Royal Elm Park

[multisync1830]

Just to add
1, the bridge to the hotel is into the concourse of the stadium no where near the hotel which seems strange and in my mind difficult to see a route to reception from there
2 the directors keep their parking spot
3 the road layout is unworkable
4 the parking allocation is laughable.

The existing hotel struggles for parking as it is and if another 250 hotel is put there it will be a me too. IE 451 bedrooms mainly for business purposes. (Mon-thurs) struggling to find a place to park. This isn't like a city centre location where a short walk can provide access to alternative parking. Who is going to book a hotel/conference on a business trip if they can't get their car within a mile of the hotel.
5 the hotel and stadium is still sinking 16 years later so it is obvious the original design was flawed. I understand modern construction has moved forward so with that in mind, the structural engineers need to look at the project properly again with the idea of a full sized under ground carpark for 2k spaces and forget the multi story. This is a win-win. Better foundations, proper removal of the contaminated land (like the Olympic park) correct parking allocation for the site and it frees up space for another residential housing block.

They will then need to address 3 with the idea of adding another access road possibly towards Costco which with the height difference leads itself to a underground car park entrance (as does the road up from the traffic lights).
They also need to improve traffic flow to the M4 as Tesco didn't and the result is their lorry drivers must sit a fume each morning queuing to get out onto the roundabout.

This scheme is half baked and primed towards ROI. I hope the council make them re-think this part but given most councils are being driven by the anti car mantra will probably fudge it and it will get through.. For the future success of the site I hope not

[Nameless]

Rather than posting a photo why not give us a name..
It's well known the three owners are not the only ones with close involvement.

Your other points are obviously based on the very high level artists impressions. Unless you have seen the final approved plans then commenting on exactly where a bridge goes is a bit pointless.

[Nameless]

As great as it looks, I am very concerned that the whole point of buying the club was to develop the land around it as that is where they will make money. Apparently, it's going to cost £200 million??? I believe that if they get the planning permission, once this has gone ahead and they have sold units/houses or receive large rental for the concert venue etc, they will move on to other things.

This is why they use Sasima as a front woman, we all know she knows very little about football - they are all in it for the land, as was suggested by a few people in the beginning. Be careful what you wish for.

It's not either or. No one claimed these were white knights and there are no people able to say I told you so and it's a bit daft when people do it.
When business people take over a loss making business they usually do so with an eye to turning it round and making money. So far the Thais have been pretty good for the club (as anyone who goes to games can explain). If alongside that they see opportunities to make money you'd kind of be surprised if they didn't take them
As has been said repeatedly the acid test will come when we see if they carry on backing the club. There is nothing to set alarm bells ringing currently , it's probably only in hindsight we'll find out how they do over the longer run.
But there is very little point going into automatic cynic mode at this stage. I hope people are going to the consultations and asking pertinent questions rather than just assuming everyone acts from the worst motives without any evidence to back that up.

[multisync1830]

Rather than posting a photo why not give us a name..
It's well known the three owners are not the only ones with close involvement.

Your other points are obviously based on the very high level artists impressions. Unless you have seen the final approved plans then commenting on exactly where a bridge goes is a bit pointless.

http://www.theempireasia.com/Pairoj.html


In the new year the Thai's brought over from Asia a large and growing team of professionals stationed in the stadium working full time on the projects, so as early as it is, this shouldn't be a simple mistake or artistic licence. Don't forget they will be seeking pre-planning advice so there would be little point in drawing up such a scheme presenting it to all and sundry and then submitting something completely different. For me a layman, even at this early stage the design is deeply and unnecessarily flawed. But of course lets wait till the plans which are submitted

[Nameless]

The drawings are labelled'illustrative' , they aren't plans as such. I agree the bridge looks odd, worth asking about for sure.
Can't see an underground car park being possible without huge extra expenditure. IIRC it took a long time and cost a lot to clear the Olympic site. Again would be interesting to ask if it has been considered.
An exit road to Costco wouldn't achieve much would it ? It would just meet up at the roundabout. To be useful you'd need a road that took you to roads not already used by traffic from the development.

