Newest Message: FSA Gambling Survey by Dewsbury on 19/8/2019, 20:11:31 - View Thread

22

Thread: 91973

Flamingo Land Stadium planning application by Dewsbury User: Dewsbury

Posted: 9/11/2018 at 19:12:30, 661 views.

Oodles of drawings and documents for us to pore over on the planning pages of SBC: https://planning.scarborough.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=PFO991NSIPW00&fbclid=IwAR1ZB4rxn1jPOFu4f4DoJoPc9rvRGCYKwTZ_CRqKWwNc6cG6HHdv1j4fwjk

If you read only one thing, cast your eyes over the “supporting statement" which very clearly lays out the board’s thinking, and the reasons behind moving on from the initial temporary-permanent solutions proposed previously. All eminently sensible, and I applaud the board and whomever else has been involved in getting us to this stage. Well done all.

Simon Cope - Was Chair Of Something Some Time Ago

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 86.19.6.146

Total (new) capacity: 3036. New stand capacity: 1196 n/t by Malton Seadog User: Malton Seadog

Posted: 9/11/2018 at 19:57:51, 489 views. In reply to 'Flamingo Land Stadium planning application'


  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.111.111

Damn impressive… by Dunno

Posted: 9/11/2018 at 20:19:55, 635 views. In reply to 'Flamingo Land Stadium planning application'

awesome work to everyone involved.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.154.189

RE: Damn impressive… by Armchairdog User: Armchairdog

Posted: 10/11/2018 at 12:14:33, 468 views. In reply to 'Damn impressive…'

I notice the layout of the new stand has changed from having terracing at the front of the stand with seating immediately behind it (which was the previously proposed format at the video presentation earlier in the year). Not a criticism, just an observation.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.93.23

RE:RE: Damn impressive… by Burniston User: Burniston

Posted: 10/11/2018 at 13:21:22, 444 views. In reply to 'RE: Damn impressive…'

If you are referring to the original stand plans it was decided that it was prudent to not be so adventurous financially because of the extra planning costs that had emerged. Hence the funding appeal for £28k so as not to affect the playing budget. The new plans make more economic sense and are more practical based on forecasted crowds.

PMA

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 95.144.21.31

RE: RE:RE: Damn impressive… by Old Seadog User: Old Seadog

Posted: 10/11/2018 at 18:24:36, 425 views. In reply to 'RE:RE: Damn impressive…'

It looks good but are we still having terracing and a cover behind the goal

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.88.244

RE: RE: RE:RE: Damn impressive… by Dewsbury User: Dewsbury

Posted: 10/11/2018 at 19:18:58, 359 views. In reply to 'RE: RE:RE: Damn impressive…'

Yes, 4 step terrace at swimming pool end with a capacity of 462.

Also a new uncovered standing terrace (7 steps) with a capacity of 330 to the right of the existing main stand (looking from the pitch).

Both of these are in Stage 2 of the proposals, with the east (donkey field) side works to be done first.

Note that the Stage 2 works do not add significantly to the stadium capacity (around +190), but will be of benefit to fans in terms of cover and/or aiding viewing. Personally I cannot stand watching the game at pitch-level, so you’ll find me at the top of the uncovered 7-step terrace as soon as it is built…!

Simon Cope - Was Chair Of Something Some Time Ago

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.111.200

RE: RE: RE: RE:RE: Damn impressive… by Old Seadog User: Old Seadog

Posted: 10/11/2018 at 19:42:21, 405 views. In reply to 'RE: RE: RE:RE: Damn impressive…'

Cheers Simon so which is stage 1?

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.94.64

Stage 1 by Burniston User: Burniston

Posted: 10/11/2018 at 20:23:20, 395 views. In reply to 'RE: RE: RE: RE:RE: Damn impressive…'

The stand next to the donkey field I understand.

PMA

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 95.144.21.31

RE: Stage 1 by Slightly concerned seadog

Posted: 10/11/2018 at 20:30:58, 383 views. In reply to 'Stage 1'

I think stage 2 will be built if the capacity still needs to get to 3000 if we get to conf north and the existing standing in front of the donkey stand are not counted in capacity calculations. If the standing in front donkey stand is included we will have 3200 capacity without stage 2.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 2a02:c7d:1263:ab00:8

RE: RE: Stage 1 by Dewsbury User: Dewsbury

Posted: 10/11/2018 at 20:49:09, 365 views. In reply to 'RE: Stage 1'

I don’t think there will be any standing at the front of the donkey field stand, or if there is it will be a lot narrower than the existing space. I would imagine that for access purposes there will be no standing permitted in front of the seated stand at all. Therefore the 420 figure given for the donkey field side capacity cannot be included when working out capacity there when the stand is built. The Stage 2 improvements will be needed to get us over the 3000 capacity needed for Conf North.

