topcat Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 Amid all the sturm and strang of last Wednesday it seemed to evade everybody's notice that correspondence fro the Transport Consultant, Scottish Water, Scottish Natural Heritage, Gorgie-Dalry Community Council, Archaeology and the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency all appeared on the Council's Planning and Building Standards Portal page for the New Stand. http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/WAM/showCaseFile.do?appType=DC&appNumber=08/00161/FUL There's quite a lot to get through so if anyone wants to help summarise key points for this thread that would be great. The first Curiousity I have found is that "Scottish Natural Heritage have no objection to this proposal as submitted. However would recommend that a condition is in place to protect and enhance the bat roost provision at the site, as discussed in the bat survey report, Appendix B of the ES" It wouldn't appear to be a big issue because apparently there are no bats in the old stand but there are some in the Roseburn and Wheatfield stands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey05 Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 Amid all the sturm and strang of last Wednesday it seemed to evade everybody's notice that correspondence fro the Transport Consultant, Scottish Water, Scottish Natural Heritage, Gorgie-Dalry Community Council, Archaeology and the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency all appeared on the Council's Planning and Building Standards Portal page for the New Stand.http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/WAM/showCaseFile.do?appType=DC&appNumber=08/00161/FUL There's quite a lot to get through so if anyone wants to help summarise key points for this thread that would be great. The first Curiousity I have found is that "Scottish Natural Heritage have no objection to this proposal as submitted. However would recommend that a condition is in place to protect and enhance the bat roost provision at the site, as discussed in the bat survey report, Appendix B of the ES" It wouldn't appear to be a big issue because apparently there are no bats in the old stand but there are some in the Roseburn and Wheatfield stands. As Nick Cave would shout............."release the bats" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JamboRobbo Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 It wouldn't appear to be a big issue because apparently there are no bats in the old stand but there are some in the Roseburn and Wheatfield stands. I've got a couple of old bats sit behind me. What a racket they make. Don't think they even watch the match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Tolbooth Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 It's a sad day when bats rights over power human ones! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
super_vlad Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 Amid all the sturm and strang of last Wednesday it seemed to evade everybody's notice that correspondence fro the Transport Consultant, Scottish Water, Scottish Natural Heritage, Gorgie-Dalry Community Council, Archaeology and the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency all appeared on the Council's Planning and Building Standards Portal page for the New Stand.http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/WAM/showCaseFile.do?appType=DC&appNumber=08/00161/FUL There's quite a lot to get through so if anyone wants to help summarise key points for this thread that would be great. The first Curiousity I have found is that "Scottish Natural Heritage have no objection to this proposal as submitted. However would recommend that a condition is in place to protect and enhance the bat roost provision at the site, as discussed in the bat survey report, Appendix B of the ES" It wouldn't appear to be a big issue because apparently there are no bats in the old stand but there are some in the Roseburn and Wheatfield stands. you look at all the paper work and you begin to relaised why it has taken so long ! People will still say its all a smokescreen tho ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat Posted February 29, 2008 Author Share Posted February 29, 2008 The Archeology report Although unlisted the main stand at Tynecastle is of historic interest being associated with the important early 20th century stadium architect Archibald Leitch. Accordingly and application must be considered under {Reference to The appropriate guidelines} The aim of this legistlation is to preserve historic structures and archaeological remains in situ as first option. Having assessed the Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Chaper (10) {of the guidlines} I agree with the conclusion reached in Section 10.6 that the loss of this historic building is insufficient to justify the refusal of consent on archaeological grounds provided that a comprehensive programme of works is undertaken prior to demolition/construction. This programme of works is outlined in Section 10.7. This will require the company and the preservation of key historic elements within the New Stand. In addition the historic building survey will be linked with a programme of archaeological watching briefs during demolition and construction. So unlike Leitch's masterpiece at Ibrox our legacy stand isn't impressive enough to be a major obstacle to redevelopment but there will be a requirement to incorporate "key historic elements" in the new structure. There will also be a huge collection of photos of the old stand which will be great for nostalgists everywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wackojacko Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 Never mind the bat report I'd love to see the financial one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat Posted February 29, 2008 Author Share Posted February 29, 2008 The SEPA one is really, really dull but in essence... They've no objection in principal, They've got some technical recomendations with respect to the proposals to capture rain water for pitch irrigation and they want to ensure close integration with the tram to enhance air quality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat Posted February 29, 2008 Author Share Posted