[multisync1830]

The drawings are labelled'illustrative' , they aren't plans as such. I agree the bridge looks odd, worth asking about for sure.
Can't see an underground car park being possible without huge extra expenditure. IIRC it took a long time and cost a lot to clear the Olympic site. Again would be interesting to ask if it has been considered.

Cost isn't mine or the councils concern. The scheme to be considered suitable for this day and age of environmental responsibility should address the decontamination issue. As I say the hotel and stadium is sinking and costs a lot of money to resurface on an ongoing basis.

An exit road to Costco wouldn't achieve much would it ? It would just meet up at the roundabout. To be useful you'd need a road that took you to roads not already used by traffic from the development.

They also need to improve traffic flow to the M4 as Tesco didn't and the result is their lorry drivers must sit a fume each morning queuing to get out onto the roundabout.

[Nameless]

Sorry but not sure how many points you are making !
- agree that there is an ongoing programme of relaying block paving which can be seen to be uneven but don't think this relates to structural issues or huge expense.
-- they'll obviously have to ensure foundations don't breach the membrane that protects the water table, environmental issues will be even more rigid than when it was originally built. Completely clearing the site to allow extra parking isn't an environmental issue though, as I'm sure you realise.
- bit ridiculous to say cost is not a concern. There is no point you coming up with pie in the sky suggestions that would be hugely expensive. The scheme does need to be done properly and there should be no corner cutting. On the other hand rather than your huge underground car park why not opt for a network of monorails which would cut traffic ....

[STAR Liaison]

Obviously following this thread with great interest - and taking notes which may prompt further questions we can ask.

STAR will be making the obvious enquiries of Companies House and Land Registry - new information from there isn't always instantly available.

We'll be attending (not for every hour!) all the public consultation sessions so if you find us come and have a chat. After the first session we've given some interim / initial feedback to the club. Not surprisingly the reduction in the number of car parking spaces in close walking distance to the stadium was mentioned as was the need to re-site the Garden of Remembrance. The proposals have good points too in terms of more things you can do / eat / drink at the stadium area.

We'll have a clearer view at the end of the consultation process which will be the week after next week (w/c 26 Oct).

[multisync1830]

Sorry but not sure how many points you are making !
- agree that there is an ongoing programme of relaying block paving which can be seen to be uneven but don't think this relates to structural issues or huge expense.
-- they'll obviously have to ensure foundations don't breach the membrane that protects the water table, environmental issues will be even more rigid than when it was originally built. Completely clearing the site to allow extra parking isn't an environmental issue though, as I'm sure you realise.
- bit ridiculous to say cost is not a concern. There is no point you coming up with pie in the sky suggestions that would be hugely expensive. The scheme does need to be done properly and there should be no corner cutting. On the other hand rather than your huge underground car park why not opt for a network of monorails which would cut traffic ....

SJM bought the plot for a quid so he could spend on cleaning up the land. This clean up was based on what was known at the time and the cost/return which turned out to be an half hearted attempt and the site constantly emitting methane and sinking is a result.

Full proper site clean up of contaminated land is the environmentally responsible way to go in this modern era. The Olympic site showed the way forward on how we repair the errors of our past. The cost isn't my concern is what I said. I actually don't care if the Thai's get rich of this scheme or not, Reading BC should not care either, their primary concern should be to the residents and the land of Reading. Therefore they should be insisting they take a closer look at proper site cleaning and if the Thai's won't because of the cost then so be it . The Thai's (like all owners) are mere guardians of the club/land who in a John Nott way could be said to be mere 'here today gone tomorrow' types. The land is there for in perpetuity and that is the ultimate concern. Again I refer back to the Olympic park who were visionaries in their land management.

A monorail won't help travelling salesman John Smith. Business people rely on cars we cannot escape that fact (despite what planners dream of)

Just found this within the scheme:

All residents will have access to their own private parking spaces located below the residential buildings.

Good news for the residents and shows it is possible, just needs to be expanded upon....IMHO

[paultheroyal]

Obviously following this thread with great interest - and taking notes which may prompt further questions we can ask.

