City Ground | Page 2 | Vital Football

City Ground

I have seen a copy of correspondence dated 25.9. 19 sent to RBC by Savills on behalf of the club. It requests a reply within 21 days which apparently is in accordance with legislation relating to planning applications. That would make it mid October for any objections to be made in writing by them. It looks like Gleeds ( a firm I know well) will be the project managers.
 
Savills are currently looking at the environment risks with Rushcliffe. Due to the level of preplanning, Im guessing it should go through within 8 weeks of submission.
 
Apollyon said:
Savills are currently looking at the environment risks with Rushcliffe. Due to the level of preplanning, Im guessing it should go through within 8 weeks of submission.
Click to expand...
The letter I saw was pretty much a none too detailed summary of the whole scheme. It did have the feel of being a confirmation of previous discussions with RBC. What was interesting was mention of the Bridgeford stand not having its capacity increased. No drawings of the scheme have been submitted yet as far as I can see.
 
jbacsta said:
The letter I saw was pretty much a none too detailed summary of the whole scheme. It did have the feel of being a confirmation of previous discussions with RBC. What was interesting was mention of the Bridgeford stand not having its capacity increased. No drawings of the scheme have been submitted yet as far as I can see.
Click to expand...

That'll be because of the strip of land.
 
OK, this is interesting. Searching the planning sites no official application has been made yet. There has been an environmental impact assessment submitted in relation to:-
"Proposed redevelopment of the Main (Peter Taylor) Stand (including the demolition of existing buildings/structures), new public realm and associated works and enabling development comprising up to 250 residential units, car parking, hard and soft landscaping and associated works" (work by Savills taken from RBC planning website).

Regarding appointments, Architect is obviously on board but that does not mean there could be a change (concept architect and then detail architect). There will be other appointments Civil and Structural , M&E etc.

Savills, in my opinion, are more land agents and someone has mentioned Gleeds and this would be more of a project manager I would expect to be involved.

Whilst the Client might be speaking with contractors, I would strongly doubt these would be appointed yet. There might be a close relationship driven via the Architect and Project Managers, but without a fixed scheme and planning appointment a contractor for the work would be difficult. Gleeds will be providing costs plans at this stage as guidance.

Obviously NFFC are in advanced negotiations with all stake holders, the primary being (and don't take this the wrong way) the council. I would expect once they are in agreement, it will be released to the general public for comment (NFFC fans) and then very shortly after an official planning application made.

What is also interesting in the title of the EIA above, is that is also affects 250 residential units. Not sure what this means either demolition or new build?
 
ZedRed said:
I presume that the revolving levitating incinerator is also a listed building?
Click to expand...

Word down here is the revolving stand isn't the problem it is what to do with Graham while the work is taking place, because he's a magic flying buffalo he is obviously a protected species. They were going to temporarily re home in the arboretum but Flakez and Bangz nocturnal activities put him off his food.
 
eastanglianred said:
OK, this is interesting. Searching the planning sites no official application has been made yet. There has been an environmental impact assessment submitted in relation to:-
"Proposed redevelopment of the Main (Peter Taylor) Stand (including the demolition of existing buildings/structures), new public realm and associated works and enabling development comprising up to 250 residential units, car parking, hard and soft landscaping and associated works" (work by Savills taken from RBC planning website).

Regarding appointments, Architect is obviously on board but that does not mean there could be a change (concept architect and then detail architect). There will be other appointments Civil and Structural , M&E etc.

Savills, in my opinion, are more land agents and someone has mentioned Gleeds and this would be more of a project manager I would expect to be involved.

Whilst the Client might be speaking with contractors, I would strongly doubt these would be appointed yet. There might be a close relationship driven via the Architect and Project Managers, but without a fixed scheme and planning appointment a contractor for the work would be difficult. Gleeds will be providing costs plans at this stage as guidance.

Obviously NFFC are in advanced negotiations with all stake holders, the primary being (and don't take this the wrong way) the council. I would expect once they are in agreement, it will be released to the general public for comment (NFFC fans) and then very shortly after an official planning application made.

