All things Dundee FC

[Vicdfc]

2 hours ago, rhumbaclub said:

Who are the "Dundee Civic Trust" and how much clout do they have?

They have responded to our stadium planning application basically tearing it to shreds, the part where they mention no consideration to ground sharing is very bizarre.

1. the unsafe, dangerous and congestion-inducing transportation proposals;

2. the substantially increased car use which will be inevitable, given the relatively isolated location from existing residential centres;

3. the fact that the excessive congestion in the whole area will not be limited to football match days, but will extend to the times – possibly over more than one day – when the stadium will be used as a “concert venue set-up – 8,000-20,000 [spectators]”;

4. the residential developments for the proposed 180 homes, both flats and houses, which are contrary to the Local Development Plan;

5. the hotel, situated on the outskirts of the city rather in the centre, which is contrary to policies in the Local Development Plan 2019 [LDP2];

6. the crematorium, for which no significant demand is established, and which is unsuitably located;

7. the increase in commercial operations, which will adversely affect other businesses, and are contrary to Town Centre First Policy and which will result in loss of jobs elsewhere;

8. the lack of any published consideration of alternative solutions in the Club’s existing site, or ground sharing at Tannadice;

9. the additional environmental pollution and carbon emissions, both in the construction and the subsequent use of the development;

10. the poor design of many aspects of buildings, especially the stadium itself, open areas, housing and access arrangements;

11. the area not being suitably developed as a 20-minute neighbourhood;

12. the encroaching on to green, public open spaces which have for decades been set aside for public enjoyment, and the use of which is enshrined in legislation

13. the consequential destruction of trees, flora, open land, and visual amenity, which provide for the well-being of park and tourist visitors; 14. the insufficient ambition in the proposed energy uses, though some aspects are commendable; and 15. the many planning matters which contravene (despite assertions to the contrary by the applicants) many of the national and local policies and guidelines, such as the recent National Planning Framework [NPF4], LDP2, Town Centre First Policy, and Active Travel guidelines.

 

There full of dabs and irrelevant to the stadium 

[Theyellowbox]

13 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

Surely there is a Provost or a couple of Councillors we can chuck a brown envelope at to make this all go away?

You'd have to have something to put in that brown envelope first though. IOU's don't count.

I'm all for you guys getting this built and think it would be a good thing for all of Scottish football if there is better facilities. To me, pretty much everything flagged is nonsense and probably easy enough to resolve, but if nothing else, these groups can quite materially hold these sort of developments up.

As much as it sounds like the club have done a lot of hard work in terms of speeaking to the right people and heading off as many issues as possible, if there is more red tape and delays put in place, how long can the club lose millions each year and stuck in appeals/consultations etc, before the owners give up? Not trolling as nothing to date would suggest they'd give up, but people can only stick at something for so long before patience wears off, which is what I suspect the civic group are banking on. 

[rhumbaclub]

44 minutes ago, Pens_Dark said:

They're not an elected or statutory body. Nor are they a notified consultee on planning applications. They are a voluntary led organisation that 'encourage' good design in the city - whatever that means and clearly by their own standards. They are no more than a nosy community council for example who may have some influence in determining planning applications, Broughty Ferry community council for example.

Basically, if the people who's actual job it is to consult or be involved with the planning determination are in support of it, there is nothing much the Civic Trust can do. 

There's plenty of examples within their response that you can point to but the main ones for me are:

- Traffic congestion and increase in RTA as a result of the stadium. There has been consultants employed on this to produce detailed models to prove that it wouldn't be an issue - are we to just disregard that as false because the Civic trust says so?

- 'Poor design of many aspects of the building' - by who's standards? What gives them that right to decide this? Have they cross-referenced that against the Local Development plan? 

- Encroaching on to green, public open spaces - This was in the tully a few weeks ago in which some daft old duffer was moaning about the fact the stadium would be built on 'green space' that people regularly enjoyed walking on....What? As opposed to the wonderful green open space of the ACTUAL park at Camperdown? The area the stadium is to be built on has been overgrown and mis-used by neds on scramblers for years now.

Long rant, sorry, but this sort of negativity and stubborn attempting of blocking development that is what I deal with every day in my job with planning applications I submit. There has been an extremely detailed PPiP put in by Dundee that has taken years of modelling and strategy and it's always more easy to do the simple thing of going 'nah this is shit, I don't support it'.

I bet they haven't even looked through all the documents.

ETA - Oh...and their stance is that Dundee should sell off their land at Dens and groundshare with United at Tannadice. I think that tells you everything you need to know ..

