Nottingham Extension

I didn't realise the forest ground development was much more than just
moving Forest to Clifton.

Nottingham City Council wants to add 18,400 homes to the city by 2016.
Though we loads of apartments going up in the city centre the only real
way this will be achievable to to physically extend the city and build
beyond Greenbelt.

Wilson Bowen Developments owns the 1,100 acres of land at the south
of the city below Clifton. It proposes:


40,000 - 60,000 seater Forest Station
5,000 New Homes
124 Acres of Commercial Development which will incoporate office,
small industrial and big shed distribution
A retail centre including a supermarket
161,460 sq ft of Leisure space
Two hotels, One of 200 bedrooms the other of 100.


The whole thing is subject to the East Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) public inquiry (http://www.goem.gov.uk/goem/psc/suscom/rss/). The RSS is expected to be published in its final form early next year.

------------------------------------------------------------

Nottingham Forest Development

This is obviously not how the stadium will look. This is simply something Wilson Brown have obviously drawn up quickly to illustrate a thing or two. The stadium will be served by the tram and will seat between 40,000 to 60,000. All we need to do now is get forest back up into the premiership.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2050/1674571552_5120a07e13_o.jpg

Heres a very informative article.

http://www.propertyweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=39&storycode=3097201

A few points to get the discussions started:


The RSS prevents Nottingham from Growing further into Derby and turning into one large conurbation like Manchester & Bolton
Wilson Bowen will help forest redevelop the city ground into a primarly "residential" development
How will this effect our city centre? If they provide enough activites down there could it stop some from coming into the city centre?
Its likely to start in 2009
The development will brings even closer to East Midlands Airport and will be on the doorstep of the new Parkway Station.

Not directly related but...

Nottingham Forest have announced that they made a loss of £4.2m for the year ending 31 May 2007, compared to a deficit of £8m the previous season.
Turnover for the season was £9.2m, an increase of £1.3m, while staff costs were reduced from £9.5m to £8.3m.

Added to the trading loss of £2.6m, £1m was spent on players, with £600,000 on interest and loan repayments.

However, the club has estimated that each season they spend outside the Championship costs them £4m to £5m

I'm a Forest fan. Whilst I can see that there is merit for the club in obtaining an all-singing, all-dancing new stadium at a bargain cost (because Wilson Bowden would bear the brunt of the build costs), I do think that a new football stadium in that location would be problematic.

For a start, I am generally not in sympathy with greenfield developments when there are brownfield sites that could be used instead. We are looking at a vast out of town development which is tied in to motorway/dual carriageway access, and sits miles from the city centre. You are right, danz, this could have a real impact on the city, and spoil a tract of countryside too.

Despite what it says in that article, public transport to the City Ground is not problematic. The railway station (and tram terminus) is a ten minute walk away. That's closer than East Midlands Parkway would be to the new stadium. There are many established bus routes running across Trent Bridge. What's more, it is perfectly possibly to walk from the city centre to the City Ground in about twenty minutes. A vast number of people disperse from the football in various directions. They park on side streets and on "found" places in West Bridgford and the Meadows. Compare that to the difficulties of escaping from an out of town business/reatil park like they are proposing where there literally are no side streets and everyone would have to leave the ground via the A453. Imagine the congestion!

The tram is no solution. Each tram can carry just under 200 people. They are proposing a 50,000 seater stadium. If a full tram leaves every five minutes, that means you could take only two and a half thousand people away every hour. The Parkway station is no solution if it's two or three miles away down the dual carriageway.

Move out of town and you also lose the character of the surroundings. On Trentside, you are within a few minutes walk of a number of pubs, cafes, sandwich bars and shops. You can head straight from town or from West Bridgford. You can walk along the river to get to the ground and dispersein the same way. An out of town stadium will no doubt attract eating places too, but low-rise drive thru chain places. Everything would be sanitised and homogenised.

The ideal solution for me would be either to upgrade the City Ground where it is, or search for a new site closer to the city. A super-stadium on the other side of the river, close to where Meadow Lane is now (I guess it would have to cater for both clubs) would be a far better solution for the city - much better sorted for public transport if away fans could come off the motorway at 24, park at East Midlands parkway or a Clifton tram terminus and come into the city from there.

