• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Planning Updates- All The Latest Details. 28/03/2022

By the by, who owns B&L? I couldn't make it out from the accounts.
I think it's the same firm that 'owns' RH but I might be wrong

South East Leisure or something? I can hardly remember with the myriad of companies involved with SUFC.

*Correction - Roots Hall Ltd.
 
Last edited:
The PA surely wouldn't have made it this far if an application wasn't required to be submitted to SBC. That would mean it would have to be missed by the applicant, the registration team when validating the application and the case officer. Your first point seems spot on @hlane17
Agreed, as a former planning officer (many years ago!) there’s no way it would have been registered if it were the wrong side of the LA boundary.

I think the best explanation is that it was about to be refused and negotiations had reached an impasse. Very unusual because normally these kind of things are resolved with amended plans or additional documents etc.
 
Agreed, as a former planning officer (many years ago!) there’s no way it would have been registered if it were the wrong side of the LA boundary.

I think the best explanation is that it was about to be refused and negotiations had reached an impasse. Very unusual because normally these kind of things are resolved with amended plans or additional documents etc.
I thought the same. This withdrawal could prove to be a bit of a roadblock considering what this planning permission would unlock, most importantly the £££
 
The temporary training ground was never needed in the original application. Move was straight to permanent training ground. Could it be its just not needed anymore.?
 
  • Like
Reactions: JAL
The temporary training ground was never needed in the original application. Move was straight to permanent training ground. Could it be its just not needed anymore.?
Permanent training ground could take 2-3 years to finish apparently, this is according to the words of the applicant on behalf of SUFC (PowerHaus Consultancy) and this was noted back in October 2021, prior to full approval of FF plans.

Could well be that things have changed, but this is never usually communicated to the observing public who only get to read what is disclosed.
 
Permanent training ground could take 2-3 years to finish apparently, this is according to the words of the applicant on behalf of SUFC (PowerHaus Consultancy) and this was noted back in October 2021, prior to full approval of FF plans.

Could well be that things have changed, but this is never usually communicated to the observing public who only get to read what is disclosed.
I would take the 2-3 years with a large pinch of salt. This may be a phasing issue which would make more sense. I seem to remember (and I could be wrong) that there were a couple of options relating to the training ground requirements and this may have been reflected in the two applications.
 
I would take the 2-3 years with a large pinch of salt. This may be a phasing issue which would make more sense. I seem to remember (and I could be wrong) that there were a couple of options relating to the training ground requirements and this may have been reflected in the two applications.
Here’s hoping it is a phasing issue and if built all in one go that it would take much less time.
 
I think 2-3 years is about right . It is very important we get to have '' state of the art '' training facilities if we want to attract good players to the club . The temporary facilities were only going to be low cost modular buildings and they could so easily have ended up being the permanent solution which is far from being satisfactory . A start of the main stadium works in 2025 now looks likely which is also good news . The required infrastructure work - sewers, news roads , roundabouts , pathways , pelican crossings and signalisation - will take a long time to sort out . Right now the development site is just a field .
 
Took a walk over FF today.

Several borehole monitoring sites are now there. They went in yesterday by the looks of it.

EFDD1799-22B1-4E1E-A792-611EFFB51D59.jpeg

4EFB5801-8C6A-40C3-B7BF-7B8AC2FC2C1D.jpeg
 
It seems that planing application is still being submitted - which is a good thing (I hope)
0FC23479-8BFE-488A-B18D-464640A100F4.png
 
Now number one I'm no expert but the whole biodiversity thing is a real live issue in building. It's all under the SuDS regs. The sustainable drainage systems. So at the training ground you have the attenuation pond. I now understand this will be more like a bog habitat but will be able to deal with flash flooding if it occurs. There is another attenuation pond on the stadium side which will deal with the runoff from the stadium and flats.
What I'm hoping is that the stadium project manager gives updates on progress and some of the technical processes used in the building of the stadium site. I think it would be fascinating (at least to me) and maintain interest.
I just had another look at the stadium plans and wonder when commercial will start to plan the naming rights and how to operate the concessions in the stadium. They may already have started. They seem very on the ball. There are 10 concessions up for grabs if my calculations are right with another 2 for away fans and 2 bar/restaurants/cafe areas in phase 1 the south, west and east stands.
The north has the boxes (16) which like Spurs have seats in front of them, more concessionary areas (8) and a huge ballroom that can be divided into three for functions. It also has the boardroom. OK it might never happen but if it does in my view it will be fantastic. There are also so many seats for fans with disabilities and their carers and disabled toilets (I know there are regulations but it did impress me) and the number of toilets is breathtaking. I remember when you ****ed up the back wall of the west stand (it was a proper toilet in that it had a wall leading into it and a drain not sure if there was a crapper)
Please read the numbers with caution but I think I've counted correctly.
 
Last edited:
I remember when you ****ed up the back wall of the west stand (it was a proper toilet in that it had a wall leading into it and a drain not sure if there was a crapper)

There was, it was so discussing that no one used it, the smell was so bad people nearly past out, and the stink wafted right across the North Bank. 💩💩💩
 
Back
Top