It's never been available up until now. I know one of the major concerns with the hedon road site has always been the traffic bottleneck at castle street. I'd guess brough would be much more accessible by road if they can get the ships near enough to the site

The river isn't deep enough near the site and they need more clearance under the bridge. The only viable option is the site that has already been earmarked on Alex dock. The local press has got the story wrong (well half of it anyway).

They'd never get the turbines under the bridge
+ Shallow water

At present, nothing, as the council have not been offered any plans to look at. Perhaps the council will provide a range of options on which to vote, should there be enough detail and sensible financials to build the options for the council to prepare the referendum papers on. I'm sure this will be the case, as it's surely only the council that are being unreasonable here.

Look, there's a stand-off because Mr Allam is demanding an agreement to sell the KC as a pre-requisite to talks. The council have moved on their position. I think they should be applauded for this, for making the first move. As said, if there's genuine will by Mr Allam to do this scheme at a fair price, we'll see some similar movement from him. What has he conceded on so far? I don't understand why you are still so down on the council but defending the position of Mr Allam when only one of the parties has moved and it's not him.

I think the council are calling his bluff, and if he is as reasonable as you suggest, this will play into his hands. They promised a referendum. They are being reasonable in requesting more detail than the famous secret £3k plans for the voters to use as a basis for their decision. Presumably to do so there will be some independent validation of the good value for money this represents before it goes to the people. Why not suggest that Mr Allam gives some ground now the council have put an offer in place, rather than continuing to criticise them? Very odd.

I wouldn't disagree with much of that. What I would say is that I'm not particularly down on the Council, it just appears that way because I keep having to point out where some posters on here are being pro-Council and anti-Allam, which is fine but their justifications don't tend to bare scrutiny.

The stand off is primarily due to the poor way it as dealt with, which could be why there's different people commenting now, albeit somewhat clumsily if they're genuine about wanting a resolution. I suspect the calling of bluffs you see is more the realisation that they've come out of this looking amateur in the eyes of much of the electorate and potential investors, irrespective of their views on Mr Alams proposals.

I've mentioned before about the plans, but will repeat it anyway, schemes such as these rarely start of with rigid plans, they have perhaps design and access or planning statements. The Council are being short sighted asking for a firm set of plans at this stage. What they should be doing is sitting down, discussing the concepts and principles, finding areas of agreement and then focusing on possible resolutions and compromise to areas of conflict.

That doesn't mean kowtowing to demands, it means looking for realistic workable options. If they then reach an impasse then it can be shelved, but closing talks on much needed investment at this early stage looks foolish.

What else we need are the Council's plans for the area and their proposed funding mechanisms before we can have a referendum on these plans.

I think you're mistaken saying that plans wouldn't normally be very well developed at this stage. I do property investment appraisal for a living, including retail parks, and in order to put together an initial bid we'd have, as a minimum:
QS land assessment including contamination risk
Planning reports on existing covenants and restrictions, with strategies to address each such as indicative cost increments to satisfy, eg, modified elevations
Commercial income assessment for retail elements including sales densities, which in turn can't be assessed until factors such as car parking provision, highways, access and egress have been established.
Financial modelling of returns including 25 year cashflows with the relevant estimated build and fitout costs, EBITDAR assumptions to generate an NPV and IRR.

If you don't have this you (i.e. Mr Allam) can't make a sensible bid as he won't know what his returns and funding would have to look like. I can't see someone spending just £3k on a £120m project before putting in a serious pitch - it would be madness.

He could, however, get some cheap artists impressions on the front of the HDM as an agitating tactic, demand that even opening discussions means giving him the stadium for nothing to play a "here's what you could have won" game with the HDM readership and then try a smear campaign against a council which, like all councils, are very unpopular at present with cost-cutting measures, whilst at the same time buying the votes relatively cheaply of other groups one at a time to exert pressure.

Shabby tactics IMO but the council's "give us a sensible and costed scenario on which to vote" is the test of how serious he is as we'd see the proportion of "sport" in the "Sporting Village", the extent to which supermarkets, shops etc would be involved, with impacts on the city centre retailers and vacancy rates, planning requirements, and funding details to assess risk. If Mr Allam could not meet repayments, for example, say if he'd borrowed £50m for a commercial development and the recession continues or worsens, we'd have to understand who gets the stadium then. What if he gets the stadium for nothing and extends it but the funding for the Sporting Village falls away and he doesn't build it? We need to know the council can reclaim it's asset as the deal should be conditional on the development taking place. At present we know nothing of these crucial details but it's sensible that the council would put provisions in place for these to be understood before a vote.

Just been in the city centre and I thought there had been a military coup or that Allam had raised a private army to overthrow the council.

Turbines would be in pieces so no height restrictions, and assuming that they'd dredge then it shouldn't be so much of an issue.

You'd certainly want something with some significant detail if you were agreeing to hand over a £50m asset

Dredge?

Brough foreshore would require a damn sight more than simple dredging. Are you aware of just how much mud & silt is shifted down the Humber on each ebb tide? The cost of the operation would far outweigh the value of any turbines built there. It would probably be cheaper to relocate Saltend

More than the Woodbine packet?

I'm shocked

I'm fully aware that it would be a bit more then simply dredging, and yes it would be an ongoing process. I was merely pointing out that it isn't an impossible task though, and once the initial dredging had been completed it would only require the channels to be kept clear.
Agreed though, it makes much more sense to have it further up the river as originally suggested. Then the the ships doing the offshore installation can load the turbine parts from a deepwater berth and out to the worksite all in one go, rather then having a barge loaded up and towed up to the ships to unload etc.

Although OFF SUBJECT...I don't know why people are getting larthered up over Siemens.

They WILL NOT COME HERE.

Our council and government WILL NOT offer them enough financial discounts over a number of years for this to happen - SIMPLES....move on