Butts Park Arena is new home (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.

italiahorse

Well-Known Member
Doesn;t that mean it's being used to expand the Butts / car parking / frontage and a mixed use development?

SHLAA means Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment
The Local plan will include other developments.

Sisu need to explain exactly what they are doing.
 

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
So how long is now since we announced we will be building our new stadium. Am I correct that so far as fans we have seen some artist sketches and that is it?
 

Nick

Administrator
SHLAA means Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment
The Local plan will include other developments.

Sisu need to explain exactly what they are doing.

Is it for the bit to the site and in between? They will cram houses in anywhere!
 

Otis

Well-Known Member
So how long is now since we announced we will be building our new stadium. Am I correct that so far as fans we have seen some artist sketches and that is it?
Yeah and they were by Salvador Dali, so no-one has a clue about where, why and how a stadium that looks like a melting umbrella would ever be a goer.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
SHLAA means Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment
The Local plan will include other developments.

Sisu need to explain exactly what they are doing.

I would have thought the chap that runs CRFC would need to explain what was happening at the Butts. He's the one who has said that he is in the process of puchasing land around the stadium with a view to expansion.

Remember all CCFC have said about the Butts is 'no comment'
 

oldskyblue58

CCFC Finance Director
Remember all CCFC have said about the Butts is 'no comment'

No official comment no ......... but haven't we been told that "sources" close to the club had confirmed this and that?

In any case the CCC SHLAA is only an outline plan aimed at proving what could be done in respect of housing. Its not cast in stone and alternative usage might be possible, with the caveat of it fitting in to the area in an appropriate manner. Matter of opinion as to whether a 15k or 20k seated stadium is appropriate or even possible
 
J

Jack Griffin

Guest
Info was found here, extract below http://www.coventry.gov.uk/downloads/file/18834/draft_shlaa_appendices
butts-10.jpg
 

Nick

Administrator
Where are they going to build houses there? You would think the front would be car parking for the Butts.

Hasn't the owner said he is buying some land? You would think what he wants is within that area.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
I think as far as the Butts in concerned I'm going to work on the basis that it would, with some creative architecture, be possible but that until we hear something from the club to say its happening its not really worth worrying about too much.
 
J

Jack Griffin

Guest
Where are they going to build houses there? You would think the front would be car parking for the Butts.

Hasn't the owner said he is buying some land? You would think what he wants is within that area.

Read the text, it answers your questions, why you can't read it for yourself and interpret the information is beyond me.
 

chiefdave

Well-Known Member
I must be reading it wrong then. Is 85 units = 85 houses? Is there enough land for 85 houses, a car park, leisure facilities and a frontage to the Butts? Also allowing room for the Butts and its possible expansion?
 

Nick

Administrator
Read the text, it answers your questions, why you can't read it for yourself and interpret the information is beyond me.
I am struggling to see where it says which bits will be leisure and which bits will be 85 houses (whether it is the bit at the side or the back, or both). The front part to the road will be the Butts frontage.

It also doesn't mention anything about Cov Rugby owner and which bits he is trying to buy.
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
Sounds like there's no chance of rotating the ground to allow the site to be developed above 20k if that was ever possible in the first place. It seems that any development will have to be done on the existing position of the pitch which limits the development possibilities of the site. Also looks like the recreation ground is of limits too.

There's no scope here to move the club forward, it's as most have been saying it's another Red Herring. Probably to appease the FL on this occasion IMO. I can't believe it has fooled anyone even with an ounce of local knowledge.

Fine for CRFC and a non league football team, in fact could be a great little stadium for the right type of tenants.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Where are they going to build houses there? You would think the front would be car parking for the Butts.

Hasn't the owner said he is buying some land? You would think what he wants is within that area.

Could be flats couldn't it? Seems more likely in that location.

I always got the impression the SHLAA was a bit of a bridge anyway to show they've thought about housing, though a long way off an actual proposal.
 

Nick

Administrator
Could be flats couldn't it? Seems more likely in that location.

I always got the impression the SHLAA was a bit of a bridge anyway to show they've thought about housing, though a long way off an actual proposal.

Very True, didn't think of that. Would fit in with the Extracare complex.
 

skybluetony176

Well-Known Member
I am struggling to see where it says which bits will be leisure and which bits will be 85 houses (whether it is the bit at the side or the back, or both). The front part to the road will be the Butts frontage.