Of course, land issues make this extremely unlikely, but the Millenium Stadium in Cardiff shows how successful a central stadium can be.

I went past the forest ground on the bus just as all the fans were coming out of the ground and walking along Trent Bridge. It looks quite impressive with so many people in the area it'd be a shame if that stopped.
The atmosphere was good and everyone seemed to be in a good mood.
Imagine if they filled the new 50,000 seat stadium. Like Binge said all those cars and people trying to get on trams. It would be absolute chaos and no doubt trouble would start with a mixture of fans from Forest and the opposite team. At the moment it's fairly easy for the police to tackle the problem.

I am not a Forest fan (!), but I agree that it would be better to keep the club where it is. Though technically not in Nottingham, I think the City Ground is in a great location. Please don't move the ground, otherwise your team will be too close to the Leicestershire border for comfort...

:lol:

We can meet in the fields nearby and meet screaming and shouting at the border.

The ideal solution for me would be either to upgrade the City Ground where it is, or search for a new site closer to the city. A super-stadium on the other side of the river, close to where Meadow Lane is now (I guess it would have to cater for both clubs) would be a far better solution for the city - much better sorted for public transport if away fans could come off the motorway at 24, park at East Midlands parkway or a Clifton tram terminus and come into the city from there.


I think that would be the best possible solution. That is without a doubt an excellent Idea.

I've always supported the move to clifton however the only reason was because I saw a whole lot of potential in the city grounds site. But... moving forest to a site near meadow lane would be absolutely excellent. I think its an area which needs an iconic statement and a forest ground could well be it.

I think we've got a problem though. There are loads of financial benifits for forest in going ahead with this, at the same time there are a loads of benefits for Wilson Bowen... those two or more or less engaged. Its as if all they are waiting on is confirmation of this RSS thing? Forest's financial situation dosn't really allow them to say no does it?

Theres been no consultation with the public... no consultation with the fans... and it dosn't really look like they're open to options at the moment.

Do forest supporters have a forum? Maybe we could see what the fans themselves are saying... they may share the same views.

I think both the club and city would benefit more in the long term from keeping it in the city. We need someone rich to come along and buy them with a better vision.

Do forest supporters have a forum? .

At least half a dozen.

What you will find is that "the supporters" don't have a view - they have 30,000 views. There is feeling both for and against a move.

You will also find a split between those who think that the club needs a new rich benefactor with a vision, and those who appreciate that we have a rich benefactor already. Nigel Doughty, the Forest owner, already subsidises the club to the tune of millions every year.

Football clubs aren't money machines, unless you are Man United or Arsenal. Building a stadium in the city could cost £50 million or so. The simple economics suggest that any new stadium would be built on that site. It's a win-win situation for club and builders. Presumably Wilson Bowden would struggle to get planning permission without a showpiece "community" facilty for Nottingham like a new stadium.

Ummm... I can't really see this going any other way. (other than too clifton).

I've already had my rant on this several times but:

Wilson Bowden want inexpensive greenfield land to build basic (short term housing) solutions on and make shed loads of money. They in turn will build a massive stadium in the middle of a housing estate that no one can get to or get away from. In turn for allowing this the council might get the prestige of hosting a world cup match (but won't really be able to showcase the city as the ground is miles away) whilst also releasing a large slice of riverside land that they can sell off for some bland development.

Firstly: There is currently so much brownfield space in Nottingham with nothing happening on why can't they build on this. Because Wilson Bowden don't wan't to touch this as they might actually have to put some long term thought into the design and infrastructure.

Secondly: Any forward thinking city building new stadiums nowdays (all over the world) are trying to incorporate the stadium into the city centre itself, keep it near its historical roots or near a major transport hub (Clifton is none of these).

Agreed.

I guess the council can play a big role in this but this is all going to be largly influenced by Money. Theres no way forest are going to be in a position to get a new stadium in the next 10 - 20 years without a project like this. They're not going to want to say no. Wilson Brown need them as the centrepiece of their development. Forest probably can't afford to do any major upgrades to the city ground either... so what do we do.


Firstly: There is currently so much brownfield space in Nottingham with nothing happening on why can't they build on this. Because Wilson Bowden don't wan't to touch this as they might actually have to put some long term thought into the design and infrastructure.

