When are we likely to get definitive stadium news?

[Guest ShoePiss]

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.

 

So the same as everyone else that's contributed to the news so far then, the answer is no. You only have one source of information and that's the website.

 

Personally I'll wait and see how this transpires rather rush to say that Bascombe is wrong because we don't have permission. It might well save me looking foolish later on.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

So the same as everyone else that's contributed to the news so far then, the answer is no. You only have one source of information and that's the website.

 

Yes, just the website. However, that website does have the official documents regarding the planning permission. I'm not saying I'm an authority on this case, or any other case. I am, though, saying that those who granted planning permission are. I am saying that the authorities are, well, an authority. As crazy as it might sound.

 

Personally I'll wait and see how this transpires rather rush to say that Bascombe is wrong because we don't have permission.

 

Are you implying that's what I've said? I've not said he's definitely wrong, I'm saying that when you judge by the official documentation from the council that gave the planning permission we're talking about, the story looks shaky and the premise of Alan's comments look shaky. I think that's a reasonable assumption unless, as I've said, something new comes to light.

 

It might well save me looking foolish later on.

 

Ah, I've got the balls to have a caveated opinion. I'll not worry too much if I'm wrong. I mean, it's not like Bascombe to ever get anything wrong, is it? At the moment, I'm of the same opinion as earlier: the story looks to be made up of some truths, half-truths and misunderstandings.

[Guest ShoePiss]

Yes, just the website. However, that website does have the official documents regarding the planning permission. I'm not saying I'm an authority on this case, or any other case. I am, though, saying that those who granted planning permission are. I am saying that the authorities are, well, an authority. As crazy as it might sound.

 

 

 

Are you implying that's what I've said? I've not said he's definitely wrong, I'm saying that when you judge by the official documentation from the council that gave the planning permission we're talking about, the story looks shaky and the premise of Alan's comments look shaky. I think that's a reasonable assumption unless, as I've said, something new comes to light.

 

 

 

Ah, I've got the balls to have a caveated opinion. I'll not worry too much if I'm wrong. I mean, it's not like Bascombe to ever get anything wrong, is it?

 

It's not about balls or the lack of them, to me you've appeared to want to discredit bascombe straight away. Of course it could just be the idea you don't like so are hoping it's not true and looking for ways to back that up. I'll reserve judgement until I have better information that's all.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

He really doesn't need my help to discredit himself. He's more than qualified to do that all on his own.

 

Still, I don't actually care about Bascombe; I just care about the future of the stadium. It's shocking news if we build the Parry Bowl Version 1.1. That's why I wanted to test the validity of a newspaper article.

[Guest LFD]

I am confused as to which design they are talking about.

 

This is the best AFL one:

 

AFL Architects

 

But I hope they aren't talking about this one which I think is shit, generic and would not be unique at all:

 

AFL Architects

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I am confused as to which design they are talking about.

 

This is the best AFL one:

 

AFL Architects

 

But I hope they aren't talking about this one which I think is shit, generic and would not be unique at all:

 

AFL Architects

 

Bascombe and ATK are talking about the bottom one. How bland and shite it is depends on what modifications they are willing to make and whether or not the planning permission is still in date. Or whether this story is true or not, or just part true.

[Guest LFD]

They won't be able to make many modifications though will they? As then it will be a new design which will need a new application, I would have thought.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

They won't be able to make many modifications though will they? As then it will be a new design which will need a new application, I would have thought.

 

From what it says on the official planning site, the permission has expired anyway. I guess we'll either find out more soon, or this'll just vanish.

[Lee909]

I really hope it's not the bottom one.

Moving to get 15k more seats with no hope of expansion is short term thinking and a waste Olof resources IMO.

[lifetime fan]

I am confused as to which design they are talking about.

 

This is the best AFL one:

 

AFL Architects

 

But I hope they aren't talking about this one which I think is shit, generic and would not be unique at all:

 

AFL Architects

 

Both are shite.