Cheers for the detailed reply. Yeah the groundshare part is strange to say the least.

[Pens_Dark]

2 minutes ago, Theyellowbox said:

You'd have to have something to put in that brown envelope first though. IOU's don't count.

I'm all for you guys getting this built and think it would be a good thing for all of Scottish football if there is better facilities. To me, pretty much everything flagged is nonsense and probably easy enough to resolve, but if nothing else, these groups can quite materially hold these sort of developments up.

As much as it sounds like the club have done a lot of hard work in terms of speeaking to the right people and heading off as many issues as possible, if there is more red tape and delays put in place, how long can the club lose millions each year and stuck in appeals/consultations etc, before the owners give up? Not trolling as nothing to date would suggest they'd give up, but people can only stick at something for so long before patience wears off, which is what I suspect the civic group are banking on. 

In essence, the football operations at dens and the business that owns the land where the new stadium is to be built on are two separate entities, but you're right how long would it be before the Nelms & Keyes accept defeat. I think that it why there has been as much up front information as possible in this type of planning application, which isn't usually required. 

These groups are fine, fundamentally, they stand up for the preservation or betterment of the area in which they live. More often than not though, those intentions are skewed as they end up just becoming a deliberate hurdle for allowing development to take place. The real issue is how much credit local authority give to community councils and trusts like these and stand strong on their determinations. Generally, if planning applications are refused, appeals don't usually take too long in the grand scheme of things.

[stu2910]

2 hours ago, rhumbaclub said:

Who are the "Dundee Civic Trust" and how much clout do they have?

They have responded to our stadium planning application basically tearing it to shreds, the part where they mention no consideration to ground sharing is very bizarre.

1. the unsafe, dangerous and congestion-inducing transportation proposals;

2. the substantially increased car use which will be inevitable, given the relatively isolated location from existing residential centres;

3. the fact that the excessive congestion in the whole area will not be limited to football match days, but will extend to the times – possibly over more than one day – when the stadium will be used as a “concert venue set-up – 8,000-20,000 [spectators]”;

4. the residential developments for the proposed 180 homes, both flats and houses, which are contrary to the Local Development Plan;

5. the hotel, situated on the outskirts of the city rather in the centre, which is contrary to policies in the Local Development Plan 2019 [LDP2];

6. the crematorium, for which no significant demand is established, and which is unsuitably located;

7. the increase in commercial operations, which will adversely affect other businesses, and are contrary to Town Centre First Policy and which will result in loss of jobs elsewhere;

8. the lack of any published consideration of alternative solutions in the Club’s existing site, or ground sharing at Tannadice;

9. the additional environmental pollution and carbon emissions, both in the construction and the subsequent use of the development;

10. the poor design of many aspects of buildings, especially the stadium itself, open areas, housing and access arrangements;

11. the area not being suitably developed as a 20-minute neighbourhood;

12. the encroaching on to green, public open spaces which have for decades been set aside for public enjoyment, and the use of which is enshrined in legislation

13. the consequential destruction of trees, flora, open land, and visual amenity, which provide for the well-being of park and tourist visitors; 14. the insufficient ambition in the proposed energy uses, though some aspects are commendable; and 15. the many planning matters which contravene (despite assertions to the contrary by the applicants) many of the national and local policies and guidelines, such as the recent National Planning Framework [NPF4], LDP2, Town Centre First Policy, and Active Travel guidelines.

 

Can't reply to all in detail but basically:

Transport Scotland are happy and more qualified than the Civic Trust.

Maybe more car use, especially short term, but it moves it away from the city itself.

There will be a couple of concerts a year and they always cause congestion.  I'd rather they caused congestion here than in another city.

Residential maybe is contrary to the plan, but plans can change if a better option comes along.

A big events site needs a hotel, it would be stupid not to.

Everyone knows there is demand for a crematorium.

It's possible to create new jobs without losing others in the city.  That's how you grow.

We can easily build a new stadium at Dens but would have no funding to do so, it's been covered endlessly for years.  Also, while ground sharing has merit a planning application can't be refused on that logic.  Dundee and Dundee Utd are rival businesses competing for the same customers.  You wouldn't refuse Asda a new store because they could easily just add it on to the back of Tesco, it's idiotic.  Also, Tannadice is barely any more capable of being an events space than Dens is.

Emissions happen, are we supposed to just not build anything any more?

Poor Design.  Great, thanks...based on what?  Any suggestions of what would be better?

