction.

Prime Four Commercial 50 Not available. Approved and under construction.

Maidencraig South Residential 29.8 Not available. Planning permission granted.

Greenferns Residential 60.4 Not available. EIA screening opinion for mixed use development from 2015.

Countesswells Residential 165.1 Not available. Approved and under construction.

Friarsfield Residential 29.2 Not available. Approved and under construction.

Oldfold Residential 48.9 Not available. Approved and under construction.

Cove Residential 30 Not available. Approved and under construction.

Loirston Residential 119.2 Not available. Residential, commercial and retail use now proposed. Referred to in Alternative Sites Considered.

Hopefully Tom that will put to bed the "...but the council has offered land in Aiberdeen......." nonsense.

Great post.

 

Seen that a few times now and I'm still nome the wiser as to his points were, drivel, all of it Also, why the hell wasn't he hauled up for not answering any of the questions posed to him?

Seen that a few times now and I'm still nome the wiser as to his points were, drivel, all of it Also, why the hell wasn't he hauled up for not answering any of the questions posed to him?

 

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.

He's got a point though, it's well known ISIS get the P&J delivered, all this press coverage just makes us an obvious target.

 

Hopefully Tom that will put to bed the "...but the council has offered land in Aiberdeen......." nonsense.

Great post.

 

You wot? I've read that spiel 100 times and it has nothing to do with "the council has offered land in Aiberdeen". The reasons were also not accepted by planners.

Really fucking bored of No Kingsforders pretending they give half a fuck about Aberdeen fans or the safety of any cunt other than themselves. Hope they get battered by all the hooligans that'll inevitably be rampaging through their streets and pissing/parking in their gardens.

Name the stadium The ISIS Arena. Problem solved. Simples!

I think we should ditch the proposed sign posts that will indicate where the pipeline is exactly. It's just too dangerous. It's bad enough that we'll be trampling each other half to death on the foot bridge and pushing each other down the stairs.

You wot? I've read that spiel 100 times and it has nothing to do with "the council has offered land in Aiberdeen". The reasons were also not accepted by planners.

 

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?

The council can allegedly offer as many sites as they like but if none of them meet the Clubs criteria or budget then using such offers as an argument against building at Kingsford is pointless.

From a planning point of view to accept the argument a proposed 25Hectare development should not be built in one location because there are smaller and/or more expensive sites elsewhere would set a quite dangerous precedent for any future large scale developments in the city.

 

Could you please also clarify your last statement about the Planner's not accepting these reasons?

 

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.

This is an image that seems to have been taken around about the time the beach leisure centre was built.

This is what replaced the greenspace next to Codona's about 10 years later

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

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.