February 29, 2008 Never mind the bat report I'd love to see the financial one. I'm afraid you have to sit through the support act first Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 The SEPA one is really, really dull but in essence... They've no objection in principal, They've got some technical recomendations with respect to the proposals to capture rain water for pitch irrigation and they want to ensure close integration with the tram to enhance air quality That is tremendous. The tram line is going to create congestion and extra emissions all over the city, but it is to be 'integrated' with the new stand to enhance air quality. Brilliant stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seymour M Hersh Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 Amid all the sturm and strang of last Wednesday it seemed to evade everybody's notice that correspondence fro the Transport Consultant, Scottish Water, Scottish Natural Heritage, Gorgie-Dalry Community Council, Archaeology and the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency all appeared on the Council's Planning and Building Standards Portal page for the New Stand.http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/WAM/showCaseFile.do?appType=DC&appNumber=08/00161/FUL There's quite a lot to get through so if anyone wants to help summarise key points for this thread that would be great. The first Curiousity I have found is that "Scottish Natural Heritage have no objection to this proposal as submitted. However would recommend that a condition is in place to protect and enhance the bat roost provision at the site, as discussed in the bat survey report, Appendix B of the ES" It wouldn't appear to be a big issue because apparently there are no bats in the old stand but there are some in the Roseburn and Wheatfield stands. There's a couple of old bats sit near me!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat Posted February 29, 2008 Author Share Posted February 29, 2008 Theres a comment from Fiona McLean (On behalf of Gorgie Dalry Community Council) which reads as if it was written by commitee. The noise and crowds on match days makes the mix of residential and hotel with stadium on the same site incompatible, especially as the capacity of the stadium is being increased ..blah, blah.. Streets very busy already ..blah, blah.. normal concerns about large building sites.. light pollution etc.. Aside form general gripes there are a few Practical suggestions. Extra buses on match days, more trees, Extra Public toilets. There's also a bit that talks about the roof of one building coming right up to the flats on Wardlaw street. I've checked the map and that makes no sense The penultimate sentence reats "The Health & Safety Executive also have concerns about the development, which are significant" but oddly the HSE don't seem to have written to the council planning department about this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7628mm Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 I've got a couple of old bats sit behind me. What a racket they make. Don't think they even watch the match. Post of the week for me that one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavsy Van Gaverson Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 I've got a couple of old bats sit behind me. What a racket they make. Don't think they even watch the match. I know a couple of old bats who say that there is an irritating chap that sits in front of them. He keeps interrupting their quiet Saturday afternoon chit chat with his constant, and also negative abuse of all the Hearts players. Strange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Dover Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 I knew we had 'Bats in the Belfry' ..........but in the main stand ...............plenty of food for The Sun style 'Gotchas' there though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 re the bat problem,cant we just shoot them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JamboRobbo Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 I know a couple of old bats who say that there is an irritating chap that sits in front of them. He keeps interrupting their quiet Saturday afternoon chit chat with his constant, and also negative abuse of all the Hearts players. Strange. can't be the same bats then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j1874t Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 What's all this talk aboot bats? I thought we are a football club not a cricket club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gannet Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 Can well believe we have bats at Tynie.....goes with having a Joker as owner....and a Riddler as his spokesman! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat Posted March 18, 2008 Author Share Posted March 18, 2008 (NB Letter Dated 26th February but only published online 7th March) Dear Bruce PLANNING APPLICATION ? TYNECASTLE STADIUM ? POLICE CONSULTATION Yesterday I met with the Force Architectural Liaison Officer, Sgt Robert Shiel and out Force Counter Terrorist Security Advisors (CTSA), Sgt Duncan Allan and DC Kenny Taylor. I have also spoken to our Events Planning Team and on of the Division?s senior match commanders to enable a considered and balanced response. We have the following specific concerns about this proposed development. The addition of a hotel at McLeod Street has seriously reduced the amount of space which currently exists behind the stadium. This space is crucial for the parking of emergency vehicles but also provides an area of ?stand off? from the building and enables quick escape from the grounds into McLeod Street. Once the new School has been constructed it is likely that this street will feel quite enclosed and ?hemmed in? by both these structures with the resultant drop in levels of natural daylight. The reception area for the hotel/club entrance is poorly designed. Hotel reception has no natural surveillance opportunities over the drop off area or indeed the hotel lifts and staircase 2. Unless the small reception desk within the stadium is guaranteed to be staffed at all times there is a possibility that people could walk through hotel reception out the back doors and then disappear around the outside