Surely housing, commerical (which I'm assuming will involve a small shop), events plus a doctors surgery was mentioned I'm sure, is the definition of a 20 min neighbourhood.  Other than a school which they'd be up in arms about too what else would you need?

Green spaces for the enjoyment of who?  The site has been a mess for forever and is already earmarked for development.

Trees, hardly any lost.  Flora, clear mentions were made of areas supporting this.  Open land and visual amenity, so you want empty space to stand in and look at more empty, post industrial empty space.  You can currently see multis, an old ugly water tower and a bunch of other unattractive stuff from Camperdown.  Is a nice new development that you can just about see if you try really hard not an improvement?

Not sure what more they can do to be more energy efficient but I'm sure everything that can be done will be.  Every new development is the same now.  Was there a hint of a compliment there though?!

You can't build a new stadium complex in the city centre, as much as we'd all love it.  So how on earth do you get round that?  Are we just never allowed to build one?  There was plenty mention of active travel, I remember being specifically bored by it.

My only "complaint" really is that we are a UNESCO city of design, so it would be fantastic to be able to create something "extraordinary" rather than the "nice end of legoland" design with a hint of Dens.  Unfortunately the kind of money needed for that just doesn't exist for a club of our size.

Edited April 10 by stu2910

[Shadow Play]

9 minutes ago, Pens_Dark said:

In essence, the football operations at dens and the business that owns the land where the new stadium is to be built on are two separate entities, but you're right how long would it be before the Nelms & Keyes accept defeat. I think that it why there has been as much up front information as possible in this type of planning application, which isn't usually required. 

These groups are fine, fundamentally, they stand up for the preservation or betterment of the area in which they live. More often than not though, those intentions are skewed as they end up just becoming a deliberate hurdle for allowing development to take place. The real issue is how much credit local authority give to community councils and trusts like these and stand strong on their determinations. Generally, if planning applications are refused, appeals don't usually take too long in the grand scheme of things.

I agree they can be useful but my main issue with certain conservation / similar type groups is with regards to the modernisation of older buildings.   I’m thinking specifically when they complain about exterior cladding to increase the energy efficiency of of old tenements.  Their primary concern appears to be the effect such cladding has on the aesthetics.  Never mind the residents who are struggling to heat their homes.   As long as the character of the area many simply drive through to get to their expensive homes doesn’t lose its history and character.

The same with listed buildings.  The repairs are prohibitively expensive so they are destined to simply fall into a state of disrepair.  I’m thinking of the house at the top of Roseangle.

 

[Pens_Dark]

14 minutes ago, stu2910 said:

Can't reply to all in detail but basically:

Transport Scotland are happy and more qualified than the Civic Trust.

Maybe more car use, especially short term, but it moves it away from the city itself.

There will be a couple of concerts a year and they always cause congestion.  I'd rather they caused congestion here than in another city.

Residential maybe is contrary to the plan, but plans can change if a better option comes along.

A big events site needs a hotel, it would be stupid not to.

Everyone knows there is demand for a crematorium.

It's possible to create new jobs without losing others in the city.  That's how you grow.

We can easily build a new stadium at Dens but would have no funding to do so, it's been covered endlessly for years.  Also, while ground sharing has merit a planning application can't be refused on that logic.  Dundee and Dundee Utd are rival businesses competing for the same customers.  You wouldn't refuse Asda a new store because they could easily just add it on to the back of Tesco, it's idiotic.  Also, Tannadice is barely any more capable of being an events space than Dens is.

Emissions happen, are we supposed to just not build anything any more?

Poor Design.  Great, thanks...based on what?  Any suggestions of what would be better?

Surely housing, commerical (which I'm assuming will involve a small shop), events plus a doctors surgery was mentioned I'm sure, is the definition of a 20 min neighbourhood.  Other than a school which they'd be up in arms about too what else would you need?

Green spaces for the enjoyment of who?  The site has been a mess for forever and is already earmarked for development.

Trees, hardly any lost.  Flora, clear mentions were made of areas supporting this.  Open land and visual amenity, so you want empty space to stand in and look at more empty, post industrial empty space.  You can currently see multis, an old ugly water tower and a bunch of other unattractive stuff from Camperdown.  Is a nice new development that you can just about see if you try really hard not an improvement?

Not sure what more they can do to be more energy efficient but I'm sure everything that can be done will be.  Every new development is the same now.  Was there a hint of a compliment there though?!

