• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

SOL expansion


Rotherham red'n'white said:
File links
Click to expand...
Aye interesting that as the club wanted to do the South Stand as shown in the COMMENTS at the bottom. With the metro, parking zones, new footbridge etc I wonder how much of the concerns/issues would be relevant now? It does seem there was a lot more to it back then than just hoying up the extension but how much would still be an issue next season when the footbridge is open? Such a shame we didn't kick on after those two 7th place seasons but back then but you can understand some of the concerns being an issue but how much now?

To save people having to open it, here's the South Stand stuff I'm talking about

REPRESENTATIONS:
Ten representations were received as a result of the original consultation exercise
carried out when this application was publicised in March 1999 and are summarised as follows.

STATUTORY BODIES.
Nexus and the Environment Agency have no comments to make on the planning aspects of the application. Nexus do point out the existence of a track that could be made up to a secure footpath between the Stadium and the proposed Stadium Metro station but point out that this would not be funded by Nexus.

The Environment Agency request that a condition be imposed on any consent that ensures no water courses are polluted by the development either during construction or when the development is complete.

Stagecoach have expressed concern over congestion that is currently caused by the development on match days which can result in bus delays and service cancellations. In order to ameliorate this they have suggested that greater use of public transport is encouraged by way of a special match day ticket and the introduction of bus priorities in the vicinity of the stadium to minimise the effect on local bus services.

Northumbria Police expressed the following concerns:-

a) Parking in the vicinity of the stadium is limited resulting in parking in nearby streets and Sheepfold Industrial Estate resulting in blocked driveways and factory gates causing distress to occupants.

b) Currently at the end of games 42,000 spectators attempt to leave the area simultaneously resulting in conflict between pedestrians and motorists. Millennium Bridge and Wearmouth Bridge are two particular areas of concern where in order to ensure safe passage of an estimated 20,000 supporters travelling on foot to the City Centre it is necessary to mount a police operation which consists of closing Millennium Bridge and two out of the three south bound lanes of the Wearmouth Bridge to vehicles. It is considered that the incremental increase in spectators from 42,000 to 47,500 and then 53,000 will compound these problems and could result in Wearmouth Bridge, a main arterial route into the City centre being closed to all southbound vehicles for a period after the game.

c) There is currently space for 20 coaches bringing away fans to the ground on Millennium Way outside of the south stand. The planned increase could result in the club allocating 6,500 tickets to away supporters resulting in excess of 40 coaches with no facility to accommodate the increase in coaches adjacent to the ground. This would result in parking away from the ground and pose a potential disorder situation.

d) Within the apron surrounding the stadium there is a designated route for emergency vehicles. In the event of an evacuation at the stadium supporters would be evacuated onto the apron and then onto the perimeter road allowing emergency vehicles a route in a clockwise direction around the stadium. The retention of this route is considered vital and the perimeter road is not considered acceptable as an emergency route as this would be blocked by evacuated supporters.

The Tyne and Wear Metropolitan Fire Brigade has expressed similar concerns over the potential loss of the emergency route and quote the 'Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds' (HMSO)which requires that adequate access to all buildings within the sports ground should be provided and that access routes should be separate from those used by spectators for access and egress. They consider that the impact of the development should be addressed by the City Council when considering the issue of a Safety Certificate under the Safety at Sports Grounds Act.

LOCAL RESIDENTS.
Three letters of objection were received from local residents concerned about the following matters:-

* On street parking on match days results in blocked streets and prevents access, particularly by emergency vehicles, in the area.
* Despite efforts by the police the problems still exist but could be controlled by the introduction of match day residents only parking schemes.
* Parking on match days prevents local residents from leaving or returning to the area due to spectator parking to the front and rear of properties.

WARD COUNCILLORS.
A representation was received from the three local Ward Councillors who were extremely concerned about on street parking and the effect this has on access to the area and the danger in an emergency situation when emergency vehicles could be prevented access to the site. They also suggest a residents only parking scheme should be introduced to the area.

A further representation was received from a resident of East Herrington who made reference to this and the original application relating to the following matters:-

* It is alleged the description of the application was incorrect in not stating the capacity of the proposed extension.
* The application should be referred to the Secretary of State for the Environment.
• That conditions attached to the original permission granted by the now defunct Tyne and Wear development Corporation have not been discharged and the consent was unlawful.

FURTHER CONSULTATIONS.
A further consultation exercise was carried out following the request to progress the application comprising the above respondents. The proposal was re-advertised by a further series of site notices and an advert in the press. The reconsultation was undertaken on the basis that the capacity of the stand was 5,500. It has now been clarified that the capacity will be 7,232. However, it was not felt that this increase merited a further consultation.