of the stand and into the rest of the grounds. Some serious though about these two reception areas is required The plans show doorways leading from the hotel property into the floors where the private flats are situated. These must be removed unless it is the intention to have these private flats run as serviced apartments. The goods delivery area causes some concern as this is a weak spot which could allow uncontrolled access into the ground. Is this area to be staffed?, will it be secure when not in use? And what access control technology is being considered? The car park entrance would be better positioned closer to the main reception area. This would enable a higher degree of natural surveillance over what is undoubtedly the entire developments major security weakness. Underground Car Park. I have a number of concerns here including who gets access? And how this access will be controlled. It should be borne in mind that access into and out of this facility will be prevented two hours before and one hour after any match at Tynecastle as a result of the road closure in McLeod Street. The layout of the car park, particularly in relation to clear sight lines could be improved. There are also too many entrance/exit doorways into the area. Are they all necessary> as they seriously weaken the integrity of the stadium in general. Counter Terrorism. In the current climate, sports stadia and areas of mass gatherings are regarded as potential targets by terrorist groups operating in this country. The most likely means of delivering an attack is by Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Device (VBIED) as seen last year in London and at Glasgow Airport. The lack of any protection or defensible space for the hotel building, including the pillars causes some concern. In addition there is a possibility of parking a VBIED within the underground car park before a game unless security procedures and access control are to the highest possible standards here. Our CTSA?s would like to know if the car park will be constructed in a manner that will enable it to absorb the blast from such a device and protect those seated in the stand above, If the applicant cannot answer this question then further expert advice can be obtained from the Security Service via our Force CTSA?s The new ?Green Book?, currently out for consultation, requires each new stadium to have a backup control room facility. Does this stadium have one> Thankyou for the opportunity to pass comment on these plans PC Andrew Cameron Divisional Architectural Liason Officer A Division Lothian and Border Police Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat Posted March 18, 2008 Author Share Posted March 18, 2008 The Edinburgh Access Panel wrote in to say that as the Disabled Hearts Supporters club has been involved in the project "almost from it's conception" they have got little additional input to contribute. They would like more parking places though (But that goes for everyone in Edinburgh) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redm Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 Well thanks for that PC Andy Cameron. I know the police consultation is taken seriously (when it suits the planning committee anyway) but while it sounds fairly critical, I don't think there's much in it for us to worry about. Other than being blown to smithereens in our seats, of course. Cheery guy. Apart from insisting on a new plan altogether for an underground carpark with higher levels of...er...bomb-proofageness...the ssues he mentions wouldnt prevent consent from being given. They might become details or conditions for approval but thats it.... And I had to giggle when I read about the 'drop in natural sunlight'. Has this guy ever actually visited Edinburgh? Doesn't sound like he's ever seen a tenamented area in his puff. Natural sunlight...pah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Gosling Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 never mind. i thought the car park was under the hotel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
washniklaw Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 never mind. i thought the car park was under the hotel? The car park covers two levels and stretches from McLeod street to the pitch. It would provide more car parking spaces but on each of these levels there have been facilities built in. Sub Basement: Changing rooms, Physio rooms etc Basement: Players lounge, Media Theatre, Mix zone etc. When you look into the detail, you realise why the stand/hotel is costing so much. The contrast with the other stands at Tynecastle in incredible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeeToonJambo Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 I would suggest that the recommendations by PC Cameron are just him covering his back in the event that something goes wrong at some point. He can then point to these recommendations and say, "I told you". Have any other recently constructed stadia been constructed with anti-terrorism measures in place? I doubt it, apart from possibly Wembley. The crime prevention recommendations are, again, the officer taking things to extremes. Some of them may be implemented but many of them will not. I don't think the architects/planners will make many major changes to the exsisting plans. This is only my opinion of course but I speak from some experience. As for the problem of cars exiting MacLeod Street while games are on and the street is closed, Edmiston Drive is closed to traffic when Rangers are at home, and I've never heard of any problems. I'm sure that people using the car park will mostly be those attending the games and, if not, will be advised about when MacLeod Street will be closed to traffic. The other scenario is that PC Cameron is a s*** stirring hobo - natural light in MacLeod Street, for God's sake - this could apply to half the streets in Edinburgh or, for that matter, most of the major cities in the world. New York, with some of the tallest buildings in the world, doesn't appear to suffer from a lack of natural light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paolo Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 I use to wrok beside a rugby fan type person, who at the time stayed in the Gorgie area, and when the plans were starting