Stadium Latest.

[FanDee]

2 minutes ago, QuesoGrande said:

Agree with this and I think that’s Nelms stance. Meant to be a broad brush at this stage. 

Exactly, get PIP then iron out any other details.

[HK Blues]

Maybe the transport issue is so fundamental to the PIP that a broad brush approach simply won't wash.  No point getting in PIP if the project will collapse at the next stage anyway. If it's as resolvable as Nelms suggests, then FFS go ahead an resolve it.  Get around the table (TS/DBH) and iron it out or accept it's not solvable and move on.  

JN says he's losing patience; could just be a tactic to get things moving - a thinly veiled threat they'll walk away and take their much-needed investment with them. 

 

[Reverend Lovejoy]

5 hours ago, stu2910 said:

Surely the whole point of a PPIP is that it doesn't contain the finer details?  This is only supposed to be enough for the council to look at it and think "this seems reasonable enough to work with - crack on with the prep work and get us the final drawings".

My take is that the roads department don't agree in principle with the plans hence their requirement for finer details. They may be going OTT and being a bit pedantic but if Nelms doesn't comply we can't proceed. IF the finer details of the access to and the exits from the stadium are the only remaining issues then I don't really see what's to be gained from withholding that information. TS won't be won over by engaging in a public sparring match.

[QuesoGrande]

1 hour ago, Reverend Lovejoy said:

Do people realistically think we can overcome these issues or is the stadium development pretty much dead in the water?. With a minimum of 2 years expected still at Dens before anything can happen it seems a long time to be sitting here losing money. Nelms comments in regard to a lack of 'infinite' patience suggest that time is running out.

It seems to me that Nelms is being a bit pig-headed here, he wants a PPIP agreement without the finite details being agreed whereas TS won't accept the plans in principle without having an idea of the finite details. Surely as the developer we need to bow down to the demands of the relevant authorities or are we allowing ego's to get in the way?.

Seems to me like there's a fairly straightforward resolution here or am I missing something?.

You would think the solution would be to get in a room with TS and discuss it. Endless back and forth of us making a proposal and them saying no is really not helpful. I don’t really agree with TS stance that it’s up to the developers to make a proposal that TS like, that could just roll on forever. Surely most efficient way for both sides is to discuss it live. 

[stu2910]

7 minutes ago, Reverend Lovejoy said:

My take is that the roads department don't agree in principle with the plans hence their requirement for finer details. They may be going OTT and being a bit pedantic but if Nelms doesn't comply we can't proceed. IF the finer details of the access to and the exits from the stadium are the only remaining issues then I don't really see what's to be gained from without that information. TS won't be won over by engaging in a public sparring match.

Probably right.  I'm probably naive but I just don't understand why so much of this falls on us to provide.  What is the purpose of TS if not to be the expert voice in the room.  Basically all they are actually doing is marking our homework.

I'm a qualified coach in another sport - it's like me asking someone to tell me what they think the technique should be to play a shot and provide a detailed explanation as to why.  Or maybe, I could just show them.

[HK Blues]

13 minutes ago, stu2910 said:

Probably right.  I'm probably naive but I just don't understand why so much of this falls on us to provide.  What is the purpose of TS if not to be the expert voice in the room.  Basically all they are actually doing is marking our homework.

I'm a qualified coach in another sport - it's like me asking someone to tell me what they think the technique should be to play a shot and provide a detailed explanation as to why.  Or maybe, I could just show them.

To be fair, TS have said they are prepared to offer support and assistance to DBH - either they're overplaying what they've offered or we've not recognised the offer for what it was.  

[TC86]

5 hours ago, jojo gunn said:

Agreed there will only be one winner and that's Transport Scotland, our JN has got same Billy Big Baws mentality like Trump 

I think that's  a bit harsh .

We don't know who is truly at fault here but from hearing stories from people i know who in the past have tried to engage with DCC for example on something that would have been of great benefit to the city i am told not only where they not in any way helpful but were actually putting road blocks in the way more than likely because it fell in to the too hard basket. Perhaps this Stadium plan may have an element of that for the relevant authorities .