What is also interesting in the title of the EIA above, is that is also affects 250 residential units. Not sure what this means either demolition or new build?
Click to expand...
Yes thats how I see it, cant see that a contractor has been appointed before any detailed drawings are available unless Gleeds are going to negotiate with a contractor that they and the client are happy with. The 250 residential units I think are new ones and something was shown on the original press release, however 250 seems a lot for the space available.
 
jbacsta said:
Yes thats how I see it, cant see that a contractor has been appointed before any detailed drawings are available unless Gleeds are going to negotiate with a contractor that they and the client are happy with. The 250 residential units I think are new ones and something was shown on the original press release, however 250 seems a lot for the space available.
Click to expand...

The Giant picture by the club shop which I know is not exactly a proper plan but still, that has no obvious residential units either?

Only way I can see it is if they form part of the new crossing over the Trent sort of like Tower Bridge but with apartments for Crack lawyers and Charlie Austin's dad as well as the Irish.
 
eastanglianred said:
OK, this is interesting. Searching the planning sites no official application has been made yet. There has been an environmental impact assessment submitted in relation to:-
"Proposed redevelopment of the Main (Peter Taylor) Stand (including the demolition of existing buildings/structures), new public realm and associated works and enabling development comprising up to 250 residential units, car parking, hard and soft landscaping and associated works" (work by Savills taken from RBC planning website).

Regarding appointments, Architect is obviously on board but that does not mean there could be a change (concept architect and then detail architect). There will be other appointments Civil and Structural , M&E etc.

Savills, in my opinion, are more land agents and someone has mentioned Gleeds and this would be more of a project manager I would expect to be involved.

Whilst the Client might be speaking with contractors, I would strongly doubt these would be appointed yet. There might be a close relationship driven via the Architect and Project Managers, but without a fixed scheme and planning appointment a contractor for the work would be difficult. Gleeds will be providing costs plans at this stage as guidance.

Obviously NFFC are in advanced negotiations with all stake holders, the primary being (and don't take this the wrong way) the council. I would expect once they are in agreement, it will be released to the general public for comment (NFFC fans) and then very shortly after an official planning application made.

What is also interesting in the title of the EIA above, is that is also affects 250 residential units. Not sure what this means either demolition or new build?
Click to expand...
Very interesting read, thank you.
 
Have just looked on google maps and the space after demolition of stand, conference centre and shop is quite large. As big as the piece of land taken up by the old Rushcliffe Boro council building including car parks and other buildings like Southbank, restaurant etc. It could easily be larger enough for everything mentioned including 250 residential flats. 250 flats at £5k p.a. And over a 20 year period nearly 25% of expenditure for the whole ground. I know voids, maintenance etc but ball park figures plus shop, conference centre, restaurants etc, one can see how this is being underwritten as a financial venture.
 
Polly 433 said:
Have just looked on google maps and the space after demolition of stand, conference centre and shop is quite large. As big as the piece of land taken up by the old Rushcliffe Boro council building including car parks and other buildings like Southbank, restaurant etc. It could easily be larger enough for everything mentioned including 250 residential flats. 250 flats at £5k p.a. And over a 20 year period nearly 25% of expenditure for the whole ground. I know voids, maintenance etc but ball park figures plus shop, conference centre, restaurants etc, one can see how this is being underwritten as a financial venture.
Click to expand...
I would expect the flats if thats what they will be, will be sold not rented, so you are looking at the profit on such a development and over a short period of time.
 
Bowmer and Kirkland developed recently Trent Bridge and have an impressive portfolio under their belt , I just cant see how they can have been appointed main contractor at such an early stage in this development when not even a planning application involving drawings has been made let alone passed. Do you know something that I don't? if you do then I will bow to your greater knowledge and be very pleased that works can start sooner rather than later.
 
My understanding is that all parties sat down in February 2019.

As you will know, pre-planning cuts out any of the pitfalls of planning as a consultation with stakeholders has taken place. Benoys have the plans, which formed part of these discussions.

Whether or not a contractor has been appointed, I am unsure. As I said, I thought someone had mentioned B&K.
 
All I am trying to do is to establish a realistic time frame for the job to start. The two people who have the greatest influence on that are our owners and the planning authority. We are well into October and as yet have no planning permission, without that all that I am saying is that a start on site in February is becoming increasingly unlikely much as I would love it to be true. A main contractor has to be appointed who will in turn be responsible for all the subcontractors needed , steelwork for example needs the imput of a structural engineer and will have a call up period to enable its fabrication and delivery to site. All this in 16 weeks?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.