Expansion

[Main Stand SeasonTct]

Will be interesting to see if this this newly formed W&F council are prepared to help or hinder the club.
I've a feeling that if the club appealed to Barrow town hall-they would either be powerless or refer the club to the powers that be further up the coast.

W&F council are Barrow Town Hall. As well as Kendal and Penrith.

[bluessupporter]

This is down to some obsessed functionary in Workington or Carlisle.

Why would they be obsessed with Wesmorland and Furness?

[Hadrian]

Will be interesting to see if this this newly formed W&F council are prepared to help or hinder the club.
I've a feeling that if the club appealed to Barrow town hall-they would either be powerless or refer the club to the powers that be further up the coast.

Barrow Town Hall is a Westmorland & Furness Council base.

The new 'Barrow Parish Council' - the lowest tier of local government - is housed there under an agreement with W&F Council and will cover (mainly the urban) areas which weren't covered by a parish of town council pre-April. It (BPC) may adopt the name Barrow Town Council (perhaps it already has) but that doesn't change its very limited functions.

[barrowaberdeen]

This is down to some obsessed functionary in Workington or Carlisle.

Why would they be obsessed with Wesmorland and Furness?

If you can see anywhere else the Highways are based good luck

[PMc]

Won't happen, they will get 300 in the corner if it's not all signed off apparently

Bonkers for me, By the way I personally hate the idea of giving up our home end but Pro League footy is incredibly expensive & they would easily bring 1500+ if we let them & it’s literally free money to reinvest in the club, So if our support isn’t filling the ground & several clubs would fill the Holker end I’d personally let them until everything is sorted, Who knows with the way we operate????

Newcastle United’s home end was The Leazes unti the club looked at redeveloping the ground

They demolished the popular side and built the New East stand ( still known as the new stand - but now the oldest )

The Leazes came down in 1978
But by then Newcastle had been relegated
The Leazes held circa 17000-20,000
This was reduced to 5,000 paddock for a never build stand

The fans therefore relocated to The Gallowgate

This could be the way forward for Barrow in a long term development

A seated Holker end for away fans with a redeveloped end opposite

The main issue is the BOD have improved a lovely old ground which hadn’t seen much investment since 1972

[behind the goals]

Is Tuesday August 1st set in stone regarding the new seats to be compliant with the EFL and having our central payments being stopped if the work is not passed off in time, but work on the Steelworks/Cross Bar End putting in new seats have not even started yet, without the EFL payments who pays players when we can no longer pay them the PFA would have to step in to help.

[bluessupporter]

Is Tuesday August 1st set in stone regarding the new seats to be compliant with the EFL and having our central payments being stopped if the work is not passed off in time, but work on the Steelworks/Cross Bar End putting in new seats have not even started yet, without the EFL payments who pays players when we can no longer pay them the PFA would have to step in to help.

Wasn't there a recent statement from the club saying that the EFL is happy with the current situation?

[Bingo]

Is Tuesday August 1st set in stone regarding the new seats to be compliant with the EFL and having our central payments being stopped if the work is not passed off in time, but work on the Steelworks/Cross Bar End putting in new seats have not even started yet, without the EFL payments who pays players when we can no longer pay them the PFA would have to step in to help.

Crossbar seats have nothing to do with the requirements these are just extras.

We have 2000 seats in the ground just because they can't be used shouldn't be a concern to the efl. The 1st August thing seams to be a letter from the club to planning, I'm sure it will be fine.

[bluessupporter]

Presumably if the Council digs in its heels about the 1000 parking spaces there is an appeal process during which we will be allowed to continue playing.

[MisterPleasant]

This is the Local Highways objection. They say:

"Our parking standards (F2) for outdoor sports stipulates 1 space per 10m² of public space. This roughly equates to 1100 spaces plus cycle facilities and the report [provided by the club] only details 415 spaces.
LHA recommends refusal on grounds of insufficient parking"

I'm unable to find a document detailing their parking standards (F2) so can't find a definition of what they call "outdoor sports". As we haven't increased the amount of public space, merely introduced seating within it, it would seem we have fallen foul for who knows how long? I would think that just about every league club in the country fails to meet that standard. It would appear to be a case of applying the rules without any consideration of the reality. In the club's report it specifically states that free parking is available at Liberata but 200 spaces go begging at every game.

