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

Agreed. Pish.

 

What do planners actually approve though? Just the site access, that sort of jazz? The councillors doing the social, moral, objectional aspects of it?

Bollocks. Here's hoping the council decide to ignore the advice and reject it but do not think that's likely. Not looking forward to spending 40 to 50 minutes on a shuttle bus if it does pass.

Some sense at last.

 

Although I’m in favour, I think some reasoned arguments against the proposal have been steamrollered by the nonsense from the NIMBYs in Kingswells & Westhill who will say anything at a hearing and some just made their stance a lot weaker IMHO. 1hr 40 on a bus from town? I could walk it in that.

The planners have had their say now, but the reality of this situation was that this was all but inevitable that they would arrive at the decision that they have.

It's akin to putting fuel in your car before you are able to move anywhere.

 

The real decision is to be made by a bunch of people, most of whom couldn't find their own ass after taking a dump, namely the councilors of the great city of Aberdeen.

 

Over the years, these guys haven't exactly backed the club in anything that that the club have attempted, whether the club's genuine intentions were right or wrong. Cove and Bellfield spring to mind.

Councillors change, but mostly there are a lot of incumbents who have been in their posts since before some of the current Dons players were born.

In short they are institutionally complacent and realistically unqualified to arrive at a decision on such a massive project.

We witnessed that at the first hearing, when some of them wasted time asking dumb questions.

They are more used to passing applications for driveway run ins and whether or not a tree should be cut down.

 

They have allowed the city in general to fall to rack and ruin to the extent that we have a main street full of bookmakers, coffee shops and second hand phone/repair places. Union Street looks like an old tart still trying to hook in her pensionable age, when once she was a beauty who stopped men in their tracks.

Let's not forget the Marischal square debacle and the Union Terrace fiasco that successive councils have royally screwed the City over with.

 

This is the most singularly important and expensive decision that these representatives of the people have ever or will ever have to make in their lives.

 

Don't bank on them doing the "right" thing whatever that may turn out to be.

 

As for the described NIMBYS, they'll keep on going if things don't go their way. They have enough finance to drag this project into the 2020's with continuing objections forcing their way into our courts in front of bewigged old geezers and geezerettes who are members of private clubs for the perverted. A bit course in description maybe, but you get the idea, they know no better than the man on the street.

 

Don't be surprised if we see those NIMBYS chaining themselves onto the bulldozers and JCB's as they make their way onto the precious green belts....the same greenbelts that the villages of Westhill and Kingswells have been hued from over the last few decades. Good for the goose and for the gander?

 

If you want to make some easy cash, get yourself set up out there as a placard maker.

I still have a "Don't sell McGinn" one kicking about out back if anyone is interested 

I like the flavour of that post Barcosente. It tastes good. Having digested all your words a couple of times however, I'm struggling to understand what it is I've just eaten.

 

It's not that you used words improperly and without good construction, nor have I (or indeed anyone else) the right to challenge an articulate and original view but I'll ask anyway;

 

Do you have an opinion on whether the proposed new stadium is a good thing or not?

Interesting post Barcosente. However, I think it's all to simple to be critical of the cooncillors, it's the easy way out. The problem is that the council get nothing but shite ideas presented to them. I don't think I've seen a single, integrated, forward thinking planning application to the city in years. We have individual project over individual project that offer nothing in the grand scheme and the negatives on all far outweigh the positives. Kingsford is an example of that, as is Marischal square, obviously.

 

You mention Union St, it basically started to go to shite when Union Square was built, but try removing that from the city and watch the backlash (again, lack of integration - it was obvious). Coupled with the fact that the cooncil has absolutely zero teeth/power when it comes to dealing with how private property (which all of union st is) is leased and you have bookies. Not really a cooncillor issue.

 

In terms of Loirston, it was approved. They simply asked that AFC pay for the land. The blame here squarely lies with Cove (mainly, as they dicked about for years) and the club. We fucked about and fucked about (unlike the SMG and Scotia hoosing developments that were piggy backed in on the back of the stadium approval) and in the end we chose to blame the council because it was the easy way out. There's no way that the additional cost of the land would/shold have prevented Loirston going ahead - they've probably spent more on Kingsford subsequently. It's totally disingenuous to blame the cooncil and, I suspect, was more an issue of AFC funding.

