He probably was but I bet like some of us there was a glint of hope at the time of finally getting something sorted.

This is probably the most relevant and intelligent post written on this subject in the past few months.... having been involved in construction.. green and brown belt for the past ten years in Aus... everything about the Belle Vue redevelopment stank! Parking.. traffic and people flows... adjacent to housing... even the consideration of commercial issues seemed lacking..

It would be lovely to commission an independent report! Wonder what that would cost in the UK ? I believe it would show the councils proposals to be the sham and diversity tactics that they are!

I thought it looked different than the usual flat pack stadium design you often see. If looked a well designed compact stadium that's why I hoped it would happen.

Up the Trin

Is that right regarding parking I thought is was going the other way nowadays and planning limiting parking to encourage use of public transport, it may be different for inner City stadium rather than out of town stadiums. Think this would be classed as upgrade of existing stadium so would apply, look at the size of spurs new ground with virtually no parking.

Up the Trin

You're not totally wrong there tbh. However limited parking is one thing - no parking is a different matter. According to those plans we will have less parking than we have now. In fact according to those plans I can't see parking for ONE car!

So yes limited parking is acceptable but as PB states there are minimum standards. Most notably where the disabled are concerned I believe it's one space per hundred spectators. That would require 100 spaces for a 10 k stadium. I can't see anything like that on those plans. I don't think the new build argument gets you out of that one.

It's just wrong the whole thing is wrong.

Apologies if its been mentioned before but I just wondered if one of the tall buildings on the plans may be a multi storey car park.
I appreciate even if it was it wouldn't address all the other problems.

No but there may an element of underground car parking which one would have to assume would serve the shops/flats or whatever they are supposed to be.

I'm involved in a scheme like this right now - for an office park rather than a stadium - and I can tell you with certainty that underground parking costs an absolute fortune; the works involved are extensive to say the least. So if that was the intention, it would have significantly bumped up the cost. On that basis - I prefer the explanation that it was a knocked up sham rather than a proper plan.

The government requirement for disabled parking spaces is: for car parks with more than 50 spaces, a minimum of 4% are to be disabled, for car parks with less than 50 spaces, a minimum of 1 is to be provided. The space should ideally be within 50m of an entrance or a sheltered path should be considered

You might want to look a bit closer if you can't see any parking, there is clearly parking bays marked out next to the old changing rooms at the back of the North stand

The football league have set their limit slightly higher than the national requirement and still only provide 3 bays or 6% (whichever is greater) for car parks up to 200 bays. The minimum requirement which UEFA set for stadium parking in general is: 2× coach bays, 10x staff bays, 20x VIP bays, 3x disabled bays

So if what has been proposed is not feasible, why not call their bluff, enter into negotiations, and then when it all unwinds and turns out to be a scam the trust/club are then the good guys who have been duped.

There is no opportunity to negotiate ... all the trust did was submit a head of terms document... do the council sit down and chat?... no ! They wait until the day MC sets off on his family holiday and claim that the club have pulled out of the negotiations, are not prepared to pay a reasonable rent and are demanding unreasonable things... the HOT simply reflected the original deal for Newmarket !!!

The owner of Belle Vue runs to the press about rent but will not talk to the club and has made no request or suggestion to the club about a fee amount?

Tell me ... how do you negotiate with fog? Or the tide? You don't you need to build defences against it!

All I am saying is that if the trust/club publically offer to talk to all parties concerned and that is rebuffed , they are not then portrayed as the unreasonable parties.
Didn't someone post that in council meeting that Box had stated the council were still willing to negotiate?
Yes I know it would probably come to nought, but they are certainly winning the propaganda war.