The following responses have been received:-NORTHUUBRIA POLICE

Millennium Bridge and Wearmouth Bridge cater for 20,000 spectators after games and to ensure pedestrian safety Millennium Bridge is closed completely and two lanes of Wearmouth Bridge in respect of vehicles. It is considered that an increase will possibly result in the closure of all south bound lanes on Wearmouth Bridge for a period of time after the games.

Northumbria Police reiterate their concerns concerning the grey paved area in the apron surrounding the ground and state that as the proposal will be built over this area an evacuation of the stadium would lead to this becoming congested with supporters forcing vehicles onto Millennium Way which is used by existing traffic accessing the area. This, it is considered, would lead to a conflict between emergency vehicles and spectators m the event of an evacuation.

Concern is also expressed concerning the parking of away supporters coaches, currently parked on Millennium Way adjacent to the South Stand, which will as a result of the proposal be parked away from the South Stand giving rise to public order and policing implications.

WARD COUNCILLORS QC
The Colliery Ward Councillors firmly reiterate their concerns over increased problems associated with parking and traffic flow which will result from the increased capacity. They also concur with the police view that building on the grey paved area around the stadium will dangerously hinder evacuation should an emergency arise

POLICIES:
In the Unitary Development Plan the site is subject to the following policies:
EN_10_Proposals for unallocated sites to be compatible with the neighbourhood CN_23_Measures to conserve / improve wildlife corridors

COMMENTS:
The club have now expressed their desire to proceed with this development and the two key issues relate to the design of the extension and the impact of the additional capacity on vehicle and pedestrian flows in the vicinity of the stadium.

Since approval for the North Stand was granted measures have been implemented by the club in order to ease the vehicle and pedestrian traffic flow on match 4ays including retaining cars in the car park adjacent to the stadium for thirty minutes after each home game thus allowing pedestrians to clear the site and the park and ride buses a clearer route away.

Discussions on additional parking, park and ride and alternative transport arrangements along with the installation of a 'Scoot' system which will prioritise traffic flow through traffic light management have been held.

The internal design has been altered to allow the 27 rows of seats in the upper tier of the west stand to continue around to this proposed stand. This allows for further seating to be installed and the capacity increased to 7,232, the capacity of the ground, dependant on away supporters and segregation would be increased to over 55,000.

The club are anxious to take the opportunity of an unusually long close season to commence work on the south stand and carry out such works that at present have to be suspended as home matches approach thus resulting in a loss of time. The issues raised by the north stand are complex and mitigation matters were assumed without knowledge of the exact timing of the Metro.
 
Last edited:
Di Canios Knees said:
That was definitely mentioned wasn’t it? Bring the boxes all the way round, will probably reduce capacity to about 45,000 but will bring in much more revenue with hospitality?
Click to expand...

Yeah mate but I suspect the capacity might actually increase slightly. It’s long way off though.

I do however think the club have finally realised our hospitality offering is poor and it needs improving - especially if we want to keep gigs coming to the stadium.

The good news is; as it’s now likely the mags will just redevelop SJP, there’s no danger they will take the big gigs from us.
Weststand said:
Is there anything in an east stand extension rumour? Was talked about a few months ago on here and otr
Click to expand...

Long term plans mate.
 
EssexYid said:
None of these figures are correct really there are too many variables involved, Spurs were notorious for cooking the attendance books in the 70/80s a full house of 51,000 or so was often called out as 36,500 for an example and was often met with ironic cheers from Spurs fans. 😁

I did a quick guesstimate over 120 years 2000 home games x 33,700 and was only 2/3m away from Liverpools 69.9m total
Click to expand...
ok mate 👍the leeds figures must be skewed by games played as they were formed in 1920 and we have 10million more fans yet smaller average!
 
Sporty said:
Aye interesting that as the club wanted to do the South Stand as shown in the COMMENTS at the bottom. With the metro, parking zones, new footbridge etc I wonder how much of the concerns/issues would be relevant now? It does seem there was a lot more to it back then than just hoying up the extension but how much would still be an issue next season when the footbridge is open? Such a shame we didn't kick on after those two 7th place seasons but back then but you can understand some of the concerns being an issue but how much now?

To save people having to open it, here's the South Stand stuff I'm talking about

REPRESENTATIONS:
Ten representations were received as a result of the original consultation exercise
carried out when this application was publicised in March 1999 and are summarised as follows.

STATUTORY BODIES.
Nexus and the Environment Agency have no comments to make on the planning aspects of the application. Nexus do point out the existence of a track that could be made up to a secure footpath between the Stadium and the proposed Stadium Metro station but point out that this would not be funded by Nexus.

The Environment Agency request that a condition be imposed on any consent that ensures no water courses are polluted by the development either during construction or when the development is complete.