 

Now, the cooncil may be unqualified to make these decisions, but then who is? Where are the overriding rules that govern their decisions? Where is the integrated city plan? The fact of the matter is that the right decision for the cooncillors to make on Monday is to refuse the planning application on the grounds that it doesn't integrate with the city. It is the only logical decision to make. It's a hard one for dons fans and the club, but it doesn't integrate with the city and that should be the overriding rule that dictates planning within the city. That's the only objective way of looking at it. Can it be sustained if you extrapolate it over the next 20, 50, 100 years? The answer is no. The only way to pass is this is to come up with a city plan that - by design - then integrates the stadium in the city. It's the most stupid and arse about tit way to do things, but that would work. Although that would take a lot of balls by the unqualified cooncillors. If you can come up with another objective measure that should dictate city planning, I'd be interested to hear it? Because your interesting post lacked a little substance.

Agreed. Pish.

 

What do planners actually approve though? Just the site access, that sort of jazz? The councillors doing the social, moral, objectional aspects of it?

Everything, that's their job.

As for the described NIMBYS, they'll keep on going if things don't go their way. They have enough finance to drag this project into the 2020's with continuing objections forcing their way into our courts in front of bewigged old geezers and geezerettes who are members of private clubs for the perverted. A bit course in description maybe, but you get the idea, they know no better than the man on the street.

They have very little finance, not sure they even have enough for the appeal if needed.

 

They also can't drag this out, they have one shot at taking this to the high court, if they lose they're done.

In terms of Loirston, it was approved. They simply asked that AFC pay for the land. The blame here squarely lies with Cove (mainly, as they dicked about for years) and the club. We fucked about and fucked about (unlike the SMG and Scotia hoosing developments that were piggy backed in on the back of the stadium approval) and in the end we chose to blame the council because it was the easy way out. There's no way that the additional cost of the land would/shold have prevented Loirston going ahead - they've probably spent more on Kingsford subsequently. It's totally disingenuous to blame the cooncil and, I suspect, was more an issue of AFC funding.

 

Can you elaborate on this please?

My understanding of the Loriston screw up was the newly elected council either blocked or worse revokes the approved planning permission for the training ground + Cove Rangers stadium park of which formed one of the access roads to the stadium.

Not only that, they re-zoned the land  (for residential use only) meaning there was no ground for appeal.

Without that access road the consent for the stadium was technically invalid and the proposals would not have obtained a building warrant.

Strangely enough the 2017 City Development plan has the access road ear marked for housing use.

 

However you are one of several folk I have now heard stating it did not happen because the club refused to pay for the land.

 

 

Can you elaborate on this please?

My understanding of the Loriston screw up was the newly elected council either blocked or worse revokes the approved planning permission for the training ground + Cove Rangers stadium park of which formed one of the access roads to the stadium.

Not only that, they re-zoned the land  (for residential use only) meaning there was no ground for appeal.

Without that access road the consent for the stadium was technically invalid and the proposals would not have obtained a building warrant.

Strangely enough the 2017 City Development plan has the access road ear marked for housing use.

 

However you are one of several folk I have now heard stating it did not happen because the club refused to pay for the land.

 

From memory - I'll try and look back later if I have time - that the planning was not revoked, simply that the land that had been offered to Cove for free, instead got a price attached to it. It affected the training facilities at Calder Park, which were deemed "integral" and access road, but the council said that there was plenty of room for discussion. The club had planning permission, they didn't follow it through. It was beyond the stage that Kingsford was at, the Scottish government had not called in the planning application. It was up to AFC and solely AFC.

Can you elaborate on this please?

My understanding of the Loriston screw up was the newly elected council either blocked or worse revokes the approved planning permission for the training ground + Cove Rangers stadium park of which formed one of the access roads to the stadium.

Not only that, they re-zoned the land  (for residential use only) meaning there was no ground for appeal.

Without that access road the consent for the stadium was technically invalid and the proposals would not have obtained a building warrant.

Strangely enough the 2017 City Development plan has the access road ear marked for housing use.

 

However you are one of several folk I have now heard stating it did not happen because the club refused to pay for the land.

 

My understanding was the new council administration pulled their support.

 

Also, somebody seemed to suggest that the council don’t approve new bookies on union st? WTF?

 

Do you have an opinion on whether the proposed new stadium is a good thing or not?