You can't build a new stadium complex in the city centre, as much as we'd all love it.  So how on earth do you get round that?  Are we just never allowed to build one?  There was plenty mention of active travel, I remember being specifically bored by it.

It is laughable for them to suggest that Tannadice is any more fit for purpose than Dens is. 'Lets just do away with the shed and build a new two-tiered stand in place'. Completely disregarding the fact that the fair play is a maze of hell that barely complies with fire standards...i'd be surprised if it even did. 

RE emissions...exactly. What the f**k is 'sustainable design'? The saying is a total oxymoron as any construction has a carbon footprint. Its a myth to say any new construction is 'sustainable' and anyone that suggests otherwise is getting caught up in the same whataboutery of 'offsetting' that politicians do.

The poor design thing just fucks me off to no end. It's barely even worth responding to. 

Incidentally they didn't seem to have any issues with the swallow roundabout upgrades that, as a result of said upgrade, has seen a forest of trees ripped down which had clearly been home to all sorts of wildlife. 

It will of course be energy efficient as is has standards that it needs to comply with and also sustainability standards. Just how far Dundee choose to take that is up to them. 

 

It's just a bunch of old bored duffers trying to fill their time up with semi-informed views.

Edited April 10 by Pens_Dark

[Pens_Dark]

9 minutes ago, Shadow Play said:

I agree they can be useful but my main issue with certain conservation / similar type groups is with regards to the modernisation of older buildings.   I’m thinking specifically when they complain about exterior cladding to increase the energy efficiency of of old tenements.  Their primary concern appears to be the effect such cladding has on the aesthetics.  Never mind the residents who are struggling to heat their homes.   As long as the character of the area many simply drive through to get to their expensive homes doesn’t lose its history and character.

The same with listed buildings.  The repairs are prohibitively expensive so they are destined to simply fall into a state of disrepair.  I’m thinking of the house at the top of Roseangle.

 

Yeah you're basically spot on. They want preservation of character and are quite prepared for that to be at the cost of betterment for people. Generally they treat prospective developers as a group that don't care and just want to make money. In my experience I've worked with plenty of developers that want to do the right thing and are still shot down by these numpties. 

[Scosha]

Before his injury, what was Tyler French particularly good at? 

[Spikethedee]

2 minutes ago, Scosha said:

Before his injury, what was Tyler French particularly good at? 

From what I've been told - looking like one sexy MF...

[Pens_Dark]

6 minutes ago, Scosha said:

Before his injury, what was Tyler French particularly good at? 

He was genuinely pretty good prior to his injury. Maybe we just weren't really accustomed to seeing good defenders at Dens for a while...

Amazing that I'm saying this but I wouldn't have him at his best over current Jordan Mcghee this season. Never been a massive fan of Mcghee but I think he's been brilliant for us. 

[Luke Newman]

1 hour ago, Scosha said:

Before his injury, what was Tyler French particularly good at? 

Running down the wing, moving the ball forward and winning the ball in the air.

[The Marly]

Well done the Dee. The meltdown you have caused at Ibrox should surely win awards at the end of the season. 

[tamthebam]

6 hours ago, stu2910 said:

Can't reply to all in detail but basically:

Transport Scotland are happy and more qualified than the Civic Trust.

Maybe more car use, especially short term, but it moves it away from the city itself.

There will be a couple of concerts a year and they always cause congestion.  I'd rather they caused congestion here than in another city.

Residential maybe is contrary to the plan, but plans can change if a better option comes along.

A big events site needs a hotel, it would be stupid not to.

Everyone knows there is demand for a crematorium.

 

But is it a burning demand? 

[Arab_R_us]

[Boo Khaki]

I don't really give a shit about top 6 because I'd rather have competitive post-split fixtures to look forward to than another couple of hidings from the OF, but I hope if we make it its after losing at Pittodrie and then shitfesting a 1-0 over Sevco, just for the added heads-gone.

[Bigmouth Strikes Again]

Mind blowing the state some morons are getting in, over a postponed game of football. IMO.

[Derry Alli]

How do you 'suitably place' a crematorium?

It's right next to Birkie, where people go to die - or for a steak pie. 

Imagine how much money that fucking place will make off this, BTW.

[Glen Scotia]

8 hours ago, Vicdfc said:

There full of dabs and irrelevant to the stadium 

I'd never heard if the civic trust. I see Brian Cox is a patron. Brian's cousin is Bobby Cox 

[Boo Khaki]

6 hours ago, Scosha said:

Before his injury, what was Tyler French particularly good at? 

Not being Cammy Kerr.