[Guest Gucci_Ledge]

i like the 300m one personally. it's the Emirates with a kop. which would make it the best ground in the league.

[Tyler Durden]

I don't think there is much we can do, the fans cant complain about the urgency for a stadium then say they don't like it. It's just another monumental fuckup in the running of this club that we are going to pay 4 times the cost of the original plans after they have been on the shelf for a decade, it won't be the latest AFL design because we never applied for planning permission for them ones, just the HKS and the original AFL ones

[Unrighteous]

I don't really care anymore. I've gotta be honest... We absolutely must have more capacity.

[Paulie Dangerously]

It's obvious the council would have been as obstructive as possible in submitting a new design so Fuck it. Rather that stadium then stay were we are and end up like the shite in 20 years time with a relic of a ground

[Trumo]

This is the design/layout I prefer, because it's much more cohesive that the HKS design, and nowhere near as bland as the AFL design. And as I said before, the guy who did it hasn't as yet had time to design a roof for it, before anybody points that out yet again!

 

[Guest ShoePiss]

This is the design/layout I prefer, because it's much more cohesive that the HKS design, and nowhere near as bland as the AFL design. And as I said before, the guy who did it hasn't as yet had time to design a roof for it, before anybody points that out yet again!

 

 

Missing something that mate, can't quite put me finger on it.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I think the the second design from AFL was pretty acceptable, maybe with a slightly taller Kop. I mean, at least the thing had a fucking roof, unlike that one Trumo just posted. He obviously forgot to post the picture with a roof.

[cole7]

From what it says on the official planning site, the permission has expired anyway. I guess we'll either find out more soon, or this'll just vanish.

 

the atricle says that as work has effectively started the deadlines are irrelevant.

 

"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.

 

This has enabled the new owners to avoid missing out on any deadlines to complete a project"

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

the atricle says that as work has effectively started the deadlines are irrelevant.

 

"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.

 

This has enabled the new owners to avoid missing out on any deadlines to complete a project"

 

As I said earlier, that's the Hicks stadium, which was a completely different project and planning application. The application for the Parry Bowl is a different planning application and work, to the best of my knowledge, never started on that.

 

If anything, I'd say that starting work on another project would me it's harder to build the Parry Bowl under existing, expired, planning permission.

 

Again, this isn't something I'm sure of. I'm just going off of what's on the planning site. You can't just change the design and hope to carry on with the Hicks project planning permission. That would be a bit like planning for an extension in 2000, which expires in 2003, then getting planning in 2002 for a swimming pool which expires in 2005, but in 2005 you decide you want to build the extension after all and trying to use the permission for a swimming pool to build the extension.

[Scott_M]

Both look pretty bland from the outside but inside I think they look decent.

 

Like everything, it's not whats on the outside but whats on the inside that counts.

 

If that tart up the outside of both designs then nobody will be complaining about either of them.

[Guest ShoePiss]

At one point we had two live permissions did we not? Enabling works for both designs could have been common which would mean they don't expire? Work had started on them.

[Guest ShoePiss]

McGurk and/or Xeres for clean up in aisle 10!

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

At one point we had two live permissions did we not? Enabling works for both designs could have been common which would mean they don't expire? Work had started on them.

 

So, if you 'start work', by digging a hole, you can just build what you want for the rest of time? Doesn't sound very 'council-y' to me.

[Guest ShoePiss]

So, if you 'start work', by digging a hole, you can just build what you want for the rest of time? Doesn't sound very 'council-y' to me.

 

Build what you want? It would have to be within the scope of the permission i'd expect. I'd also imagine they have some expectations on the completion of the project but might not have that in the permission.

[silverlining]

i like the 300m one personally. it's the Emirates with a kop. which would make it the best ground in the league.

 

The Emirates is undeniably amazing, but it feels WAY too corporate lacks intimacy and oppressive noise. Admittedly, taht is because they've put the Clock End into one "corner" rather than a full bank, but that's what happens with oval bowl grounds.