 

Okay, first of all thanks for the feedback.

I'm just an old dude who likes to vent over his cocoa before bedtime.

When all said and done, my opinion is among a myriad of opinions and will eventually be lost in the sea of opinions on the subject.

 

I'm a fence sitter, in the respect that I don't want the club to move outside what most of us consider to be the city.

I do not think that this move would be a good one.

The attraction of spending hours of time traveling to and from the City proper to see a match on a cold winter's night isn't particularly appealing.

It will be cumulative hours to and from the new ground in my case, no doubt about that.

It won't be a 10 or 15 minute journey. It currently takes me around half hour just to reach Aberdeen crematorium, to which i appear to making more frequent visits these days.

Matchday traffic will make sure that before and after times will waste a couple of hours each match day

I reside within the city of Aberdeen.

My opinion is right idea, wrong location.

If I'm pushed, I'm against, but purely based on location, but I'm not daft enough not to see that the club needs to move forward and facilitate it's players better with better conditions as well as the fans, who need a better matchday experience.

If it is built, it's success, in my opinion will very much depend on moving fans to and from the city in a timely manner.

I don't really want the club to leave Pittodrie, but we must either shape up or ship out

 

I think it's all to simple to be critical of the cooncillors, it's the easy way out. The problem is that the council get nothing but shite ideas presented to them.

 

It is simple to be critical of the councilors. It is the easy way out.

Humans will always take the easy way out. It's an in built reaction.

A child will pick the best bits out of a bowl of salad and leave the horrible chunks of celery behind.

While I'm not completely taking the easy way out by blaming the everything on our esteemed voted members, they are easy targets, because they put those self same targets on their own broad backs with "shite" decisions regarding planning within the city.

 

No one is forcing these guys into making a "shite" idea into reality just because it appears to be the only option to do something rather than nothing. It's sometimes a braver decision to do nothing.

Yes, they do have to take responsibility for making important decisions.....they just need to stop making some glaringly bad ones

 

You mention Union St, it basically started to go to shite when Union Square was built, but try removing that from the city and watch the backlash (again, lack of integration - it was obvious). Coupled with the fact that the cooncil has absolutely zero teeth/power when it comes to dealing with how private property (which all of union st is) is leased and you have bookies. Not really a cooncillor issue.

 

While I agree with you that that the council has virtually zero power when it comes to dealing with private property, the fact that council are spending £2 million of our cash on tarting up the old dear over the next couple of years suggests they have some say in that.

They have a vested interest in not allowing it to slide further into degradation.

There are plans afoot to pedestrianize part of it of all things.

 

Now, the cooncil may be unqualified to make these decisions, but then who is? Where are the overriding rules that govern their decisions? Where is the integrated city plan? The fact of the matter is that the right decision for the cooncillors to make on Monday is to refuse the planning application on the grounds that it doesn't integrate with the city. It is the only logical decision to make. It's a hard one for dons fans and the club, but it doesn't integrate with the city and that should be the overriding rule that dictates planning within the city. That's the only objective way of looking at it. Can it be sustained if you extrapolate it over the next 20, 50, 100 years? The answer is no. The only way to pass is this is to come up with a city plan that - by design - then integrates the stadium in the city. It's the most stupid and arse about tit way to do things, but that would work. Although that would take a lot of balls by the unqualified cooncillors. If you can come up with another objective measure that should dictate city planning, I'd be interested to hear it? Because your interesting post lacked a little substance.

 

To have substance, a post must substantiate. I'm glad that you found my little post interesting and I found your counter equally interesting.

I have no substantiation, merely my own opinion and observation so if it has no substance, then it's okay. You won't hurt an old guys feelings on an internet forum for saying so.

 

I did say don't bank on the council to do the right thing, because successive councils like AFC recently, have flopped on the big occasion.

In a previous post I have also said that the club are also to blame for not already having a stadium in place, so I have not laid blame solely at the feet of the council.

 

You have come to the obvious, when you state that the council's right decision to make on Monday is to refuse the application. Of course it is, but the fly in the ointment here, is that we have a council making a decision that are not guaranteed to do this, because they are as familiar with making these types of decision as Nicky Maynard is to recognizing the netting behind the goalposts.

 

There will be no integrated plan to dovetail with a new stadium. That ship has long sailed.

