Stadium

Quoted from realist

Peaks  parkway is dead if the town centre plans go ahead.  This area can't support two new centres,never mind nandos etc

Also the Ramsdens project was updated the other week apparently that project is still going ahead to redevelop that area. Somebody is going to be disappointed.

Quoted from ginnywings

That presupposes that the council didn't know about both developments and the impact each will have. It's the same authority and same planners for each, so they should have an idea what will be going where and if it's feasible.

It doesn't presuppose that at all. Knowing of both and approving both in outline are not mutually exclusive.

The Council and the planning department are only saying what is permissible vis a vis Peaks Parkway. They're not funding it, and if the potential investors for the enabling scheme get cold feet because of a rival scheme, it's only the Club's problem. Two schemes on the table - it's a race to see who closes the deal first. As far as they are concerned they are giving it a fair crack of the whip.

If the football stadium option falls flat on its face, the council could still find a way to get any housing it wishes to see on the site built, without any troublesome football ground being involved.

Could someone please explain why the Riverhead development would scupper the stadium project? They are two completely different and much needed developments.  as far as I know, it's allowed, to have two projects like these at the same time.

Quoted from mimma

Could someone please explain why the Riverhead development would scupper the stadium project? They are two completely different and much needed developments.  as far as I know, it's allowed, to have two projects like these at the same time.

It's not a question of whether two or more schemes are 'allowed'. It's a question of economics. To quote Golly (who IMO explains it succinctly)' "So you don't think the development of a cinema complex with 7 new restaurant chains is going to impact the viability of a new stadium development which planned to have drive thru(s) & family restaurant(s) as part of the enabling development?"

To an extent both schemes are in part competing for the same market. Do investors think there is a big enough market in NE Lincs to sustain two schemes. That'll be the real test at the end of the day.

Quoted from ginnywings

Is it? There was a feasibility study done at not inconsiderable expense and PP was chosen as the best option. The rest is just the planning process, which can take forever.

Not strictly true though is it? Before that process Fenty used the argument that the stadium had to be at PP because that was the only site big enough for the required enabling development. Since then he's changed his tune somewhat and said enabling developments can be anywhere in the area.

If that's the case then what's to stop PP being an enabling development for a stadium somewhere else (such as Garth Lane)?

And the main reason that PP won was that the land is available for immediate redevelopment whereas other sites were not available in the short term and were excluded solely for that reason. The longer things drag on the closer we get to better locations being available. PP might have been the best available site in 2016, but will that still be the case in X years time when we are in the position that we can start building the new stadium?

Quoted from louth_in_the_south

^^ oh yes a bombing at BP by Isis for example . Now the need for security checks becomes clear !!

gas leaks, falling roof sheeting, UFO (unidentified flask object) and yes potentially terror threats or even just a hoax call...evacuating a stand is not just about a fire.
If you do or have sat in the Upper on match day you will know there are some pensioners who have to take a break half way up the access stair well and again going up to their seats which causes blockages, just how well will they fare if an actual emergency did occurr ?

Also it amazes me that 30(?) years after the stand was built people still dont realise there are toilets halfway down the stairs at the Pontoon end of the stand and still head to the bottom of the stand just for a pee !!

Quoted from GollyGTFC

Not strictly true though is it? Before that process Fenty used the argument that the stadium had to be at PP because that was the only site big enough for the required enabling development. Since then he's changed his tune somewhat and said enabling developments can be anywhere in the area.

If that's the case then what's to stop PP being an enabling development for a stadium somewhere else (such as Garth Lane)?

And the main reason that PP won was that the land is available for immediate redevelopment whereas other sites were not available in the short term and were excluded solely for that reason. The longer things drag on the closer we get to better locations being available. PP might have been the best available site in 2016, but will that still be the case in X years time when we are in the position that we can start building the new stadium?

Well yes it is true because the council also reached the same conclusion that PP was the best place for the ground. There is nothing to stop some of the enabling development (i.e. some of the houses) being built in other locations as it doesn't really matter. The ground can still be built at PP and the attraction of the project to a developer is still there. They won't particularly care if some of the houses are built at a different location as it's still an appealing development to them.