A lot of its not released though. The meadow lane area would be the obvious choice but all of that land is being used by multiple tenants and is owned by multiple owners.

Secondly: Any forward thinking city building new stadiums nowdays (all over the world) are trying to incorporate the stadium into the city centre itself, keep it near its historical roots or near a major transport hub (Clifton is none of these).[/QUOTE]

Oh I agree with that so much.

There is currently so much brownfield space in Nottingham with nothing happening on why can't they build on this. Because Wilson Bowden don't wan't to touch this as they might actually have to put some long term thought into the design and infrastructure.

Or, more accurately, because they already own the land south of Clifton (which they bought without planning consent, so they'd see a vast return on their investment).

Firstly: There is currently so much brownfield space in Nottingham with nothing happening on why can't they build on this. Because Wilson Bowden don't wan't to touch this as they might actually have to put some long term thought into the design and infrastructure

I agree with your points Ben but the Clifton extension isnt really about Wilson Bowden. Its a matter thats being decided on by the Regional Assembly who have to find enough land for the massive increase in demand for housing. Greenfield sites are always a last resort but the latest projections for housing are so high that they will need to be utilised. There is brownfield land in Nottingham, but far less than in some other cities of comparable size (think Sheffield for example) and much of it would take years to assemble into a viable development proposition (therefore running the risk of a shortage that would precipiate a crisis - if there isnt already a crisis of affordability).

In these circumstances the authorities do have to look at greenfield options and big, masterplanned urban extensions such as Clifton are always preferred to piecemeal developments around the edge of urban areas. Land south of Clifton will be the biggest extension in the region because it is the best option in terms of demand and sustainability. We should actually be pleased that the growth is coming to Nottingham rather than Leicester or Derby!

The pros and cons of Forest's relocation are another matter of course.....

^^ I don't have anything against Wilson Browns development.. I welcome it and think its needed. I'm just not sure if Forest need to go down there with them.

If they go.. we will loose "that feel" of having forest so close by. If they go to Clifton... its not bad as such.. but it'll be just like every other recent football development.. out of the way, out of town... etc. Its not just out of the city centre... its right on the outskirts of the city... right at the end.... because its so far away they're going to want to add lots of activities down there... i'm concerned at how these activities may "take away" from the city centre.

We should actually be pleased that the growth is coming to Nottingham rather than Leicester or Derby!

Not intruding on the thread or anything. Just making the point that Leicester (the city) has to build 17,800 new homes by 2016...

As a new Growth Point the 3 Cities and 3 Counties aim to build around 81,500 homes by 2016. Of these, around 9,800 would be at Derby, 18,400 at Nottingham and 17,800 at Leicester.

I'm a Forest fan. Whilst I can see that there is merit for the club in obtaining an all-singing, all-dancing new stadium at a bargain cost (because Wilson Bowden would bear the brunt of the build costs), I do think that a new football stadium in that location would be problematic.

For a start, I am generally not in sympathy with greenfield developments when there are brownfield sites that could be used instead. We are looking at a vast out of town development which is tied in to motorway/dual carriageway access, and sits miles from the city centre. You are right, danz, this could have a real impact on the city, and spoil a tract of countryside too.

Despite what it says in that article, public transport to the City Ground is not problematic. The railway station (and tram terminus) is a ten minute walk away. That's closer than East Midlands Parkway would be to the new stadium. There are many established bus routes running across Trent Bridge. What's more, it is perfectly possibly to walk from the city centre to the City Ground in about twenty minutes. A vast number of people disperse from the football in various directions. They park on side streets and on "found" places in West Bridgford and the Meadows. Compare that to the difficulties of escaping from an out of town business/reatil park like they are proposing where there literally are no side streets and everyone would have to leave the ground via the A453. Imagine the congestion!

The tram is no solution. Each tram can carry just under 200 people. They are proposing a 50,000 seater stadium. If a full tram leaves every five minutes, that means you could take only two and a half thousand people away every hour. The Parkway station is no solution if it's two or three miles away down the dual carriageway.

