I agree that being relatively close to the town centre, the site could make excellent use of public transport, especially Westgate Station but, can you possibly imagine 2/3000 cars, on top of local traffic trying to get in/ out of the area.

Its an absolute non starter and unless your going to knock down half of Peacock Estate, just where are you putting a RL ground with the amenities necessary to service the ground, it's not possible.

As I said, possible community facilities and this would require a decent amount of work but new stadium no way.

Out of interest, what did you have in mind for compulsory purchase and if main access to the site is down Silcoates Street, it would make getting in and our of The AJ Bell look easy ??

Spot on Wrencat

The idea is a total non-starter and is just more smoke and mirrors from our ever-supportive Council of devious, dis-interested half-wits !!!

The area itself is an absolute nightmare for traffic as it is never mind putting a stadium there... Which ever side you look at access there is no good option for me. Also on paper it is not too far from J40 & J41 but again the routes are/would become a nightmare for traffic.

Spot on.

For the umpteenth time the sight is not viable for a myriad of reason but the main one is the access. Obviously pretty much any site in the world could be made possible for anything if you want should you want to spend many millions buying up land and flatterning everything. Not going to happen though is it. Put this one to bed and move on, it’s just wasting everyones time and focus. The only real option left on the table is a Belle Vue revamp because it’s time to accept once and for all Newmarket will never happen either. We just need to somehow squeeze some cash out of Yorkcourt which is the hardest part of all.

I think some of you are missing the point here. This access issue is a red herring and you need to think outside the box to use that awful expression.

It works like this IMO, you don't need easy access for cars to the actual ground just to the city centre. The city centre is your car park, it seems very logical to me.

Why do some people suddenly feel that 3000 cars need to parked right next to the ground? They can't do that at BV and never would be able to yet we all seem to think BV is ok. Ditto NM which is out on a limb for most and is poorly serviced by public transport whilst I suspect there will be nowhere near enough car parking spaces provided near the site. Thornes was not that different to Balne lane in that you wouldn't have been able to park next to the stadium.

The walk from the Northgate area is not that much more of a walk than some of us make to get to BV but a hell of a lot nicer. Also because it's in virtually in the town centre then virtually every bus in WMDC terminates within 15 minutes of the place. For once it actually makes public transport look the best option which has to be a plus these days.

In it's own way it's quite cutting edge and hugely accessible to those who don't drive or can't because they fancy a drink, it is quite honestly the definition of a community stadium. Stadiums like this are the norm in France where car parking is non existent.

Finally I don't get this flooding bit some are talking about, I believe the ability to build storm drains etc has existed for decades maybe longer

It's not ideal but what is. However I don't see the point in getting hung up on the detail when for now it's little more than a rumour.

I smell something here, and it's not just the cap.

I agree Tommy. May be the smell of herrings, red ones at that.
Balne Lane area is not a good area. Why would you want to be next to Peacock, I saw enough of it in my childhood thank you.
If this was serious, one of the many sites still around the city would now be being surveyed. This is just crap from our Labour council leader and cronies

There is an argument that the provision of parking at the AJ Bell is its weak point. You can get parked. You just can't get away, as the roads can't cope.

Warrington and Headingly don't have much parking, and the parking at Saints is probably retail parking in reality. I actually think the problem will be pedestrian access, as the pavements aren't wide and the ground would be completely surrounded by houses; As in, right up to the fences. What do they do: funnel them down a ginnel?

As has been said, it has served its purpose by being raised as a delaying factor, until it is overruled next year.

Yes but that wouldn't be how it would end up if it actually went ahead would it - seriously would it? As I've clearly stated it would require the purchasing and demolition of some adjacent properties probably through compulsory purchase but it is possible with drive and ambition.

And this is the point I keep trying to make, it's the latter that's the real problem all the rest can be overcome if the will is there but IMO it isn't hence it won't happen.

However just because we don't think it will happen doesn't mean we should dismiss it out of hand because lets be clear we are running out of time and options and if we start turning our noses up at everything that we don't see as perfect we will also run out of sympathy, which would suit Box just fine.

We need to remain open minded. That said you are right getting the objections in has to be the number one priority for now.