STAR will be making the obvious enquiries of Companies House and Land Registry - new information from there isn't always instantly available.

We'll be attending (not for every hour!) all the public consultation sessions so if you find us come and have a chat. After the first session we've given some interim / initial feedback to the club. Not surprisingly the reduction in the number of car parking spaces in close walking distance to the stadium was mentioned as was the need to re-site the Garden of Remembrance. The proposals have good points too in terms of more things you can do / eat / drink at the stadium area.

We'll have a clearer view at the end of the consultation process which will be the week after next week (w/c 26 Oct).

Get the train station debate started and sorted and that can go a long way to eliminate car park issues.

While you are at it can you suggest a rolling escalator from station to ground or similar as I understand it's a 25 minute walk. Cheers.

[Nameless]

I believe the comparison to the Olympic site isn't really fair. That was a genuinely contaminated site, with industrial waste, poisonous materials etc. Our site was a domestic landfill, which is going to be very different. If you clear it then presumably you just return it somewhere else. So you disturb the current land, with the risk of causing leaking into the water course, have hundreds of extra lorry movements, in order to shift the rubbish somewhere else. It's not cleanable material or recoverable and you aren't really making a case for it being environmentally friendly, especially as your argueme t originally was the work should be done to allow a huge underground car park to be built.....
If you did clear all the rubbish any suggestion as to how you would underpin the stadium ? Looks like a huge task to extract the landfill from underneath there without it actually sinking, would make the current slightly wavy paving look trivial.
Interesting point about the residential spaces, although it doesn't say anything about underground parking.

[multisync1830]

I believe the comparison to the Olympic site isn't really fair. That was a genuinely contaminated site, with industrial waste, poisonous materials etc. Our site was a domestic landfill, which is going to be very different. If you clear it then presumably you just return it somewhere else. So you disturb the current land, with the risk of causing leaking into the water course, have hundreds of extra lorry movements, in order to shift the rubbish somewhere else. It's not cleanable material or recoverable and you aren't really making a case for it being environmentally friendly, especially as your arguement originally was the work should be done to allow a huge underground car park to be built.....
If you did clear all the rubbish any suggestion as to how you would underpin the stadium ? Looks like a huge task to extract the landfill from underneath there without it actually sinking, would make the current slightly wavy paving look trivial.
Interesting point about the residential spaces, although it doesn't say anything about underground parking.

Not the old hotel, just for the new build- Although the players changing room facility and associated rooms are already underground. I don’t know if the hotel has any underground facility?

The stadium foundations aren't set on the rubbish. They pile drove through the rubbish to solid ground.
It is theoretically possible therefore–perhaps- they could remove the waste material below the stadium and leave it perched up on it's concrete stilts? (structural eng required here) like a ship in dry dock.

We all agree the ground isn't stable around the existing building -due to the tip still settling unevenly some 16 years later- then it's unlikely to be stable around the new build.?
Sure it will look great for a few months then the cracks will start to appear and we're back to wavy paths and cracked curbs.
The win with the methane emitting rubbish removed is the site is cleaned up for future generations - brownie points to RFC etc- and the 'hole' is then filled with a basement for parking, offices and other storage facilities. All of which cost money to provide above ground so it's not a complete 'extra' cost. Better ground would also allow more levels on each building, more levels = more housing and a better ROI

(The residential parking must be underground as the plans state parking but only one multistory.)

I understand you don't accept the Olympic park as a fair comparison as it had far worse contamination -inc radioactive waste apparently! but as the world moves on it has a trickle down effect and the owners should act with corporate responsibility and as part of the trade off clean up the site. They won't want to - none live nearby so why should they care that the owners of the apartments fall asleep to the gentle hum of a methane extraction fan on the roof- but the council should insist.

Of course in the real world, I fully expect RBC to cave in as most councils are very weak in the face of developers especially when the -often imaginary- x thousand jobs to be created ticket is waved in front of them )

I accept it's probably more expensive to do it properly but as I say that isn't my concern.

[Platypuss]

I doubt the tossers at RBC will give a damn though. Those idiots say people should walk to and from the stadium and then only provide narrow pavements along the very busy approach roads!