Stagecoach have expressed concern over congestion that is currently caused by the development on match days which can result in bus delays and service cancellations. In order to ameliorate this they have suggested that greater use of public transport is encouraged by way of a special match day ticket and the introduction of bus priorities in the vicinity of the stadium to minimise the effect on local bus services.

Northumbria Police expressed the following concerns:-

a) Parking in the vicinity of the stadium is limited resulting in parking in nearby streets and Sheepfold Industrial Estate resulting in blocked driveways and factory gates causing distress to occupants.

b) Currently at the end of games 42,000 spectators attempt to leave the area simultaneously resulting in conflict between pedestrians and motorists. Millennium Bridge and Wearmouth Bridge are two particular areas of concern where in order to ensure safe passage of an estimated 20,000 supporters travelling on foot to the City Centre it is necessary to mount a police operation which consists of closing Millennium Bridge and two out of the three south bound lanes of the Wearmouth Bridge to vehicles. It is considered that the incremental increase in spectators from 42,000 to 47,500 and then 53,000 will compound these problems and could result in Wearmouth Bridge, a main arterial route into the City centre being closed to all southbound vehicles for a period after the game.

c) There is currently space for 20 coaches bringing away fans to the ground on Millennium Way outside of the south stand. The planned increase could result in the club allocating 6,500 tickets to away supporters resulting in excess of 40 coaches with no facility to accommodate the increase in coaches adjacent to the ground. This would result in parking away from the ground and pose a potential disorder situation.

d) Within the apron surrounding the stadium there is a designated route for emergency vehicles. In the event of an evacuation at the stadium supporters would be evacuated onto the apron and then onto the perimeter road allowing emergency vehicles a route in a clockwise direction around the stadium. The retention of this route is considered vital and the perimeter road is not considered acceptable as an emergency route as this would be blocked by evacuated supporters.

The Tyne and Wear Metropolitan Fire Brigade has expressed similar concerns over the potential loss of the emergency route and quote the 'Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds' (HMSO)which requires that adequate access to all buildings within the sports ground should be provided and that access routes should be separate from those used by spectators for access and egress. They consider that the impact of the development should be addressed by the City Council when considering the issue of a Safety Certificate under the Safety at Sports Grounds Act.

LOCAL RESIDENTS.
Three letters of objection were received from local residents concerned about the following matters:-

* On street parking on match days results in blocked streets and prevents access, particularly by emergency vehicles, in the area.
* Despite efforts by the police the problems still exist but could be controlled by the introduction of match day residents only parking schemes.
* Parking on match days prevents local residents from leaving or returning to the area due to spectator parking to the front and rear of properties.

WARD COUNCILLORS.
A representation was received from the three local Ward Councillors who were extremely concerned about on street parking and the effect this has on access to the area and the danger in an emergency situation when emergency vehicles could be prevented access to the site. They also suggest a residents only parking scheme should be introduced to the area.

A further representation was received from a resident of East Herrington who made reference to this and the original application relating to the following matters:-

* It is alleged the description of the application was incorrect in not stating the capacity of the proposed extension.
* The application should be referred to the Secretary of State for the Environment.
• That conditions attached to the original permission granted by the now defunct Tyne and Wear development Corporation have not been discharged and the consent was unlawful.

FURTHER CONSULTATIONS.
A further consultation exercise was carried out following the request to progress the application comprising the above respondents. The proposal was re-advertised by a further series of site notices and an advert in the press. The reconsultation was undertaken on the basis that the capacity of the stand was 5,500. It has now been clarified that the capacity will be 7,232. However, it was not felt that this increase merited a further consultation.

The following responses have been received:-NORTHUUBRIA POLICE

Millennium Bridge and Wearmouth Bridge cater for 20,000 spectators after games and to ensure pedestrian safety Millennium Bridge is closed completely and two lanes of Wearmouth Bridge in respect of vehicles. It is considered that an increase will possibly result in the closure of all south bound lanes on Wearmouth Bridge for a period of time after the games.

Northumbria Police reiterate their concerns concerning the grey paved area in the apron surrounding the ground and state that as the proposal will be built over this area an evacuation of the stadium would lead to this becoming congested with supporters forcing vehicles onto Millennium Way which is used by existing traffic accessing the area. This, it is considered, would lead to a conflict between emergency vehicles and spectators m the event of an evacuation.

Concern is also expressed concerning the parking of away supporters coaches, currently parked on Millennium Way adjacent to the South Stand, which will as a result of the proposal be parked away from the South Stand giving rise to public order and policing implications.

