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

 

Any thoughts on our line up the morn jessy?

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?

 

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.

Lets get this thing passed & built, jeez !

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

 

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

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.

You're being silly

By the time we get around to building this stadium we'll all qualify for OAP discount.

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

 

Doesn't seem to be working for me, is it an improvement?

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.

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?

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.

That's not Dyce

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

I've been trying to be positive about this but let's face it.

 

It's going to be shite.

That's not Dyce

 

Aye, I know but I suppose Dyce Park and Ride sounds a bit better than Craibstone Park and Ride.

Folk in the country drive cars. We're smert like at

 

Show off, all tractors up here 

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

Do the No Kingsford have any actual grounds on which they think the council have acted unlawfully? That's a pretty serious allegation.

 

Or is this just a threat to initiate a lengthy and expensive bit of last-gasp obstruction against the council if they don't get the decision they want.