Training Ground to get a 500 Seat Stand?

[Gb160]

Quick question, do Spurs own the land?

I will never understand the need to get permission to build something on land that you own. One of the stupid laws of both America and England, IMO. Just doesnt make sense to me. If you own the land, you should be able to do what ever the fuck you want with it.

Would you feel the same if your next door neighbour decided to build a slaughterhouse in his garden...with trucks and employees turning up morning noon and night....Livestock screaming as they're shoved into the masher?
Saying that, she should her trap nonetheless.....the interfering old cow.

 

[TheSecretNonFootballer]

Building a 500 seat stand with a view to moving our stadium there? What the fuck would we do with a 500 seat stand in a new stadium?

 

[michaelden]

BTW, the Planning Department has made its recommendation to the Planning Committee :

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions (on page 16 of the linked document)
http://forms.enfield.gov.uk/swiftlg/MediaTemp/99872-262863.pdf

Response from the public: -

The lives of local people have been blighted over the last 5 years by this
development

Employees of this company roar around the site in machinery while other
employees kick balls around to the accompaniment of general bawling
and shouting

Balls are kicked with force against metal poles and the noise causes
untold misery to the local residents

Professional football is not the be-all and end-all of English life and the FA
should come to terms with that

FROM THE SECTION TITLED IMPACT ON NEIGHBOURS

The stand would be sited approximately 336m from Keepers Cottage to the
north, and 475m from the nearest residential property fronting Bulls Cross.
Having regard to the level of distancing to the nearest adjoining properties,
there would not be any impact in terms of loss of outlook.

The community can hear the players hitting the goal post from 500m! WTF?!?!?!?!

 

[SlickMongoose]

Building a 500 seat stand with a view to moving our stadium there? What the fuck would we do with a 500 seat stand in a new stadium?

It's the new singing section.

 

[michaelden]

So you don't get arseholes ruining good architecture and to stop bad development like poor quality developments which may end up doing more harm than good.

There was no real reason for it to be rejected. Unless we were planning to move there!

And yet the average build quality dropped as soon as the British Regs were released. Why? Cos contractors had a minimum target to reach and it was cheaper than their standard quality.

There were a a few horror developments before British Regs came in, but overall the standard of building dropped to match the minimum requirements. As soon as you legislate quality, suppliers only meet the bare minimum as its usually cheaper

 

[TheSecretNonFootballer]

It's the new singing section.

I guess that's why we can't hear it at the Lane. Bloody miles away.

 

[Spursidol]

It's the new singing section.

Too small even for that !

 

[Spursidol]

Response from the public: -

The lives of local people have been blighted over the last 5 years by this
development

Employees of this company roar around the site in machinery while other
employees kick balls around to the accompaniment of general bawling
and shouting

Balls are kicked with force against metal poles and the noise causes
untold misery to the local residents

Professional football is not the be-all and end-all of English life and the FA
should come to terms with that

FROM THE SECTION TITLED IMPACT ON NEIGHBOURS

The stand would be sited approximately 336m from Keepers Cottage to the
north, and 475m from the nearest residential property fronting Bulls Cross.
Having regard to the level of distancing to the nearest adjoining properties,
there would not be any impact in terms of loss of outlook.

The community can hear the players hitting the goal post from 500m! WTF?!?!?!?!

Modern hearing aids are great news for the elderly, can hear things a mile away - espacially good for those who have time on their hanfs

 

[Spursidol]

There was no real reason for it to be rejected. Unless we were planning to move there!

But its good to know that opinion is shared with the Planning Department........often the developer may thnk there is no real issue to find that there is !

 

[SlickMongoose]

You'd hope we have decent contact within the local planning department, after the last few years!

 

[jambreck]

You'd hope we have decent contact within the local planning department, after the last few years!

We'll have been working closely with the local planning officer throughout.

It's a bit of a myth that planning officers are the opposition. So long as the developer works with them and so long as the proposal isn't outrageous and doesn't contravene any of the principles which govern planning policy, planning officers are generally keen to help.

The greater difficulty, often, is getting an application passed by the committee - which consists of local politicians with agendas, most of whom also happen to be amateurs in terms of planning policy.

BTW, in case you were referring to our relationship with the planners working on the stadium proposal, this is a different lot - Enfield.

 

[Flashspur]

christ all this palaver over nothing much at all really

 

[beats1]

And yet the average build quality dropped as soon as the British Regs were released. Why? Cos contractors had a minimum target to reach and it was cheaper than their standard quality.

There were a a few horror developments before British Regs came in, but overall the standard of building dropped to match the minimum requirements. As soon as you legislate quality, suppliers only meet the bare minimum as its usually cheaper

Agree, I was meaning more like slums but in london we have lost alot of great architecture because of these concrete monstrosities, i also think the government are being very optimistic with their new sustainable guidelines and targets to have low U value homes and etc.

Our house is 25 years old and the quality compared to a pre war house is terrible and it took us 15 years to fix the rush jobs done by the developer.

 

[Gassin's finest]

It's four rows of 125 seats:

Edit: after looking closer at the renders, the number or rows varies between four and two, so that would imply that each row has more than 125 seats.

Why are those people watching one of those 118-118 blokes run away?

 

[Ironskullll]

Would you feel the same if your next door neighbour decided to build a slaughterhouse in his garden...with trucks and employees turning up morning noon and night....Livestock screaming as they're shoved into the masher?
Saying that, she should her trap nonetheless.....the interfering old cow.

Cow... slaughterhouse... good idea

 

[Misfit]

Moany old farts. Shut your cakeholes!

 

[SlunkSoma]

All of the following renders were posted yesterday on the Training Ground thread in the stadium section but in case some of you haven't seen them:

Monstrous, how can a heartless organisation think using greenspace for the development of physical activity is a good idea. I heard they deliver footballs in 18 wheeler lories at all times of the night. And don't even mention the cones. It's madness.

 

[SlunkSoma]

Futuristic as Fuck...they're trying to get that runner with their laser eye's...

Looks like a decent little stand that...could probably get away with a few more rows if they wanted...there are big trees behind

They look really light. Can't we just build 40 of them on WHL's roof?