When are we likely to get definitive stadium news?

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I found this, from the latest permission, which gave them three years from 18th June (then extended by a moth) 2008. So the H&G stadium will have expired. I'd imagine the other one has similarly expired. This would mean that any new stadium, including the original Parry Bowl, would need new planning permission, which makes the whole excuse meaningless.

 

LFC received full consent for the stadium project on 19 June 2008. However, LCC imposed a three year time limit as a condition of full permission for the stadium project. This they are quite entitled to do:

 

 

 

Duration of permission and consent

 

19. Section 51 of the 2004 Act [the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004] amends section 91 of the 1990 Act [the Town and Country Planning Act 1990] and section 18 of the Listed Buildings Act so that detailed planning permission, listed building consent and conservation area consent will normally be granted with the condition that the development or works must be begun within three years from the date on which the permission or consent was granted. Local planning authorities may agree longer or shorter durations of permission or consent where they consider it would be appropriate, but the timescale should be appropriate to the size and nature of the development or works.

 

 

 

The condition is itemised on page 297 of Agenda Item 374 [LFC Conditions] of the LCC Planning Committee minutes of 6 May 2008.

 

 

 

Conditions

 

1 - The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. For the avoidance of doubt this condition is to be read together with

 

Condition 43.

 

REASON: As provided for by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

 

 

 

[Condition 43 refers to timescales relating to the development of the Anfield Plaza]

[Guest ShoePiss]

I think you're wrong about it being an excuse nv, there was an extension approved in September 2011. I can't remember how long that pushed out the deadline though.

[Guest ShoePiss]

Actually the extension was to the deadline for the club to take up the 999 year lease on Stanley Park. I would have assumed that it included extending the planning permission too but that could be completely wrong.

 

Liverpool granted stadium extension by City Council : F.C. Business

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Doesn't matter anyway, that was a different planning application - for the Hicks design. (07F/2191). The Parry Design (03F/3214) is something I'm just reading through.

 

Here's the link to the planning stuff for the 2003/2006 one. The dates say that expired in 2009, I think.

 

Here's the link to the newer Hicks one.

 

EDIT: By 'excuse', I simply meant excuse for not building a new stadium. If they are out of time on those application, as I suspect they might be, then the whole article starts to sound a but ropey?

[Guest Gucci_Ledge]

The report is contradictory and i think people are getting carried away.

 

The revised AFL design posted near the start of the thread followed the same footprint as the parrybowl. a time saving tactic to ensure it got planning permission, from what i remember. therefore the one from 2007 is

still based on the design from 2003. look at the photos. it's the same shape.

 

The article goes on to say they are consulting with AFL. Bet money on the thing ending up more like the AFL redesign than the parrybowl. Probably with a cheaper roof support, built into the corners, similar to alot of the newer grounds cropping up lately.

 

...if it ever gets build.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

The report is contradictory and i think people are getting carried away.

 

The revised AFL design posted near the start of the thread followed the same footprint as the parrybowl. a time saving tactic to ensure it got planning permission, from what i remember. therefore the one from 2007 is

still based on the design from 2003. look at the photos. it's the same shape.

 

The article goes on to say they are consulting with AFL. Bet money on the thing ending up more like the AFL redesign than the parrybowl. Probably with a cheaper roof support, built into the corners, similar to alot of the newer grounds cropping up lately.

 

...if it ever gets build.

 

SP was right, permission for the updated Parry Bowl (PBII) was never applied for, was 72k seater and has a totally different design and would require a new planning permission.

 

From what I can tell, the PBI permission ran out on 11-04-2009, so that can't be built without new planning permission. It stands to reason that they're never going to be able to build a 72k seater in its spot.

 

I think this story is looking more and more confused. Again, there might be some info in there, but unless there's something extra to add on top of those planning permission links I added above, I can't see how it's '100% correct'.

[Guest ShoePiss]

The report is contradictory and i think people are getting carried away.

 

The revised AFL design posted near the start of the thread followed the same footprint as the parrybowl. a time saving tactic to ensure it got planning permission, from what i remember. therefore the one from 2007 is

still based on the design from 2003. look at the photos. it's the same shape.

 

The article goes on to say they are consulting with AFL. Bet money on the thing ending up more like the AFL redesign than the parrybowl. Probably with a cheaper roof support, built into the corners, similar to alot of the newer grounds cropping up lately.

 

...if it ever gets build.

 

There's no planning permission for the one from 2007 (glass kop end), what you're calling the 'AFL redesign' is AFL II. It's a 72k capacity stadium.

 

The original AFL I design is 60k (big spikes), there is planning permission for that one. People called this one the parrybowl as well as the 55k one from 2002.

[Guest ShoePiss]

SP was right, permission for the updated Parry Bowl (PBII) was never applied for, was 72k seater and has a totally different design and would require a new planning permission.

 

From what I can tell, the PBI permission ran out on 11-04-2009, so that can't be built without new planning permission. It stands to reason that they're never going to be able to build a 72k seater in its spot.

 

I think this story is looking more and more confused. Again, there might be some info in there, but unless there's something extra to add on top of those planning permission links I added above, I can't see how it's '100% correct'.