It also doesn't mention anything about Cov Rugby owner and which bits he is trying to buy.

The area outlined in ink is what's available for development. The bits that will be leisure and the bits that are residential will depend on whatever plan's are submitted and then passed. The area outlined is a blank canvas. That's probably why CRFC are keen to take control of the surrounding land and the lease on the BPA. Once they have complete control of the whole site they can move forward with the development of the BPA.
 

Nick

Administrator
The area outlined in ink is what's available for development. The bits that will be leisure and the bits that are residential will depend on whether plan's are submitted and then passed. The area outlined is a blank canvas. That's probably why CRFC are keen to take control of the surrounding land and the lease on the BPA. Once they have complete control of the whole site they can move forward with the development of the BPA.

Cheers, I got that it was within the lines and it was a bit of a mixture was more of putting it out there "Where would it go".

I guess it would make sense as Schmeee says for flats at the back and then the BPA stuff to the side and the front.
 
J

Jack Griffin

Guest
I am struggling to see where it says which bits will be leisure and which bits will be 85 houses (whether it is the bit at the side or the back, or both). The front part to the road will be the Butts frontage.

It also doesn't mention anything about Cov Rugby owner and which bits he is trying to buy.

1) Active frontage for Stadium (ie not the back).
2) Development linked to former Tech College development (ie the bit that joins up with the rear area).
3) Consultations have taken place previously (presumably with Cov RFC, who else could it be).

I think this is enough to chew on. You'll not be spoon fed an answer in a situation like this, you have to read between the lines a bit.
 

Nick

Administrator
1) Active frontage for Stadium (ie not the back).
2) Development linked to former Tech College development (ie the bit that joins up with the rear area).
3) Consultations have taken place previously (presumably with Cov RFC, who else could it be).

I think this is enough to chew on. You'll not be spoon fed an answer in a situation like this, you have to read between the lines a bit.

Ah, I thought you meant in here. Ill have a read of the attachment when I get home!

butts-10.jpg
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
The viability section basically says that the demand for apartments (high-density) needs to grow to make the site viable for a residential development. Let's face it, it's been derelict for a number of years.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
Stick some student flats next to the old folks, that's work out fine ;)

It's all students around there all ready.

Anyway I thought the plan was to move them all into the City Centre to free up proper houses for proper people.
 

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
I think I recall hearing about plans for a new stadium Jan 2013. So three years for a drawing!!

I feel sorry for those poor buggers who attended those stadium meetings.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
I think I recall hearing about plans for a new stadium Jan 2013. So three years for a drawing!!

I feel sorry for those poor buggers who attended those stadium meetings.

Bit like those clowns who went down the pub with Hoffman, Elliot and Haskell I guess.
 

dongonzalos

Well-Known Member
Bit like those clowns who went down the pub with Hoffman, Elliot and Haskell I guess.

Ha ha a one off meeting whilst having a nice pint in the pub. That at least did see an attempt to do something afterwards. Bit like the ML PR meetings with fans.
No those poor buggers at the stadium meetings spent a lot of their time a numerous meetings. Very harsh.
3 years and a drawing it's quite mental really. I really hope Les Reid and the CET start really asking some proper questions about this.
 

robbiethemole

Well-Known Member
in that map, could the pitch be turned 90 degrees? might make it a bit more acceptable but I dont want to go there it's too far from Rugby :sarcasm:
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Ha ha a one off meeting whilst having a nice pint in the pub. That at least did see an attempt to do something afterwards. Bit like the ML PR meetings with fans.
No those poor buggers at the stadium meetings spent a lot of their time a numerous meetings. Very harsh.
3 years and a drawing it's quite mental really. I really hope Les Reid and the CET start really asking some proper questions about this.

No the CET should have dismissed Haskell for the chancer he clearly was and the SBT and the council the same. The nonsense attempt at regime change led to mamy subsequent issues. Haskell never had any intention to buy and it resulted in major issues down the line.
 

italiahorse

Well-Known Member
No the CET should have dismissed Haskell for the chancer he clearly was and the SBT and the council the same. The nonsense attempt at regime change led to mamy subsequent issues. Haskell never had any intention to buy and it resulted in major issues down the line.

How do you know he had no intentions ?
I suggest that if the Golden share was in the company it 'should' have been Sisu would be long gone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top