Which approach roads in particular do you have a problem with?

[WoodleyRoyal]

'We' own none of the land. We also own none of the stadium, the players or the training ground.
They are all owned 100% by the 3 wealthy Thais. There is no obligation on their part to invest any of the money back into the club.
Under SJM a small number of people owned shares in addition to him, but he was by a huge distance the majority shareholder so had complete power, which he exercised pretty favourably to the club.
So far the Thais seem very keen to back the club, but there is no cast iron guarantee this would continue. I suspect they could fund the development by loading the club with debt and then take all the profits.
Equally they could use the development to continue developing the club.
We really don't know and even if we did there ain't a whole lot we can do.
While emotionally, historically, morally even it is OUR club, legally and financially it is theirs.

There is a whiff around that this has strong potential to end in tears for RFC but not the Thai's. Once the development has been fully completed (Hogwood inc) then the team becomes an unnecessary burden and the chances of the investment paying for itself plus the funding the club is more difficult unless the TV money balances the books. If in the PL then the numbers make sense. The kudos of owning a PL club to a far Eastern company is very attractive. It allows them to showcase other aspects of the various business interests and becomes a great place for entertaining the movers and shakers. RFC V ManU =" yes please anytime". RFC v Preston = "hmm Tuesday is difficult"


On the subject of the 'three rich Thai's' . If that's the case why is this man seen around the club so much

Avram grant has been to most home games with this guy too, they were both walking through the hotel on Saturday. I don't know if he is manager of ghana and just scouting. But like I say I've seen him at about 5 games this season. Is he now connected with club too?

[Stuka]

Help me out: if the Thais want to develop the land around the stadium why is that such a bad thing? It's not like there's is much around currently and it's only natural they wish to get a return on all their investment.

I may well be missing something here.

[bobby1413]

I may well be missing something here.

You're not.

But remember, this is HobNob. People object to everything from Charity, Immigration, Town Development, acts of remembrance, etc...

Logic doesn't enter in to it

[paultheroyal]

I may well be missing something here.

You're not.

But remember, this is HobNob. People object to everything from Charity, Immigration, Town Development, acts of remembrance, etc...

Logic doesn't enter in to it

Yep, absolutely this.

You will get the usual roll out the "careful what you wish for quotes", similar to the Reading FC negative threads to enable them to cover all bases when in their eyes it will be doom and gloom or go horribly wrong, which it wont!

[PieEater]

Does the law/rule related to housebuilding on landfill sites also apply to other developments? i.e they have to dig it all out and remediate it before they can build on it.

[Greatwesternline]

I may well be missing something here.

You're not.

But remember, this is HobNob. People object to everything from Charity, Immigration, Town Development, acts of remembrance, etc...

Logic doesn't enter in to it

Yep, absolutely this.

You will get the usual roll out the "careful what you wish for quotes", similar to the Reading FC negative threads to enable them to cover all bases when in their eyes it will be doom and gloom or go horribly wrong, which it wont!

I've got no problems with the plans, its a great idea. Much needed, good for the town.

The impact it has on the Club, may well be more nuanced. What difference does it make to a football team that there are some flats and an ice rink (sometimes) outside the ground. If the owners concentrate on this project rather than the football side of things then that could be detrimental. If finances which could be used on the playing side of the club are used on property development that could be detrimental.

The project is great for the town, great for the space around the stadium, great for people to make a career, (Howe, Thai developers, businesses in Reading) the long term impacts for the playing side of the club are frankly unknown. There is no real reason to suggest it would be beneficial. Its just some buildings really.

[Norfolk Royal]

It's a good point. I could quote examples of where a club has owned ancillary land to their stadium where they have simply sold it and ploughed all the money back into the club.

How much would the land around the stadium be worth to an external developer for instance. Millions I suspect.

But the owners have not gone down that route and prefer to develop the land themselves, unless we hear different, so a straightforward windfall is out of the question. It helps that the owners are, in the main, property developers of course. Had they been local butchers or something then they would probably have sold the land.

The key question is whether any profit accrued is going to be used in some way to support the football club. Details on that are a bit sketchy from what I can make out.