Move out of town and you also lose the character of the surroundings. On Trentside, you are within a few minutes walk of a number of pubs, cafes, sandwich bars and shops. You can head straight from town or from West Bridgford. You can walk along the river to get to the ground and dispersein the same way. An out of town stadium will no doubt attract eating places too, but low-rise drive thru chain places. Everything would be sanitised and homogenised.

The ideal solution for me would be either to upgrade the City Ground where it is, or search for a new site closer to the city. A super-stadium on the other side of the river, close to where Meadow Lane is now (I guess it would have to cater for both clubs) would be a far better solution for the city - much better sorted for public transport if away fans could come off the motorway at 24, park at East Midlands parkway or a Clifton tram terminus and come into the city from there.

Of course, land issues make this extremely unlikely, but the Millenium Stadium in Cardiff shows how successful a central stadium can be.

agree 100%

if the club move to a faceless new estate miles out from town, the club loses much of it's soul, and ALL of it's connection to the city and community. this will be far more damaging to the club than any "damage" incurred by simply staying put. i know the club are on paper getting an amazing deal but this is just short term gain. currently we do not need a 50,000 seater stadium anyway. forest have to stay in town.

i don't like saying negative things like this but..*cringes*...anyone who doesn't understand my points or bingethink's points, doesn't understand football, or society at large. sorry about that.

ranny fash

I support a different team, but I think Forest should stay nearer the city. Could you ground share with Notts County and build a 50,000 stadium a short walk from the centre of town? That would be something that would make me jealous...

Nottingham Extension



Nottingham City Council wants to add 18,400 homes to the city by 2016.




WHAT?!!

can you possibly imagine just how much that is? that's an absolutely colossal figure. surely not?

thanks for the info - i hope most of it goes in the existing urban core of course.

ranny fash

I support a different team, but I think Forest should stay nearer the city. Could you ground share with Notts County and build a 50,000 stadium a short walk from the centre of town? That would be something that would make me jealous...

yeah i'll just get me spade

I agree with your post Ranny. I don't feel like the forest Board has the same opinion though.

WHAT?!!

can you possibly imagine just how much that is? that's an absolutely colossal figure. surely not?

thanks for the info - i hope most of it goes in the existing urban core of course.

Well... I imagine they're probably half way there.. think of all the house development in the last 4 years or so... look at the arnold road estate (old high pavement college). Something like 3 thousand homes being built in the city centre with double that planned.

yeah i'll just get me spade

:lol:

The RSS hopes to build 40,000 homes around Nottingham. I though it was 16,000 but I was wrong.

Leicester isn't the only city getting these Eco-Towns (not that i'm a fan). About 40 local authorities are writing up plans for them. This is one of the ways the government is hoping to reduce carbon emissions.

A Proposal to build 6,000 eco-friendly homes on green-belt land in Nottingham has been submitted to the Government.

The 'eco-town' would be on 600 hectares of land at Kingston Estate, near Gotham. The land is used for farming.

The proposed site would also create over 3,700 jobs and include a town centre with community and leisure centres and new primary and secondary schools, as well as road, footpath and cycle links.

Chesterfield-based Banks Developments submitted the proposal to the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) last month, in response to a Government move to create sustainable developments across the country.

Fifty-seven applications for eco-towns across the country have been received by DCLG, which will discuss the applications with the Environment Agency and Highways Agency before putting ten forward for consultation by regional planning departments.

At this point that public consultation on the proposals will begin and homeowners will be able to put forward their views.

There are fears the proposals for south Notts would not work because of its proximity to Nottingham city centre and its green-belt location.

Paul Kaczmarczuk, chairman of a Rushcliffe campaign group, said he felt the development would not be sustainable, one of DCLG'S requirements for eco-towns.

He said: "There is no way that the infrastructure could cope with it, and apart from anything else you do not have a town that close to the city or on green-belt land."

He also felt the development would cause traffic problems, even with the proposals to make the A453 into a dual carriageway.

A spokesperson for DCLG admitted: "We operate a brown-field site first building policy. But we will consider options on green-field sites."

DCLG said the successful bids would be for zero-carbon eco-towns of between 5,000 and 20,000 homes. Five are expected to be finished by 2016 and the others by 2021.

Banks Developments are looking at forms of renewable energy such as wind farms. David Gosling, at the company, said: "The Kingston site represents an outstanding opportunity to create a high quality sustainable community of at least 6,000 homes, and would place the East Midlands in the vanguard of regions looking to make the eco-town principle a reality."