Im no expert and may be wrong but my reading of this is that DBH are asking Transport Scotland to let them know EXACTLY what it is that they are looking for so as they can then provide it and Transport Scotland are saying its not our job to tell DBH what they should propose .

Now given this project will bring a lot of investment and job creation as well as a state of the art modern ., much needed facility to the city that will benefit the wider community as well as DFC , I would like to think that maybe Transport Scotland can do a bit more here .

As for DBH and John Nelms , this has already cost millions of pounds , it has dragged on for a very long time and if he feels we are being hampered by a lack of help from transport Scotland then i totally get his frustration and wanting to air that in the hope that it maybe gives TS a nudge and applies a bit of pressure which hopefully is what this has resulted in happening .

It would seem that they have at least been forced TS to come out and address things which hopefully now leads to further and improved dialogue to get tis over the line . 

[markthedee]

Maybe I'm being naive, but why should the trunk roads network be a problem at all?

Dens doesn't have a direct link to a trunk road, so why is one needed at the new stadium? Just let the Kingsway bypass the site as it currently does. 

Ordinary fans won't be parking at the stadium anyway, so the traffic will be distributed all around the local area as happens around Dens. 

If the issue is visiting buses, then why would this be any different to buses already using the Old Glamis Road circle or Forfar Road lights? 

[stu2910]

46 minutes ago, markthedee said:

Maybe I'm being naive, but why should the trunk roads network be a problem at all?

Dens doesn't have a direct link to a trunk road, so why is one needed at the new stadium? Just let the Kingsway bypass the site as it currently does. 

Ordinary fans won't be parking at the stadium anyway, so the traffic will be distributed all around the local area as happens around Dens. 

If the issue is visiting buses, then why would this be any different to buses already using the Old Glamis Road circle or Forfar Road lights? 

This is a planning application, there's no room here for common sense.  I'm not sure how many parking spaces have been proposed that you would access directly from the Kingsway, but I can't imagine it's enough to cause any meaningful congestion - certainly not tailing back to Myrekirk as was suggested at one point.  The site is actually on one of the quietest parts of the Kingsway, as the Myrekirk lights naturally prevent any build up of traffic on that stretch.  All of the traffic build up will be west of Myrekirk and west of the Not-the-Swallow lights, which is no different to the current situation.  The real impact will probably be around the Macalpine road roundabout as I would imagine most driving home fans will go through or near that to access one of the industrial estates.

[Donny O]

3 hours ago, stu2910 said:

So basically we have submitted 2 suggestions and TS have said that neither is acceptable, but don't seem to want to tell us what would be acceptable as it's our job to put a proposal to them.  Nelms might have made plenty of mistakes over the years but I'm not sure how much blame he can take for this - he's not a traffic planning expert and clearly a firm has been appointed to be that voice on our side and either they're not doing a very good job or TS are just being stubborn.  IMO, TS should exist to tell us what the acceptable solutions would be, not the other way around. Nelms has openly said he wants to meet them to get this sorted so hopefully they agree.

Thinking about the site though, in terms of transport access how can we ever actually choose a site that's better?  There certainly won't be one within the city limits.  It's next door to the biggest road through the city that fans from basically everywhere except Kirkcaldy would approach the city on.  It has very little effect on existing houses and access, no matter how you look at it, will be by existing roads.  The only thing they could possibly want us to do differently would be to build a whole new slip road just before the existing one, that cuts into some of the "prime dog walking land" previously suggested for the training ground, which will never happen, or build a new roundabout or similar, which probably isn't possible due to space.  Maybe we will have to build into Perth & Kinross and St Johnstone will become a derby after all.

Would rather it wasnt in P&K but would accept Angus.

[Donny O]

My view has always been that the Camperdown site doesnt fit in with the Council Master Plan to regenerate the city.I think they want a multi purpose arena used by both clubs in a location nearer the centre.Now where that could be i dont know!!....Docks,Ex Rail yards ive no idea!!! 

[Irene Marot]

Maybe need to make tentative plans on Strathmartine Rd or Invergowrie. See how DCC like the thought of Angus or P&K getting all the grants and funding this will attract.