Simon Cope - Was Chair Of Something Some Time Ago

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 172.69.55.54

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE:RE: Damn impressive… by Dewsbury User: Dewsbury

Posted: 10/11/2018 at 20:42:35, 428 views. In reply to 'RE: RE: RE: RE:RE: Damn impressive…'

The east (donkey field) stand is Stage 1. 336 seats in a central block, and 2 blocks of 430 capacity terrace either side, all covered (I think). The existing boundary fence will be going 4.7m further back, and a WC/kiosk block to be built near the car park turnstiles.

Simon Cope - Was Chair Of Something Some Time Ago

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 172.69.55.54

Financial implications…. by Che User: Che

Posted: 10/11/2018 at 21:13:01, 376 views. In reply to 'RE: RE: RE: RE: RE:RE: Damn impressive…'

What stood out for me was the following regarding National League North status.

“Our research shows that we have both the financial and personnel resources that would enable us to compete at this level"

We can afford it then.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 2a02:c7d:866b:3700:1

Timescale by Battersea unreg

Posted: 10/11/2018 at 22:15:09, 473 views. In reply to 'RE: RE: RE: RE: RE:RE: Damn impressive…'

Great to see the vision for the development and huge thanks to all those involved.

Be interesting to see how things progress and the timescales involved, although as it has yet to go through Planning the only certainty is that there are no certainties. In the Supporting Statement to the Planning Application I noticed there is a table with the comment “March 2020 at the earliest?" for upgrade to Category B (National League North) standard which presumably is the current projection.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.89.237

RE: Timescale by seadog365 User: seadog365

Posted: 11/11/2018 at 10:32:40, 477 views. In reply to 'Timescale'

I think March 2020 is the earliest we would need it to be a category B ground, but IF we went up this year then March 2020 would actually be the latest, because it is the March of the first season at that new level.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.91.85

RE: RE: Timescale by Battersea (unreg)

Posted: 11/11/2018 at 20:41:51, 393 views. In reply to 'RE: Timescale'

Thanks for that. Yes if I’d read the couple of paragraphs below the table I might have picked up that the deadline is the March after promotion and so on that basis I reckon your analysis is spot on.

I must have missed the bit, possibly several years ago, when the FA became more realistic / less stringent on the date by which grounds needed to be upgraded (where necessary) to enable promotion at National League level.

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 162.158.91.253

RE: RE:RE: Damn impressive… by Jackson User: Jackson

Posted: 20/11/2018 at 16:07:36, 341 views. In reply to 'RE:RE: Damn impressive…'

I think the stand would be better with terracing in front. Same length as planned but easier to increase standing capacity without knocking anything down.

J REYNOLDS

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 172.69.55.198

RE: RE: RE:RE: Damn impressive by Burniston User: Burniston

Posted: 20/11/2018 at 17:28:42, 305 views. In reply to 'RE: RE:RE: Damn impressive…'

From what I can make out Jackson that would not be practical. A single row of standing spectators would obscure the view of at least the 1st and perhaps even the 2nd row of seated in the stand. So the stand & seating would all have to be raised, defeating the object. If it is like the Salford stand, I believe the first row of seating is quite low to avoid the necessity of a higher stand. As long as we can provide the necessary numbers in the ground we don’t need to accommodate another row of standing at the front. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

PMA

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 2.26.98.124

RE: RE: RE: RE:RE: Damn impressive by Jackson User: Jackson

Posted: 21/11/2018 at 19:47:13, 346 views. In reply to 'RE: RE: RE:RE: Damn impressive'

Thank you, Burniston. I meant build it like the main stand, higher with terracing in front. This is how stands should be; hence " Grandstand View", not pitch- level looking over a barrier. After all, this is what won the award for best new stand.
I suppose it doesn’t matter to most people how you reach 5,000 capacity with 2,000 seats. Maybe that will be achieved with terracing on the main stand side only.

J REYNOLDS

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 86.158.113.250

RE: RE: RE: RE:RE: Damn impressive by Jackson User: Jackson

Posted: 21/11/2018 at 21:31:39, 249 views. In reply to 'RE: RE: RE:RE: Damn impressive'

Burniston, just watching Salford now. Sensibly, with supporters in mind, first row of seats not at ground level. Not as good as a “paddock" but a lot better than most stands.I realize the new stand will have to be similar, because of the terracing either side.

J REYNOLDS

  • Reply
  • IP Address: 172.69.55.198

Newer Thread: SAFC TV Hightlights v Buxton

Older Thread: Ooooooh, lovely!

© Surfing Seadog. All Rights Reserved. Site design and development: Steve Smith

Views expressed on this forum are those of the individual poster, and not of the site administrators,scarborough athletic football club or the seadog trust unless otherwise stated.