to be touted he moaned saying he hopes we move. He complained about the noise and the traffic and the fans on match day and said a stadium could bring down the value of his property. When I pointed out that Hearts had played in the area over 100 years before he bought a house there, so if he was that bothered he should never have bought it - he did not have an answer other than to say that rugby fans are far more behaved than football fans - a myth, in my view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieholt Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 That is tremendous. The tram line is going to create congestion and extra emissions all over the city, but it is to be 'integrated' with the new stand to enhance air quality. Brilliant stuff. Erm . . . Coco, the trams are electric so which emissions would they be ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 Erm . . . Coco, the trams are electric so which emissions would they be ? The liars at TIE have suggested that congestion will be reduced by 1% due to the tram. Obviously that is not a measurable amount anyway, but the liars at TIE have deliberately not included the shutting of streets such as Constitution Street/Shandwick Place for the tram which will lead to congestion elsewhere. Everywhere the tram affects traffic by priority measures, traffic lights etc will increase congestion. All the 'rat runs' of traffic forced off Easter Road etc will have to be speed bumped/traffic calmed/traffic lighted in order to increase congestion. And as for the trams being electric - they will only be fully used at peak times - the rest of the time the power stations will be firing up to supply power for empty trams racketing around ... The aim of the tram is to increase congestion - in order to justify spending the money on another tram line ... which will increase congestion ... to justify spending money on another tram line ...etc ad nauseum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 Trams work here in Melbourne - but then the city has been organised in a grid with wide streets. Unless something radical has happened in Edinburgh since I was last there 3 months ago, the congestion created by trams will be a joke. What Edinburgh should have done was to restore the suburban rail system but that would have involved common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieholt Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 The liars at TIE have suggested that congestion will be reduced by 1% due to the tram. Obviously that is not a measurable amount anyway, but the liars at TIE have deliberately not included the shutting of streets such as Constitution Street/Shandwick Place for the tram which will lead to congestion elsewhere. Everywhere the tram affects traffic by priority measures, traffic lights etc will increase congestion. All the 'rat runs' of traffic forced off Easter Road etc will have to be speed bumped/traffic calmed/traffic lighted in order to increase congestion. And as for the trams being electric - they will only be fully used at peak times - the rest of the time the power stations will be firing up to supply power for empty trams racketing around ... The aim of the tram is to increase congestion - in order to justify spending the money on another tram line ... which will increase congestion ... to justify spending money on another tram line ...etc ad nauseum With you 100% on that. The current vilification of motorists is an extraordinary treatment of honest joes trying to go about their lives without harassment from city planners who make driving as difficult as humanly possible. Sorry for the rant. Seem to have gone off topic . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spellczech Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 Trams work here in Melbourne - but then the city has been organised in a grid with wide streets. Unless something radical has happened in Edinburgh since I was last there 3 months ago, the congestion created by trams will be a joke. What Edinburgh should have done was to restore the suburban rail system but that would have involved common sense. Thing about trams is that they need to be on a system. The Edinburgh "system" is a P shape so coverage of the city is minimal. They won't accomplish anything unless they tie in with buses which makes you wonder why they didn't just continue with bus lanes in the first place... IMO the trams are just so the council can look backwards while pretending to look forwards... I expect public canal boats next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milky_26 Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 Trams work here in Melbourne - but then the city has been organised in a grid with wide streets. Unless something radical has happened in Edinburgh since I was last there 3 months ago, the congestion created by trams will be a joke. What Edinburgh should have done was to restore the suburban rail system but that would have involved common sense. common sense, thats something we can only dream about from edinburgh council and the scottish gov. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jammy T Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 With you 100% on that. The current vilification of motorists is an extraordinary treatment of honest joes trying to go about their lives without harassment from city planners who make driving as difficult as humanly possible. Sorry for the rant. Seem to have gone off topic . . The inhabitants of every UK & Irish city who have had trams introduced in the last generation have mumped and moaned about it in advance and during construction Once built they have been exceptionally successful with expansions or planned expansions in all. Scottish people must be the worst in the world for the "aye been" mentality What is currently being built is the core or base route. From this over the next 2 decades will be added spurs that will serve all major arteries of the city - I have no doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
