Though I don't know if they'd keep it if they develop the West.
I quite like it.

Totally agree with you PT, I know some players on it will have moved on but looking across on match days, the difference a simple banner as made to the west stand is massive, the printing company will be rubbing their hands if it’s going to be replaced every time a player comes and goes.

I like it too. As BLM says that was more my thinking that we’d have to replace it regularly. If you put crests on at least you can leave it more than a season. Though the teams a nice touch.

I suppose when the west gets redeveloped you could incorporate a few signs with the clubs crest onto it for effect.

Just another thought, looking at the whole bottom of the north being dug out and replaced. It’s a real shame that instead of having the frame upper north done that we couldn’t have dug out the whole north and had some terracing put in there with some underside bar. You could probably get 7k in that stand. Not a criticism of the previous owners because I get they didn’t have the funds and had to make on the spot decisions. It does seem like the new upper now is more of a hindrance to further works though.

With the west being something that may be upgraded next I wonder if the plan would be to dig out the west terrace like the lower north and build new terracing with some basic facilities and a roof on. It would be very interesting to see what the club has in with planning that’s for sure. I’m sure getting rid of those boxes and getting new terracing in would also increase the capacity on west too by maybe 1000. Even more if there’s plan of a second tier (boxes etc) or sky bar.

The north isn't hindered by the new part. It's the roof that causes the problem. You can't build higher without removing it.

The issue with the west is planning permission with the houses behind.
It's a big footprint with a lot of possibilities if they can solve it.

I know they are working on it but don't know the range of what the want to do. They've discussed a few different ideas.

Could the PP be assisted with the fact that once upon a time a stand, quite a big one, if I recall, was there previously, for a lot of years.

I thought that but they say it's still going to be a problem.
No idea what that problem would be though, in terms of hight or length etc.

I walked past this morning with the dog, looking from the outside of the north stand. If that was extended back, and was to incorporate new turnstiles, there could be works required too, to the boubdary wall, which could impact use of that ginnell

Who says? Can’t see planning being a problem.

Up the Trin

Think eventually the North Stand will have another block of terrace at the rear and a new roof with refreshment facilities at both corners.
Up the Trin

Those houses on the West side are quite a way from the ground, I dont see an issue provided the stand is not really too high. After all there are houses which are nearer the new East stand and also behind the boxes and a stand or structure no higher than those would easily be be sufficient.

Planning permission would not be a huge issue, mainly because precedents have already been set. This is how planning and the law in the U.K. tends to work.

There was an existing structure there up until 1987. It was a fairly tall structure, but most importantly it was there long before the houses.

Then in 1990 the old boxes were erected, which again are quite tall. Not long after a TV gantry was added. So at no point have most of those houses not had some obstructed view from the rugby ground.

Added to this the gardens are very long and at no point would a stand similar in height to the old stand deprive less than 50% of the garden area of sunlight for more than a few hours a day.

It would be hard to argue that a new stand, even a relatively tall one would have a significant effect. If done sympathetically it would be very easy to argue that a new stand would vastly improve the residents outlook.

The only issue would be capacity. Due to noise and access issues you’d struggle to get a big increase. I think the most the planners would go for would be around what it is now, max maybe 3,000 at a push. However with the edition of boxes and bars and maybe a media suit on a second level you’d probably offset the potential loss and make the stand a viable proposition.

A clever architect and an even smarter planning specialist would easily push that through. Especially as we now have a far more sympathetic council. As we know, Ellis only buys the best

Finally let’s not forget that we have the South end of the ground. There is easily enough room for a 3-5,000 capacity stand there depending on the configuration should we ever need it. So we are very lucky in that respect.

Totally correct on all points. Problems getting planning for a reasonable sized stand is a myth

That's what I thought too, including what you mentioned regarding the south stand.

However, I have next to no experience within technicalities on building regulations.

I’m sure that’s as close to 100% correct as we’ll ever get, at least until ME tests it out for real.

I have one question though regarding capacity
The old stand sat central to the pitch, maybe covering 50 metres (25m either side of the half way line.
Let’s say that stand or a modern stand of similar size would hold 2,000 spectators. Thats the equivalent of 1000 spectators for every 25m. A RL pitch runs 100m with an extra 20 metres either end of the terracing = 120 metres.
That ratio would equal 4,800 spectators on the West side of the stadium should we want to?