WARD COUNCILLORS QC
The Colliery Ward Councillors firmly reiterate their concerns over increased problems associated with parking and traffic flow which will result from the increased capacity. They also concur with the police view that building on the grey paved area around the stadium will dangerously hinder evacuation should an emergency arise

POLICIES:
In the Unitary Development Plan the site is subject to the following policies:
EN_10_Proposals for unallocated sites to be compatible with the neighbourhood CN_23_Measures to conserve / improve wildlife corridors

COMMENTS:
The club have now expressed their desire to proceed with this development and the two key issues relate to the design of the extension and the impact of the additional capacity on vehicle and pedestrian flows in the vicinity of the stadium.

Since approval for the North Stand was granted measures have been implemented by the club in order to ease the vehicle and pedestrian traffic flow on match 4ays including retaining cars in the car park adjacent to the stadium for thirty minutes after each home game thus allowing pedestrians to clear the site and the park and ride buses a clearer route away.

Discussions on additional parking, park and ride and alternative transport arrangements along with the installation of a 'Scoot' system which will prioritise traffic flow through traffic light management have been held.

The internal design has been altered to allow the 27 rows of seats in the upper tier of the west stand to continue around to this proposed stand. This allows for further seating to be installed and the capacity increased to 7,232, the capacity of the ground, dependant on away supporters and segregation would be increased to over 55,000.

The club are anxious to take the opportunity of an unusually long close season to commence work on the south stand and carry out such works that at present have to be suspended as home matches approach thus resulting in a loss of time. The issues raised by the north stand are complex and mitigation matters were assumed without knowledge of the exact timing of the Metro.
Click to expand...
We came really close to the ssol being 55k then….
 
Wrenthorpe Mackem said:
Some reasonable points but the Arsenal and Man Utd cup games years ago now. We got 30K for a third or fourth round cup replay with Fulham recently. Not saying huge but better attendance.

I think most are saying corporate facilities need improving/increasing although not all I know.

I think we will just see prices go up if we get promoted. The owners may indeed test the waters on pricing.

Why not?
Click to expand...
There isn't as much money in Sunderland. I don't think people would pay over inflated prices. They probably just wouldn't go
 
Skylon said:
There isn't as much money in Sunderland. I don't think people would pay over inflated prices. They probably just wouldn't go
Click to expand...
They'd pay more in PL. Not daft prices and we don't want to piss fans off.
End of day, however, plenty of clubs charge more than us when they're not richer towns. Stoke, Middlesbrough, etc.
 
Northumberland Rocks said:
Remind me what the average at Roker Park was before we moved to the SOL?

We have doubled our support in 25 years. Football is only going to get bigger.

Our attendances are good, imho, because we have had good ticketing pricing. Kids have got the bug become older and now have season tickets.

Thanks to Sir Bob the SOL is probably uniquely placed in this country to expand relitively cheaply.

We need to make it as easy as possible for people to attend (cash & card turnstiles) and keep getting kid through the door (don’t turn them away because they haven’t a bank card!!!!)

As football becomes bigger who is to say we couldn’t add another 20,000 onto our support particularly if we had a decent team in the premier league snd all of the marketing and promotion that brings.

Bob’s view was build it and they will come. We need to be bold.
Click to expand...
Why on Earth would we need to expand when there’s no demand to. We’d be building extra seats that wouldn’t be used. Utter lunacy.
 
seaham ftm said:
Why on Earth would we need to expand when there’s no demand to. We’d be building extra seats that wouldn’t be used. Utter lunacy.
Click to expand...
Its more about future proofing mate...they clearly wan to improve the corporate environment by installing boxes all the way round the sol and that will come at a cost and adding more seats would be not that much more in the scheme of things and would be another missed opportunity in my book if we didn't add seats!Your right the demand is not there now but who knows about the future !If they were not doing serious infrastructure changes to put in the boxes i would agree with you but as i said above it would be remiss of them not to ad seats along with the boxes.
 
With the commercial redevelopment going on currently in the city centre - and Crown Works studios shortly about to start construction - we urgently need to increase and improve our corporate offering.

I’d expect BCB to go to ‘full’ corporate initially (probably with the old shop being converted into a new BCB) and then feasibility studies to look at further development to be started imminently.

Any building work is likely to be contingent on (as a minimum) getting into the Prem ….. but things could develop rapidly. Given our much better business management (eg key players tied up on long term contracts) even with a significant increase in wage bill through contract uplifts a single year of Prem Footy is likely to generate a profit of tens of millions because we’re highly unlikely to start throwing about multi- £M salaries to attract a new whole team.
 
Last edited:
I have seen numerous people say if we were to increase hospitality in the East Stand it would reduce overall capacity.

I'm not sure how or why. I assume they mean we would have to remove seats at the back of the stand rather than add extra space above the existing seats.

Personally I think if we did increase hospitality and reduce normal seat capacity that would be a bad thing but I'm looking at it from a supporter pov and not a business sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top