gannonball Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 Shamelessly stole from elsewhere As part of the Kingsford planning application, there was detail provided exploring a number of sites within Aberdeen City that in theory had potential to accommodate the proposed development. The sites discussed were as follows: Pittodrie; Loirston; Calder Park; Kings Links; Former AECC, Bridge of Don; Proposed AECC, Dyce; Bellfield Farm, Kingswells The Environmental Statement concluded that there are no suitable sites to be considered within Aberdeen City Centre or the two town centres of Rosemount and Torry set out in the Local Development Plan (LDP). The new stadium and training development minimum site requirement is 25 hectares (ha) or more; or even for separate stadium and training facilities of 12.5ha each. The Council requested an update on the availability and suitability of each of the above sites which are set out below: Pittodrie Site area 5.7ha Ownership: Aberdeen Football Club LDP Status: allocated as opportunity site OP87, suitable for residential development The site is located close to Aberdeen Beach, outside of the City Centre boundary. The site comprises the current Pittodrie Football Stadium and the rough parking area on Pittodrie Street. Advantages: Perceived advantage of location relatively close to City Centre (1.9km); Accessible by range of transport modes; Seen as the historic home of Aberdeen FC; Football / leisure / event use already established; Disadvantages: The site is not physically suitable, in that it is not large enough to accommodate the required stadium structure and its associated infrastructure; Without a larger pitch, UEFA standards would not be met. The historic main stand dating from the early 20th century is not suitable for re-development; There is a lack of dedicated facilities for the AFC Community Trust to carry out their work and increase their range of activities; There is no scope to provide additional facilities for visitors proposed with new development such as the AFC Museum, AFC Cafe and memorial area; There is no scope to provide the required adjacent training facilities that are currently lacking at Pittodrie A previous Business Case prepared in conjunction with the Council in 2008 confirmed that the re-development of Pittodrie was unviable when the costs were compared against the limited stadium capacity that would be created (circa 12,000); The current stadium is surrounded by residential use on three side. Although the stadium has been in place for over 100 years, proposals to intensify this use through re-development would present a clear conflict with adjacent residential use. The site benefits from Planning Permission in Principle for a residential development of around 350 houses. This means that the site is a valuable asset owned by AFC, and proceeds from the sale of the site would be put towards the funding of the new stadium at Kingsford. The Planning Permission in place and the LDP allocation reflect the acceptance of the residential redevelopment proposals. There are no overriding justification not to follow this route, which has been an aspiration of AFC for a number of years. Loirston Site area: 15ha; Ownership: Hermiston Securities / Aberdeen City Council; LDP status: Allocated opportunity site, mixed use including potential community football stadium / Cove Rangers football stadium; The site is located in the south of the city adjacent to an existing commercial area close to the residential suburb of Cove. The site is part of the mixed use development allocation and is presently scrubland adjacent to Loirston Loch. Advantages: Good location; southern gateway site with good accessibility; Part of wider masterplan area in LDP for mixed use development; Disadvantages: No longer deliverable due to lack of land for training facilities and stadium parking; In 2010-2011 detailed planning application for a 21,000 capacity stadium at Loriston and associated training facilities at Calder Park were submitted and progressed by AFC. These applications were supported by the Council; however the applications were withdrawn by the applicant before the associated legal agreements were concluded, so planning permission was not released. At an advanced stage of the planning process for the new stadium, the political leadership of Aberdeen City Council changed and proposals for a new City South Academy were progressed (planning reference 151082). This rendered a planning permission for Loirston undeliverable due to the absence of land available for training facilities and stadium parking. Calder Park Site area: 11ha Ownership: Aberdeen City Council LDP status: Allocated opportunity site, mixed use Cove Rangers football stadium Close to Loirston, the site is located in the south of the city adjacent to an existing commercial area and close to the residential suburb of Cove. The site is part of the development allocation for the development of a new football stadium for Cove Rangers. The majority of the site is presently being developed through the construction of the new City South Academy and Cove Rangers new stadium, so is not available. Advantages: Good location, southern gateway site with good accessibility; Part of wider masterplan area in LDP for mixed use development; Disadvantages: No longer available; Calder Park includes part of the same site referred to