In an ideal world the city would have accommodated a new ground as part of it's plan.

As it stands we have a pigs ear, with which AFC, it's partners and the council have to make a silk purse with.

 

If I had the answer to your question of an objective measure to dictate future city planning then I wouldn't be here sipping the dregs of my cocoa.

Till someone does come up with the magic formula, then we are stuck with some inadequate and mediocre decisions that affect all of the citizens of Aberdeen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As I suspected Barcosente, we are singing off the same chip paper. I guess I'm sitting with splinters going deeper up my arse too.

 

I am Aberdeen and I don't want AFC going outwith the city but if it's incontrovertibly better for the club - the "business" of the club (and that's a separate debate) - then I'm all for it. I embrace change, every day of my life.

 

My main gripe is the judgement of who says it's better or not. If it's a businessman hell bent on business propositions at the expense of everything else, without any due process of consultation with the major stakeholders (not shareholders, I maintained the difference) then I think there is a danger of calamity.

 

If that businessman is a cunt, then there is a clear and present danger of catastrophe.

I see the recommendation from planners is conditional with there being 40 conditions to be met including no live concerts and no games before 7pm mid week which would be an issue if we were ever to get to the europa league group stages when some games must kick off at 6pm.

 

http://www.scottishconstructionnow.com/23930/planners-recommend-aberdeen-stadium-conditional-approval/?utm_source=Scottish+Construction+Now&utm_campaign=de1f47ed2d-SCN_08_11_17&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_da4310d8ed-de1f47ed2d-66831133

As I suspected Barcosente, we are singing off the same chip paper. I guess I'm sitting with splinters going deeper up my arse too.

 

I am Aberdeen and I don't want AFC going outwith the city but if it's incontrovertibly better for the club - the "business" of the club (and that's a separate debate) - then I'm all for it. I embrace change, every day of my life.

 

My main gripe is the judgement of who says it's better or not. If it's a businessman hell bent on business propositions at the expense of everything else, without any due process of consultation with the major stakeholders (not shareholders, I maintained the difference) then I think there is a danger of calamity.

 

If that businessman is a cunt, then there is a clear and present danger of catastrophe.

 

As much as I don’t agree with some of your points in other threads, this is spot on.

 

If they did this stadium right and the reasons were right, I wouldn’t have much disagreement with it. No doubt it will all be done on the cheapest of the cheap, with a life of 10-15 years (no doubt we’ll be told it will be 100 years) – which if Milne is involved will definitely be the case.

 

I’ll get behind the whole thing, but the city will suffer moving out the road.

 

We also need to hope things stay positive on the pitch. If things start nose diving the positivity for this will slide pretty quickly.

 

I see the recommendation from planners is conditional with there being 40 conditions to be met including no live concerts and no games before 7pm mid week which would be an issue if we were ever to get to the europa league group stages when some games must kick off at 6pm.

 

http://www.scottishconstructionnow.com/23930/planners-recommend-aberdeen-stadium-conditional-approval/?utm_source=Scottish+Construction+Now&utm_campaign=de1f47ed2d-SCN_08_11_17&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_da4310d8ed-de1f47ed2d-66831133

 

Not banned, just need to apply in writing to the council.

 

 

https://aberdeen.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/331114

 

Starts at 10:30 I believe. An interesting day ahead of you now!

https://aberdeen.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/331114

 

Starts at 10:30 I believe. An interesting day ahead of you now!

 

 

Would be amazed if that works all day. It usually goes doon if more than half a dozen people try and watch it.

While I was rather taken by Marie Boulton at the pre-determination meting, I think it was as I'd became distracted by the cleavage on show, she's an absolute arsehole. 

EE reporter tweeting live:

https://mobile.twitter.com/EEadele

 

Boulton recommending rejecting it.

Councillor F John just did some spasm with his shoulders before forgetting where he was, which I found amusing. A lot of againsts so far....

Now come the "fors's's'". Going to be close...

Final two. Looking good for the dons...

Final two. Looking good for the dons...

 

Seems there’s 41 councillors to vote, not all are making a wee speech though.

Just tuned in 5 or 10 minutes ago.

 

What an embarrassment for our city (the quality of personnel representing us).

 

Not talking about the debate, just that they're all fucking horrible useless cunts.

 

Edit: a fucking guffy quine noo. Fuck off lass.