Search results

I don't think so. 1) The planning application that's being submitted doesn't seek to change/expand the development site, hence the "site's footprint" remains unchanged overall. 2) The footprint area of the stadium buildings is proposed to increase by 6.7%. I think the reasons for this are...

Sorry, I mean't to say: "+6.7% increase by footprint area and no increase in footprint overall - are these statements incompatible?". There's me getty sarcy about people not reading things fully and then I go and .....................:thud:

+6.7% increase by floor area and no increase in footprint overall - are these statements incompatible then?

Or maybe there are now other sources of revenue for the stadium* that were not known about when the the public enquiry was taking place and the 12,000 football gate "break even" figure was first mooted. *eg rent from the City College

Have you forgotten but we (BHAFC) will not be the owners of the stadium? The Community Stadium Company Ltd is a separate legal entity with approx 70,000 shares issued currently and the football club (and others) will rent use of the stadium from the CSC. I think it's the CSC that will borrow any...

I think it is the Secretary of State who decides to "call in" a planning application, not the local planning authority (ie BHC Council in this case). If the changes are related to H&S/building regulation developments since the initial applicationwas made and there are only marginal (if any)...