at Loirston, where the associated training facilities for the Loirston Stadium were proposed. As noted above, Aberdeen City Council progressed proposals for a new City South Academy on the part of the Calder Park side that was going to accommodate AFC’s training facilities. In 2016, Cove Rangers secured planning permission (planning reference 160246) for a new football ground and stand in the north eastern part of the site. This coupled with the City South Academy (now under construction) means that there is no land at Calder Park available for any other use. King’s Links Site area: 10ha Ownership: Aberdeen City Council LDP status: Green belt / Green Space Network / Developed Coastal Management Area The site comprises the Kings Links driving range and adjacent area of open space. Kings Links lies between the eastern edge of the built up area and the Beach area and has an open nature. Advantages: Good location; close to City Centre; Close to AFC’s existing stadium at Pittodrie; Disadvantages: Loss of leisure facility (golfing); Higher construction costs due to coastal location; Too small in which to deliver the Club’s requirements; Not available; Aberdeen City Council confirmed that the land at King’s Links is not ‘common good’ land. Although previously identified as a possible location for a new community stadium in the 2014 Strategic Development Plan, the more recent 2017 Local Development Plan has no such allocation and zones the land Green belt / Green Space Network / Developed Coastal Management Area in which there is a presumption against development. Former AECC, Bridge of Don Site area; 21ha Ownership: Aberdeen City Council LDP status: allocated for mixed use development opportunity, including space for a park and choose facility and a household waste recycling centre. The former Aberdeen Exhibition and Conference Centre lies adjacent to the A90 trunk road, currently the main route into the City from the north. This will change following the opening of the Aberdeen Western Peripheral Road (AWPR) in 2018. The adjacent area is densely populated with various industrial uses and housing nearby. Advantages: Outwith City Centre but accessible by a range of transport modes; Disadvantages: The site is not directly accessed from the AWPR, and it is questionable if there would be capacity on the road network to accommodate the development, due to level of commercial development in the area; The nature of the site does not lend itself to accommodating a stadium and training facilities of the scale required by AFC; Aberdeen City Council (landowner) will be seeking a capital receipt from the site sale to invest in the new AECC at Dyce; A Planning Permission in Principle allocation is currently pending for the mixed use redevelopment of the former AECC site. A draft Masterplan has already been prepared on behalf of Aberdeen City Council as landowner and shows predominately residential scheme with some hotel and other commercial uses proposed. There is no evidence to suggest that ACC would be willing to divert from these mixed use plans to pursue a new stadium with AFC. Proposed AECC, Dyce Site Area: 62ha Ownership: University of Aberdeen LDP Status: Site boundaries match Rowett North, allocated for Aberdeen Exhibition and Conference Centre and complementary employment uses The proposed replacement Aberdeen Exhibition and Conference Centre is presently under construction so is not available. Advantages: Large enough to accommodate the development proposal; Good connectivity to A96 and AWPR; Part of wider development area; Disadvantages: The site is entirely occupied by the new Aberdeen Exhibition and Conference Centre proposal which is now under construction; In summary, this site may have been a possible location for the proposed development prior to 2012, but has not been available since then due to progressing the AECC development. Bellfield Farm, Kingswells Site area: 48ha Ownership: Multiple LDP status: Majority of site in Green belt, southern extent part of Countesswells development allocation The land at Bellfield Farm is generally open agricultural land, with some woodland to the east. The site is bounded to the north by the A944 Westhill road. The land is close to the village of Kingswells. Early phase sof the Countesswells development are under construction to the south. Advantages: Closer to Aberdeen City Centre; Significant studies have been previously carried out in considering a large stadium in this location; Disadvantages: Proximity to existing and proposed housing; Green belt status; Further from AWPR junction than Kingsford; We also understand that the land is no longer available for this use; In 2002, land at Bellfield Farm, Kingswells, was the subject of an application for Outline Planning Permission for a Regional Centre for Sporting and Leisure Excellence incorporating a 30,000 capacity Football Stadium. This application was supported by Aberdeen City Council as planning authority. The application was progressed in line with the 2008 bid to host the Euro championship football tournament, which was ultimately awarded to Austria and Switzerland. The status of the land at Bellfield Farm has dramatically changed since it was progressed as a suitable site for a stadium in 2003. A 165ha area to the south has permission for, and is currently being built out as the Countesswells ‘new community’ in the west