269miles Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 That is tremendous. The tram line is going to create congestion and extra emissions all over the city, but it is to be 'integrated' with the new stand to enhance air quality. Brilliant stuff. Let's not forget noise pollution : if you've seen the trams in Manchester or Sheffield you'll know they are for from silent - see attached. I'd be seriously concerned if I lived near a proposed tram line. http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/119/119269_tram_noise_mums_plea_for_quiet_life.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coco Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 The inhabitants of every UK & Irish city who have had trams introduced in the last generation have mumped and moaned about it in advance and during construction Once built they have been exceptionally successful with expansions or planned expansions in all. Scottish people must be the worst in the world for the "aye been" mentality What is currently being built is the core or base route. From this over the next 2 decades will be added spurs that will serve all major arteries of the city - I have no doubt. Yes, the idea is to cause congestion in order to miraculously find a cure for congestion. This is a scheme that will make sense to stop at all points - even after it starts operation and costs hundreds of millions of pounds. The removal of the tram line would ease congestion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jammy T Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 Yes, the idea is to cause congestion in order to miraculously find a cure for congestion. This is a scheme that will make sense to stop at all points - even after it starts operation and costs hundreds of millions of pounds. The removal of the tram line would ease congestion. Well already the lack of traffic in Shandwick place (which will happen permanently) means I get to work around 10 minutes earlier. Congestion has actually decreased in and around the city centre So far so good for me. The worst part of my journey currently involves non-tram related traffic works at Newhaven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john brownlee Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 I wonder if there will be a pretection order for the rare cardboardius-brown owls that nest in the new stands Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
werwolf Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 I know a couple of old bats who say that there is an irritating chap that sits in front of them. He keeps interrupting their quiet Saturday afternoon chit chat with his constant, and also negative abuse of all the Hearts players. Strange. Thanks for saying what I'm not allowed to say in case I upset JR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat Posted April 14, 2008 Author Share Posted April 14, 2008 There's now some Correspondance from the Fire Brigade but it's not very exciting I might type it up later but in essence they point out that the H&SE are responsible for the distillery site. The council Public Safety department is responsible for enforcing Section 60 part 3 of the Fire(Scotland) act 2005. As far as the bits that the fire brigade are responsible for they've done an audit, identified some deficiencies but are satisfied with the plans to resolve them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Examiner Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 There's now some Correspondance from the Fire Brigade but it's not very exciting I might type it up later but in essence they point out that the H&SE are responsible for the distillery site. The council Public Safety department is responsible for enforcing Section 60 part 3 of the Fire(Scotland) act 2005. As far as the bits that the fire brigade are responsible for they've done an audit, identified some deficiencies but are satisfied with the plans to resolve them Good Job in filtering it all down. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rawrrrrrrr Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 It wouldnt surprise me if this gets turned down, in fact i personally think romanov is banking on it theres a mixture of negative ones and neutruel ones, theres a serious lack of supporting letters though Maybe a few "encouragements" are needed for the above:rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamblow Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 From a professional point of view dealing with all these bodies and their comments is a given - would you expect anything else. Planning permission will be gained but the finance is a completely different kettle of fish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat Posted April 14, 2008 Author Share Posted April 14, 2008 It wouldnt surprise me if this gets turned down, in fact i personally think romanov is banking on it theres a mixture of negative ones and neutruel ones, theres a serious lack of supporting letters though Maybe a few "encouragements" are needed for the above:rolleyes: Have a lollipop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarhead Posted April 15, 2008 Share Posted April 15, 2008 I missed this thread first time round. Having read all the corrospondence I just don't recognise the prophets of doom being propegated by some of our 'friends' in the media. I didn't see any objections as such but there were a few points of concern raised. SNH want some extra boxes for bats in the existing stands. There are no protected species found in the main stand. This didn't stop the EEN running a scare story. The police have some security concerns. I'm not too sure about their terrorism concerns but they are probably right in highlighting security regarding entrances and exits. Their main gripe seems to be that they are losing the car park were they parked their panda cars and meat wagons. The disabled fans are also concerned about the loss of parking spaces though they will be given their entitlement in the new car park (although that is less than what they have now). Not an insurmountable problem. The biggest concerns came from the community council. Reduced pavement space- seeing as McLeod St is closed to traffic on match days I don't see what the problem is there. Roof overhanging Wardlaw St- eh? Extra public toilets- fair enough but is that not the job of the city council? New stand will not be in keeping with the surrounding tenaments- and the other three stand are made of sandstone with grey slate roofs right enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.