A regional housing plan for up to 40,000 new homes in and around Nottingham is being developed. That is likely to include a single development of up to 5,000 homes close to the city and initial reports highlighted Rushcliffe as a potential location.

The plan, known as the Regional Spacial Strategy, initially indicated land south of Clifton could accommodate an initial 5,000 homes. A report from the Government on this regional plan is yet to be published but the development of an eco-town would be in addition to these homes.

Richard Mapletoft, development framework manager at Rushcliffe Borough Council, said there had been no discussion with the developers.

Another interesting artcile:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/main.jhtml?xml=/portal/2007/11/21/ftcountry121.xml

So many inaccuracies in that report.....

which one?

I agree with alot of what's in the Telegraph article. There is no way we should be building on our greenbelt just because some government department says we need to build 2.5million new homes. In the late 70's they said that the countrys population would be 85million by now and everyone would be flying around in space cars!!!

The fact is that the only area in the country growing really considerably is London (mostly eastern european immigration). How many of these immigrants are going to stay here compared to previous immigrants Ugandans, Indians, Jamacians etc. I put money on the majority of current immigrants from Eastern Europe moving back within 10 years.

Nothing should be built on Greenfield sites until all the Brownfield sites have been developed. Oh but its more expensive to use Brownfield sites than Greenfield and the council don't get to sell the land for shed loads of money!

Personally i haven't seen loads of people sleeping on the streets (there can't be that big a need for housing). I know for a fact that there are loads of empty flats and houses available for rent all over the country. So why the need to build loads more?

How do we build on brownfield land quick enough to address the increasing demand though? With all the land ownerships etc it will take years to address the problem?

There is loads of housing that investors buy up and hold which unnecessarily ends up driving up the prices. Especially with these new apartments.

I may be wrong but I think there was something the government introduced to cut down on this? Or they may have just been talking about it on the radio. Something needs to be done though.

How do we build on brownfield land quick enough to address the increasing demand though? With all the land ownerships etc it will take years to address the problem?

Is there a huge increasing demand though? And why should we build on greenbelt just because of the land ownership problems (the Gov or council should have powers to push this though). Why should our planning system be based around the benefit of people who only care about making money?

There is loads of housing that investors buy up and hold which unnecessarily ends up driving up the prices. Especially with these new apartments.

Exactly and the sooner there is a crash in the buy to let market the better. Theres enough homes for everyone in this country it just so happens that alot of people have alot more than 1.

I may be wrong but I think there was something the government introduced to cut down on this? Or they may have just been talking about it on the radio. Something needs to be done though.

I thought they were going to increase the Tax on second homes. The problem is that people have invested there savings in property instead of pensions funds etc whilst the housing market has been going up. There are huge numbers of houses sat empty as people don't even need to rent them out if the capital growth continues as it has been. But if things slow down and mortgages go up hopefully this will release alot of this stock onto the market and reduce prices aswell. Especially where i live in London (hopefully)!!

I didn't do that properly then obviously, how did that happen?

lol you need to break the quote by putting a "[/quote]" before you cut in.

Umm yeah I see your point. I think to really judge this we need to assess how many unused houses are tied up for investment purposes. How student houses are affecting house prices etc.

Cheers Dan, i'll get the hang of it eventually..

Would be interesting to know how many houses are sitting empty. And also assuming the Gov made sure that there was a house built for everyone that wanted to buy one then the people who own loads of houses and rent them out wouldn't have anyone to rent them out to!! Doesn't seem very logically when they come out with these sweeping comments about needing to build new houses. What it does do though is give developers ammunition to build on greenbelt and for councils to make money out of it. Or am i being cynical?

No i don't think thats cynical. Your right to a great extent.

To be really honest i'd much rather see development right here in the city first. But until they all put all the right laws/policies in place to help development go through quickly then its not going to happen.

We're the third fastest growing city in the country. There must be a demand for houses. We could build these in the city centre and on other brownfield sites but the problem is all the land ownerships, different tenancies and even the council themselves (Section 106 agreement with eastside - 1750 homes) will slow down this process.

Whats the solution?