 

What about the extension from Sept 2011? Could the planning permission have been included in that lease option extension?

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

What about the extension from Sept 2011? Could the planning permission have been included in that lease option extension?

 

I don't see any extension on the planning site, but assuming there was one and somehow had planning permission extension included, it was for 07F/2191 (the Hicks one) and not 03F/3214 (PBI). I mean, it's no wonder Hicks didn't bother keeping the old application alive, he had his shiny new brag-bowl to look at.

[Beantown Red]

Planning permission expiration, does that relate to the start of construction or construction completion?

 

The single, desirable legacy of the Hicks and Gillett era was the fact they actually began preparatory work on Stanley Park prior to having to bring it to a halt when they failed to secure investment.

 

That means technically, and legally, construction of a stadium is considered to have already started by the council.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Planning permission expiration, does that relate to the start of construction or construction completion?

 

Again, surely referring to 07F/2191; the Hicks model?

[Guest ShoePiss]

Planning permission expiration, does that relate to the start of construction or construction completion?

 

That's a really good point, I'd guess it's a commence by date rather than completion date but I don't work in the industry.

[Guest ShoePiss]

I don't see any extension on the planning site, but assuming there was one and somehow had planning permission extension included, it was for 07F/2191 (the Hicks one) and not 03F/3214 (PBI). I mean, it's no wonder Hicks didn't bother keeping the old application alive, he had his shiny new brag-bowl to look at.

 

Liverpool granted stadium extension by City Council as they look to explore options | Mail Online

[Guest Gucci_Ledge]

 

I think this story is looking more and more confused. Again, there might be some info in there, but unless there's something extra to add on top of those planning permission links I added above, I can't see how it's '100% correct'.

 

yeah i agree, i'm not saying they'll build the 'AFL II' (to be pedantic.), i just don't think they'll build the exact parrybowl either. as plenty have said, the PP has possibly expired also. i think if AFL are currently looking over the plans etc, then whatever they come up with would be more like their more recent design which does still follow a copycat footprint of the parrybowl which was granted PP.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Liverpool granted stadium extension by City Council as they look to explore options | Mail Online

 

Yeah, that's a lease option. Won't show up on the planning website. I'd guess that's a totally separate thing from either of the two separate planning applications.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

they can't build anything without a new planning permission.

 

It certainly seems that way, which questions the validity of the article by Bascombe, no?

[Guest ShoePiss]

Yeah, that's a lease option. Won't show up on the planning website. I'd guess that's a totally separate thing from either of the two separate planning applications.

 

If you look on the planing site at the dates page you'll see a 'decision expiry' date of 19/06/2011.

 

I don't know if this link will work as their site is a mess but here it is :- Online Standard Details

 

I think the extensions match up with that because I'm sure we had one in June as well as September.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

If you look on the planing site at the dates page you'll see a 'decision expiry' date of 19/06/2011.

 

I don't know if this link will work as their site is a mess but here it is :- Online Standard Details

 

I think the extensions match up with that because I'm sure we had one in June as well as September.

 

Yep, I see that too. For the Hicks design:

 

 

 

However, for the Parry Bowl design that Alan has said we still have planning permission for and that Bascombe is saying we're going to build:

 

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Of course, the extension doesn't seem to have anything to do with planning, just land lease.

[Guest ShoePiss]

I don't think you can say that the AFL I design cannot be built using the permission we currently have. As long as certain requirements are met such as capacity it might not be a big deal at all.

 

I think ATK has mentioned that we could build either the AFL I or the HKS stadiums.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Here's the application dates for the Centenary:

 

[Guest ShoePiss]

Anyway I'd just like to see what AFL come up with if they've been awarded the business, I'm not arsed about Bascombe being right or wrong.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I don't think you can say that the AFL I design cannot be built using the permission we currently have. As long as certain requirements are met such as capacity it might not be a big deal at all.

 

I think ATK has mentioned that we could build either the AFL I or the HKS stadiums.

 

My point here is that the permission has run out. Certainly in the case of the first AFL, according the the government/council planning website.

[Guest ShoePiss]

My point here is that the permission has run out. Certainly in the case of the first AFL, according the the government/council planning website.

 

Do you know enough about this subject to talk with authority? I don't so I wonder if the AFL I design meets the requirements of the proposal for the HKS design and could that be considered permission?

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Do you know enough about this subject to talk with authority? I don't so I wonder if the AFL I design meets the requirements of the proposal for the HKS design and could that be considered permission?

 

Well, I've been following it pretty closely for about a decade, but I'm not an architect. However, I am able to look at the two different planning permission files and make a deduction based on their dates.

 

I highly doubt that a building with totally different design, size, position, materials etc., can be used under the same planning permission application. If that was the case, we wouldn't have bothered with the new application for the Hicks stadium. I'm perfectly willing to admit there might be details I've overlooked, but at the moment it seems pretty clear that the planning permission has run out on the AFL design Bascombe says we're looking to build.

 

The Hicks stadium actually did have a bit of a redesign - a cost reduction exercise - and that's the sort of thing you're allowed to get away with. At a push, you might be able to get away with the new AFL (with a reduced capacity) on the old, but as you say even that's very unrealistic. It has a completely new design and shape.