I presume, though, that Planning Officers can choose to set the objection aside, can they?
Bizarre.

[Jim]

This is the Local Highways objection. They say:

"Our parking standards (F2) for outdoor sports stipulates 1 space per 10m² of public space. This roughly equates to 1100 spaces plus cycle facilities and the report [provided by the club] only details 415 spaces.
LHA recommends refusal on grounds of insufficient parking"

Our ground has been there for almost a century and since modern times, when car ownership increased, there has never been any significant numbers of parking spaces at the ground. In my day, we used to park on Cemetery Hill, or occasionally at the Tally Ho. I have been to many away grounds: eg, Hartlepool , Harrogate, Mansfield, York City (when they were at Bootham), and many others, and none have much in the way of on-site parking. Even Middlesbrough, with their capacity of 25,000 or more, talk about "limited parking spaces at the ground" and mention "plenty of on-street parking near the ground".

If we are offering 415 spaces at the ground, situated in a built up area (unlike Middlesbrough's new stadium), I think we are doing very well.

[Moribund]

This is the Local Highways objection. They say:

"Our parking standards (F2) for outdoor sports stipulates 1 space per 10m² of public space. This roughly equates to 1100 spaces plus cycle facilities and the report [provided by the club] only details 415 spaces.
LHA recommends refusal on grounds of insufficient parking"

I'm unable to find a document detailing their parking standards (F2) so can't find a definition of what they call "outdoor sports". As we haven't increased the amount of public space, merely introduced seating within it, it would seem we have fallen foul for who knows how long? I would think that just about every league club in the country fails to meet that standard. It would appear to be a case of applying the rules without any consideration of the reality. In the club's report it specifically states that free parking is available at Liberata but 200 spaces go begging at every game.

I presume, though, that Planning Officers can choose to set the objection aside, can they?
Bizarre.

Yeah, it’s just a recommended refusal - which they have to do because it doesn’t meet their criteria.

[blue nige]

This is the Local Highways objection. They say:

"Our parking standards (F2) for outdoor sports stipulates 1 space per 10m² of public space. This roughly equates to 1100 spaces plus cycle facilities and the report [provided by the club] only details 415 spaces.
LHA recommends refusal on grounds of insufficient parking"

I'm unable to find a document detailing their parking standards (F2) so can't find a definition of what they call "outdoor sports". As we haven't increased the amount of public space, merely introduced seating within it, it would seem we have fallen foul for who knows how long? I would think that just about every league club in the country fails to meet that standard. It would appear to be a case of applying the rules without any consideration of the reality. In the club's report it specifically states that free parking is available at Liberata but 200 spaces go begging at every game.

I presume, though, that Planning Officers can choose to set the objection aside, can they?
Bizarre.

That's why I stated if we appealed a good lawyer would wipe the floor with these planners don't know why people are stressing over this .
The irony of it all is that everywhere you look people are advocating using less cars etc yet our council seem to be in an opposite direction

[_bluebird_]

Tally ho charging £2 per Car on their car park would make a lot of sense. Easy money in for them and extra spaces should they ever be needed. If they weren't needed people could park elsewhere and park free

[Jonty]

Can someone please clarify who is the ultimate decision maker in all this?

I presume that this highways recommendation for refusal can be considered but not upheld. There’s absolutely no strong basis for supporting the recommendation being made. The ground capacity may increase by 1000 with these seats but there’s not many games where we would have a sell out unless we draw a big side in a cup game.
So where we have had no highways parking requirement previously for a ground capacity of circa 5200 and no issues (refer to Villa game), we now have a recommendation for refusal being made that seems disproportionate to any gain in ground capacity and on any strong examples of any previous issues. Fans disperse in all directions to return to parked cars after the game.