Lincoln City New Football Stadium + | Page 14 | Vital Football

Lincoln City New Football Stadium +

I read in earlier analysis of this site that 1/3 of the area would have to be used in flood mitigation ie lagoons and channels. Is this the best use of land? It seems to push the cost of the usable land up to a point were many developments would be unviable. Does anyone believe that these section whatever the No. is are actually paid over. How many times do you see many houses no medical centrte no primary school no bus route nada. If you think of Lincolnshires lost railways they were meant to be replaced by bus routes they went as well.
 
The plans fully mitigate the flooding problem by digging lagoons and using the soil dug out to raise the land. This does not punt the problem elsewhere but deals with it in situ.
Great stuff. Lets get building then................or maybe take lessons from the past and build on the higher ground.
 
Could convert the castle to a 5,000 seater, high ground -zero flooding. banking for seats/picnics, decent lawn already in situ.
if we get relegated and the season ticket holders and backers lose interest, we could start the first jousting league.
Great idea, ready made police cells to chuck the hoolies in as well
 
Great stuff. Lets get building then................or maybe take lessons from the past and build on the higher ground.
There isn't any spare high ground within the city and the city have been given a target to increase housing stock in the city.
 
Really there is enough Brown field sites in the UK to solve the issue but the developers and the corrupt officials (Look at the Newark MP) like their green field site because it is easier and cheaper.

No doubt the Swanpool area is not suitable for large scale development, however I doubt that the Local MPs intentions are honourable. What I would like to see from this guy is a solution - he is the MP he should be saying don't build it here build it at a Brownfield site instead (I am sure Lincoln has many brownfield that could deliver the number of houses and a new stadium). He should be making it happen that is his job. But he is no public servant and I bet the thought has never even crossed his mind.
 
There isn't any spare high ground within the city and the city have been given a target to increase housing stock in the city.
Depends how you define 'spare' and what is the 'City'. (There is a huge green gap landlocked between St Giles and Glebe Park. Houses just 100 yards from mine are for instance deemed to be West Lindsey despite being City side of the new Eastern Bypass ). Good to see the moral high ground is however being taken in this thread
 
Last edited:
There isn't any spare high ground within the city and the city have been given a target to increase housing stock in the city.

What about the 3,500 homes that are in for Planning just to the south of the City in North Kesteven between Bracebridge Heath and Canwick filling in all the the land between the top of the South Common and the new Eastern Bypass. Not much danger of flooding up there and while technically not in the City nether is North Hykeham but it gets counted as one conurbation. What about the 1,000 plus homes being built between the edge of the city and the bypass to the North of the City in West Lindsey but still joined to the City. How about all the new housing estates being built in Branston, Waddington, Washingborough etc while not in the City not far away.

How much additional housing stock do we need in the next 15 years?

While you say the City have a target these targets are being met by land being developed around it and these can be set against the limitations of land available within it with offset.

I know where I would rather live and it certainly isn't Swanpool? What people also tend to forget is that insurance is rising rapidly for properties in Flood Zones and while they might be able to come up with a technical solution now I bet your bottom dollar the Flood Zones will only get bigger not smaller. My friend sold his house in the Lincoln Flood Zone because his insurance costs had trebled in the last few years and he could see where it was heading. Properties in Flood Zones will be worth less the mortgages in these areas are already more expensive and less choice.
 
Last edited:
What about the 3,500 homes that are in for Planning just to the south of the City in North Kesteven between Bracebridge Heath and Canwick filling in all the the land between the top of the South Common and the new Eastern Bypass. Not much danger of flooding up there and while technically not in the City nether is North Hykeham but it gets counted as one conurbation. What about the 1,000 plus homes being built between the edge of the city and the bypass to the North of the City in West Lindsey but still joined to the City. How about all the new housing estates being built in Branston, Waddington, Washingborough etc while not in the City not far away.

How much additional housing stock do we need in the next 15 years?

While you say the City have a target these targets are being met by land being developed around it and these can be set against the limitations of land available within it with offset.

I know where I would rather live and it certainly isn't Swanpool? What people also tend to forget is that insurance is rising rapidly for properties in Flood Zones and while they might be able to come up with a technical solution now I bet your bottom dollar the Flood Zones will only get bigger not smaller. My friend sold his house in the Lincoln Flood Zone because his insurance costs had trebled in the last few years and he could see where it was heading. Properties in Flood Zones will be worth less the mortgages in these areas are already more expensive and less choice.
That is, as you say, NK and will be developed as part of their allocated target. It is not in the City.
 
Depends how you define 'spare' and what is the 'City'. (There is a huge green gap landlocked between St Giles and Glebe Park. Houses just 100 yards from mine are for instance deemed to be West Lindsey despite being City side of the new Eastern Bypass ). Good to see the moral high ground is however being taken in this thread
As far as I am aware, all that area already has planning permission so is not part of the current target.
 
That is, as you say, NK and will be developed as part of their allocated target. It is not in the City.

