Sports village development

Gospel

Active Member
Thread starter #1
I read earlier that the original design for the sports village has been reconsidered and new options have been put forward to speed up the regeneration of the area.

The designs now are not for the ski slope above the arena but for smaller multifunctional buildings.

If thats the case is there the possibility of redeveloping/redesigning the arena to increase its capacity?
 

Wannabe2

Well-Known Member
#4
The snow dome was never above the rink, it was above the multi storey car park, that was going to be at the rear of the rink, which now is not in the running. Future development may happen in the next 20 yrs, as the promise in the BBT was a 3yr stay only that elongated to 10yrs. Our council like many others are full of crap, Goodway is saying this will happen, that will happen, but this same tosser told me our new arena would never be built, when we were in conflict with these morons.
 

pjj365

Well-Known Member
#6
Will grandiose ideas come to fruition?

At the same time as this the Council have gone out to tender for a 15k arena in the Bay

Can they join up their thinking here? "Spare" land at international sports village which they want to develop so they plan to demolish and rebuild Red Dragon centre on the existing car park to accommodate the arena without any firm plans to increase parking. (See the parallel with the sports village)

They can't even get a critical bus station/transport hub delivered to plan and time.

Let Goodway dream - he's good at that.

Anyway all these Bay based developments need private sector investment. Surely they will look at the record of Greenbank/Kier and think twice
 

hip check

Well-Known Member
#7
To be totally honest this 'Sports Village' that was originally planned has turned out to be a damp squib, 'snow domes' and 'ski slopes' etc, etc have turned out to be pie in the sky. With regards a larger capacity for the Viola that would be low on priority and tbh I don't think we need a larger capacity, this season I've yet to see a full house.
Houses will take priority with ice events pretty much bottom of the list..as usual.
 

Wannabe2

Well-Known Member
#8
To be totally honest this 'Sports Village' that was originally planned has turned out to be a damp squib, 'snow domes' and 'ski slopes' etc, etc have turned out to be pie in the sky. With regards a larger capacity for the Viola that would be low on priority and tbh I don't think we need a larger capacity, this season I've yet to see a full house.
Houses will take priority with ice events pretty much bottom of the list..as usual.
‘And that is spot on our council couldn’t give a flying fig about this so called International Sports Village, housing and retail is all that matters. John Lawless showed me plans for a 5k ice arena to be built in 2004, that’s 15yrs ago, at this moment in time we need to be thankful for what we have after all it’s a pretty neat gaff, and it’s home. What we do need even if it’s temporary is a meet with the council about parking, whether that’s Sorac or anyone else, it’s needed.
 

moggy#9

Well-Known Member
#9
The council on general and goodway in particular are a bunch of jerks. The plans to get rid of the road outside the rink and reduce the parking would have a huge negative effect on the devils and the rink in general. I can see there being huge drivers for the 15k arena, but the proposals for e sports village are idiotic and should be opposed.
 

pjj365

Well-Known Member
#10
The council on general and goodway in particular are a bunch of jerks. The plans to get rid of the road outside the rink and reduce the parking would have a huge negative effect on the devils and the rink in general. I can see there being huge drivers for the 15k arena, but the proposals for e sports village are idiotic and should be opposed.
I'm not sure it's just the arena which would be effected but the pool and white water center would also suffer.

If Wannabe2's idea of approaching the council is to be developed it needs to include the 3 incumbents together with existing residents who are already voicing their concerns on nextdoor.co.uk
 

Wannabe2

Well-Known Member
#11
I'm not sure it's just the arena which would be effected but the pool and white water center would also suffer.

If Wannabe2's idea of approaching the council is to be developed it needs to include the 3 incumbents together with existing residents who are already voicing their concerns on nextdoor.co.uk
‘Absolutely correct, strength in numbers that’s the key to any progress. Maybe a petition, if say 1400 season tickets got 10 people each to sign it then that’s 14,000, another 1000 through the door,then theirs all the public skaters, and other ice users, then we have the pool, water rafting, plus local residents, we could have anything between 17/18000, even 15000 would look very impressive. Even if the site of the old BBT temporary was sorted, it would be a great help, you most certainly can’t carry on with such limited parking, it’s only a suggestion but something needs sorting, and if no one stands up and be counted, our sleepy council will be quite happy to leave things as they are. Answers on a post card please.
 

pjj365

Well-Known Member
#12
Talking to a council employee this evening there are plans for improved transport links and/or parking but for some reason at this stage of the process (I.e. no plans but an ambition!) they can't even say this.

Apparently third party development will be dependent on transport provision but there is a need to take account of some factions within the council being anti car
 

Wannabe2

Well-Known Member
#13
plans, plans, plans, that’s all this council do have is plans, the money they have spent over the last 16/17 yrs for the sports village they could have paid for it 3 times over, but as long as someone is making a shed load, that’s all that matters.
 

pjj365

Well-Known Member
#14
plans, plans, plans, that’s all this council do have is plans, the money they have spent over the last 16/17 yrs for the sports village they could have paid for it 3 times over, but as long as someone is making a shed load, that’s all that matters.
In all these "social" developments the council are relying on Section 106 obligations.

What puzzles me is that as part of the bid process this need will be made public so why not, in vague terms, make this known as part of the PR. Unless of course there is a conflict of views within our elected representatives car v public transport
 
Top