of the City. It is no longer available, or particularly suitable for accommodating a new stadium and training facilities. Opportunity Sites Review As it stands the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2017 contained 116 opportunity sites for future development. The largest allocated development opportunity site within the defined Aberdeen City Centre area is Denburn/Woolmanhill at 1.9ha. Other brownfield sites within the city centre include George Street / Crooked Lane at 0.96ha and Marischal Square at 0.9ha; There is no allocated, or potential brownfield redevelopment sites within the city centre area which extend to 25ha; On the edge of the city, larger development allocations include Broadford Works at 3.6ha and Pittodrie (residential) at 6ha. Neither site is available and both are too small to meet the minimum size requirement; There are no allocated or potential brownfield redevelopment sites with the edge (walking distance) of the city centre area which extend to 25ha; Widening the search to all allocated sites of 25ha or more highlight 19 opportunity sites (see table below). These have not taken account of sites at Nigg Bay, Skene Road, Hazlehead and Blackhills Quarry as these are specialist harbour, cemetery and quarry related uses. Using the example of even a 12.5ha site requirement to accommodate a site for either a stadium or training facilities does not highlight any suitable site allocated in the LDP. In summary, this process has not highlighted any further sequentially preferable sites. Site Zoning Area (ha) Notes Murcar Commercial 27.8 Not available. Part of the 'The Core' business park - approved and under construction Berryhill, Murcar Commercial 68.4 Not available. Part of the 'The Core' business park - approved and under construction Grandhome Residential 323 Not available. Development Framework agreed for entire site. Planning Permission in Principle approved. Detailed approvals granted for early phases. Development commenced Dubford Commercial 35.8 Not available. Approved and under construction. Davidsons Mill Residential 29.5 Not available. Approved and under construction. Stoneywood Residential 42.3 Not available. Approved and under construction. Rowett North Residential 63.9 Not available. Referred to in alternative sites considered. New AECC under approved and under construction. Craibstone South Residential 42.6 Not available. Development Framework agreed for entire site. Planning Permission in Principle approved. Rowett South Residential 106.85 Not available. Development Framework agreed for entire site. Greenferns Residential 69.6 Not available. Development Framework agreed for entire site. Dyce Drive Commercial 108 Not available. Approved and under construction. Prime Four Commercial 50 Not available. Approved and under construction. Maidencraig South Residential 29.8 Not available. Planning permission granted. Greenferns Residential 60.4 Not available. EIA screening opinion for mixed use development from 2015. Countesswells Residential 165.1 Not available. Approved and under construction. Friarsfield Residential 29.2 Not available. Approved and under construction. Oldfold Residential 48.9 Not available. Approved and under construction. Cove Residential 30 Not available. Approved and under construction. Loirston Residential 119.2 Not available. Residential, commercial and retail use now proposed. Referred to in Alternative Sites Considered. Should clarify yer "build it in the city" shite Aberdeens full of No voters, they will believe any old shite. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drs Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 Why the hard-on for having the training ground next to the stadium? Take that out of the plans, build the training ground in the arse end of nowhere instead and you then have a stadium proposal that can be built within the city. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 Why the hard-on for having the training ground next to the stadium? Take that out of the plans, build the training ground in the arse end of nowhere instead and you then have a stadium proposal that can be built within the city. I can't think of any clubs offhand that have training facilities next to the stadium There must be one out there though 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RussellAnderson Posted September 24, 2017 Share Posted September 24, 2017 Looks like it's a Strategic Environmental Assessment document, which is likely done by an independent agency, on behalf (and at the expense of) the plan proposers, ie AFC. Its about as close to objective as you'll get. BUT I WONT GET THERE BY TRAIN 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aberdeen Cowden Posted September 24, 2017 Share Posted September 24, 2017 8 hours ago, RussellAnderson said: Looks like it's a Strategic Environmental Assessment document, which is likely done by an independent agency, on behalf (and at the expense of) the plan proposers, ie AFC. Its about as close to objective as you'll get. BUT I WONT GET THERE BY TRAIN I live west of Westhill. The traffic on Saturdays and before 1900hrs in the evenings is very heavy.You would have problems getting home after Saturday games. Every home game would seem like an away game. Attendances would definitely suffer badly if there was any dip in team performance. Give the club the stadium it wants at a location which can easily be reached by all fans.. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RussellAnderson Posted September 24, 2017 Share Posted September 24, 2017 1 hour ago, Aberdeen Cowden said: I live west of Westhill. The traffic on Saturdays and before 1900hrs in the evenings is very heavy.You would have problems getting home after Saturday games. Every home game would seem like an away game. Attendances would definitely suffer badly if there was any dip in team performance. Give the club the stadium it wants at a location which can easily be reached by all fans.. I don't think I could name a place in Aberdeen where there isn't heavy traffic. The road network is really poor, and the bypass is about 20 years too late. The suggestion of Bridge of Don in particular would be a traffic nightmare. Anyway, people's decisions change. People who weren't at the football would avoid the area during matchdays. It's not a perfect site, but there's not anything near to a perfect site available. With the financial constraints we have, it's about as good as we can get IMO. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiG Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 On 23/09/2017 at 13:01, MEADOWXI said: What the city doing with the current AECC site when the new one is built and open next year? A new community of houses and shops I believe. On 23/09/2017 at 20:59, Raidernation said: Was done for the council I believe nothing to do with wiggy. If you want a history of why Pittodrie can't be redeveloped "to sufficient standards" there's pages of it on Donstalk. (Or you could just read what's posted up above) Personally I'd love us to stay, but it's not going to happen unless someone with, ahem, "wealth off the radar" basically comes in and buys all the surrounding hooses, the golf range development, the 2 golf club houses and bungs the council a few mil to reroute at least one road. On 24/09/2017 at 01:16, RussellAnderson said: Looks like it's a Strategic Environmental Assessment document, which is likely done by an independent agency, on behalf (and at the expense of) the plan proposers, ie AFC. Its about as close to objective as you'll get. BUT I WONT GET THERE BY TRAIN I think that information is taken from the Environmental Statement which was prepared in support of the planning application lodged by Aberdeen FC. Whilst it will have been prepared by "independent" consultants for Aberdeen FC they will still have had a large say in the..."phrasing" of certain parts of the document. Consideration of alternatives is a requirement of legislation dealing with developments that require an Environmental Impact Assessment however it is largely a throwaway part of the ES that is written to support the developers plans for their preferred site whilst offering only token consideration of other options which are then readily dismissed. Basically, even if there are other better alternatives Aberdeen won't want to show through in the ES. Plenty of other developments have done this. Trumps course at Menie being another good example. The point is, despite these documents being produced by someone independent of the main applicant they will still be steered to a large degree by the applicant themselves. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RussellAnderson Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 I think that information is taken from the Environmental Statement which was prepared in support of the planning application lodged by Aberdeen FC. Whilst it will have been prepared by "independent" consultants for Aberdeen FC they will still have had a large say in the..."phrasing" of certain parts of the document. Consideration of alternatives is a requirement of legislation dealing with developments that require an Environmental Impact Assessment however it is largely a throwaway part of the ES that is written to support the developers plans for their preferred site whilst offering only token consideration of other options which are then readily dismissed. Basically, even if there are other better alternatives Aberdeen won't want to show through in the ES. Plenty of other developments have done this. Trumps course at Menie being another good example. The point is, despite these documents being produced by someone independent of the main applicant they will still be steered to a large degree by the applicant themselves. Yeah this is basically one of the biggest points of contention in environmental assessment right now (I've just finished a masters in Environmental Studies). The assessments are dead expensive to conduct, so the burden of responsibility lies on the proponent, naturally. However, because they have their own agenda, it is likely they will shape the way the final statement looks. In theory, the environmental agency will have their own reputation to uphold, and will make sure the assessment is proper. In practice, there are very few people checking this sort of thing, so they'll often just write what the client wants. The consideration of alternatives was emphasised as very important by the academics who taught us, perhaps I'm still a little wet behind the ears when it comes to the practicalities of how this thing goes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthernLights Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jmothecat2 Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 J Hardie: ex Supporter. Who the f**k calls themselves and ex-supporter Pretty sure the correct term is a 'recovering supporter'. Particularly those of us with vivid memories of the McGhee era. I quite like that article as obviously he's been waiting all season for us to actually lose a domestic game so he could write it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dons_1988 Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 J Hardie: ex Supporter. Who the f**k calls themselves and ex-supporter "No degree of uncertainty"Has J hardie been in a coma since the early 90's? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobles Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 [emoji38] Hasn't attended in years but goes to Motherwell on a Thursday night.The reek of p1sh is strong.I've seen far far worse and I've only had a season ticket for near 30 years 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Falcor Roar Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 On 24/09/2017 at 01:16, RussellAnderson said: Looks like it's a Strategic Environmental Assessment document, which is likely done by an independent agency, on behalf (and at the expense of) the plan proposers, ie AFC. Its about as close to objective as you'll get. BUT I WONT GET THERE BY TRAIN Not so sure about that tbh. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RussellAnderson Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 1 hour ago, Falcor Roar said: Not so sure about that tbh. It's required to be by law. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Falcor Roar Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 1 minute ago, RussellAnderson said: It's required to be by law. Where have you read that? I'm not trying to be wide i'm genuinely interested. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RussellAnderson Posted September 25, 2017 Share Posted September 25, 2017 Just now, Falcor Roar said: Where have you read that? I'm not trying to be wide i'm genuinely interested. see above, I've just finished a Masters in Environmental Studies, environmental statements such as this are required for every major development. I've not got any practical experience in the field yet, but in theory it's done to keep impartiality. The degree of influence the proponent has on the final report, I'm not sure, but in principle the document should be impartial. We studied some shockers from the developing world though, where the developer must have paid them a bomb to basically state there would be no effects of a hydro-electric dam on communities which it literally flooded. In this country the planning system is better developed, but there must be some degree of bias, especially in cases such as this where impacts are so subjective, and so emotive. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enigma Posted September 26, 2017 Share Posted September 26, 2017 I can see why the move is good for some home fans but lack on nearby train station and boozers will put Aberdeen firmly on the 'shite away day' list. Are you also not limiting your options by insisting the training facilities and stadium have to be together, although I can see the advantages of such a move. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted September 26, 2017 Share Posted September 26, 2017 13 hours ago, NorthernLights said: What paper is that from? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthernLights Posted September 26, 2017 Share Posted September 26, 2017 5 hours ago, sjc said: What paper is that from? I'd assume it was from the Evening Express. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiG Posted September 26, 2017 Share Posted September 26, 2017 11 hours ago, Falcor Roar said: Where have you read that? I'm not trying to be wide i'm genuinely interested. It's part of the EIA Directive from the EU which is transposed into UK and Scottish law through various EIA regulations. The 2014 (?) update to the EIA directive refers to EIA Reports (the updated name for Environmental Statements) being prepared by "competent experts". So a bunch of boardroom financial types wouldn't be writing the EIA Report detailing the effects of this new stadium and training ground on the environment but it should be Joe Bloggs Environmental Consultants on behalf of AFC. 10 hours ago, RussellAnderson said: see above, I've just finished a Masters in Environmental Studies, environmental statements such as this are required for every major development. I've not got any practical experience in the field yet, but in theory it's done to keep impartiality. The degree of influence the proponent has on the final report, I'm not sure, but in principle the document should be impartial. We studied some shockers from the developing world though, where the developer must have paid them a bomb to basically state there would be no effects of a hydro-electric dam on communities which it literally flooded. In this country the planning system is better developed, but there must be some degree of bias, especially in cases such as this where impacts are so subjective, and so emotive. The company I work for was in the process of tendering for an EIA for an LNG terminal somewhere in Africa when we saw a story that they had actually started building the thing We decided not to go for it after that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.