Here in lies the problem anybody with any modicum of common sense recognises that The National Planning Policy Framework and how sets out how to determine ‘objectively assessed housing ‘need’. and assess ‘need’ through a Strategic Housing Market Assessment is flawed.

Local authorities are basing their plans on aspiration rather than need. The result is that targets are based on made-up numbers that the construction industry has neither the will nor the capacity to meet. The situation is then made worse because if house building falls below these five-year targets, the local plan that contains these targets – and protection for land not classed as suitable for housing – no longer applies. The result is that local authorities are being compelled by national policy to release more land for development in a bid to meet the targets so we end up with wholly inappropriate areas for development.

This is why we have the ridiculous situation in and around Lincoln of huge amounts of housing going up around the City and the City Council identifying land that imo is wholly inappropriate for development in order to meet aspirational need based on their own authority in isolation. There is no mechanism to allow for the fact that a trade off could be allowed where Local authorities abut each other.

It's farcial tbh and good luck to anyone buying new build properties in Flood Zone areas, I certainly wouldn't do it but each to their own.
 
Last edited:
There isn't any spare high ground within the city and the city have been given a target to increase housing stock in the city.

key words there "within the city." Last time I saw there was no wall around the edge and there has been plenty of development pushing outward in the past years.

The reality is that Swanpool as a choice is all about location. It is laughable that you defend the above of draining a wetland with Lagoons as a solution (will that even work? What does recent history tell us of these bright ideas?) when we have policies being put forward to incentivise farmers financially to return farmland to wetland/nature!

Would it not be a better idea to not build on the wetland/natural habitat in the first place and instead incentivise farmland uphill (Lincoln or Washingborough side) to turn the farmland into housing areas?
 
Last edited:
key words there "within the city." Last time I saw there was no wall around the edge and there hass been plenty of development pushing outward in the past years.

The reality is that Swanpool as a choice is all about location. It is laughable that you defend the above of draining a wetland with Lagoons as a solution (will that even work? What does recent history tell us of these bright ideas?) when we have policies being put forward to incentivise farmers financially to return farmland to wetland/nature!

Would it not be a better idea to not build on the wetland/natural habitat in the first place and instead incentivise farmland uphill (Lincoln or Washingborough side) to turn the farmland into housing areas?
I am not defending anything. I am just pointing out facts. I have not given an opinion on the Swanpool proposal. And when I say 'in the city', I mean within the city boundary. CLC have no say about what is built outside their boundary and they have their own targets to fulfill.
 
That is, as you say, NK and will be developed as part of their allocated target. It is not in the City.

Maybe these targets should be transferred to County Council rather than the City constituency then. All of these "Non City" houses will most definitely be using the roads, employers, shops and services. If we are going on about congestion then all of these extra "non City" developments will continue to mean more cars jamming up the roads into and out of the City and will of course mean a challenge for the City's "air pollution" targets.
 
Maybe these targets should be transferred to County Council rather than the City constituency then. All of these "Non City" houses will most definitely be using the roads, employers, shops and services. If we are going on about congestion then all of these extra "non City" developments will continue to mean more cars jamming up the roads into and out of the City and will of course mean a challenge for the City's "air pollution" targets.
Maybe you should lobby central government about that because I certainly can't do it.
 
Maybe you should lobby central government about that because I certainly can't do it.

This fundamental policy with a few tweaks here and there has been the policy through successive governments be it Conservative, Labour coalition etc etc.

The root cause of the problem is that successive governments have created a national policy that has to be implemented and met at Local Authority level. No government has changed that approach since the war so I can't see it happening now. Too many little fiefdoms at the Local level.

We need a nationally implemented policy with consultation at the local level but it has never happened and most likely never will.
 
Have a wander around the old city school on Sunday. There has been heavy rain this week so all of the games due to be played on the grass will be off. But also take note of the water defence banks that have been built to protect the buildings. That alone should start the alarm bells ringing?
 
Have a wander around the old city school on Sunday. There has been heavy rain this week so all of the games due to be played on the grass will be off. But also take note of the water defence banks that have been built to protect the buildings. That alone should start the alarm bells ringing?

The City school was built (by Eccleshares) on landfill on top of a swamp in the late 60s/ early 70s. I can remember playing in the swamp as a kid. Spot the City connection.
 
The City school was built (by Eccleshares) on landfill on top of a swamp in the late 60s/ early 70s. I can remember playing in the swamp as a kid. Spot the City connection.

Are you sure it wasn't an ancient Indian burial ground?
 
Have a wander around the old city school on Sunday. There has been heavy rain this week so all of the games due to be played on the grass will be off. But also take note of the water defence banks that have been built to protect the buildings. That alone should start the alarm bells ringing?

Surely that's the new City School. The groundsman for the old City School was an old bloke called Wood when the sportsfield was at Ravendale Drive on the Ermine. When there had been wet weather in the winter, he used to say "You're not goin' on my pitches, they're like puddin's."