Jump to content

New Stadium Approved


Recommended Posts


New Aberdeen FC stadium review to be held

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-47033930

 

A judicial review into Aberdeen FC's plans for a new stadium is set to get under way.

The £50m 20,000-seater development is proposed for Kingsford, near Westhill.

Plans were put on hold in 2017 but the council approved them last January.

The hearing at the Court of Session in Edinburgh is expected to last three days, with a judgement at a later date. The club believes the facilities are vital to its future, but objectors say they should be located elsewhere.

Construction began in July last year.

The review has been sought by The No Kingsford Stadium (NKS) protest group.

NKS said the hearing would bring "independent and impartial scrutiny" to Aberdeen City Council's decision to grant planning permission for new stadium and facilities.

The group said in a statement: "In reaching this important stage in proceedings, we have demonstrated that communities can challenge decisions which they believe are flawed."

The Kingsford project director Raymond Edgar said: "The hearing is an unwelcome distraction which is costing the club and the council and therefore the tax payer, but we are hopeful of securing the right outcome."

 

Link to comment

 

Aberdeen FC’s lawyer believes protesters fighting to block the Dons’ new stadium have come “nowhere close” to providing legal grounds for planning permission for the £50million facility to be revoked.

Plans for the stadium and and training facilities at Kingsford were approved by Aberdeen City Council last year, but objectors have called the decision into question during a judicial review at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.

Proceedings commenced on Tuesday with representations on behalf of protest group No Kingsford Stadium and the council.

If the court finds in favour of No Kingsford Stadium, the planning permission granted last May could be deemed void and the future of the development cast into uncertainty.

James Findlay QC yesterday spoke on behalf of Aberdeen Football Club, which has been listed as an “interested party” in the dispute between the protest group and the local authority.

He argued that the objectors’ legal team failed establishing grounds upon which the court could overturn Aberdeen City Council’s decision to award planning permission.

Mr Findlay said: “It would be a serious step to quash this permission, and it is our submission that the case put forward comes nowhere close to establishing grounds for that.”

In hearings such as this one, it can typically take about three months for the Court of Session to render its verdict.

But Mr Findlay yesterday took the “unusual” step of asking Lord Tyre to speed up the process, as construction of the ground is already under way and developers are eager to move onto the next phase.

He said: “The club would like to know the outcome of this challenge as soon as possible.”

Lord Tyre asked whether Mr Findlay was suggesting he “get on with it”.

The judge added: “It is somewhat unusual to say ‘hurry up and get a judgement out’, but I should be able to deal with this without any particular delay.”

The judicial review began on Tuesday and concluded yesterday, ahead of schedule.

No Kingsford Stadium argued that the council’s planning department had breached its own guidelines so badly in recommending councillors rubber-stamp the proposal that the decision was unlawful.

Ailsa Wilson QC represented the group and listed specific concerns regarding a supposed insufficient investigation into the possibility of siting the stadium elsewhere, transport problems and the use of land upon which development had been restricted.

Aberdeen City Council’s legal representative, Ruth Crawford QC, yesterday argued that the authority did not disregard the local development plan, a framework engineered to shape projects and inform decisions on planning applications, when recommending elected members approve the scheme.

She said: “It was decided that the public benefits of the stadium would outweigh the provisions of the development plan, it is incorrect to say the development plan was not taken into account or considered.

“The development accorded with its general social and economic policies.”

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment

Going by the article in yesterday's Press & Journal there is pretty much no chance that this appeal will be successful.

 

A complete waste of theirs and tax payer's money on a vanity trip.

 

Hopefully the Judge can give his ruling sometime in February so there is no prolonged ambiguity over the project.

 

Is this appeal as afr as the WANKS can take it? It is the highest Civil Court on Scotland I believe.

Link to comment

As I’ve said previously! This case should only of been allowed if they signed a document that states they have to pay there due. Cases like this should never be aloud when they can fold the company and pay nothing. I want them rinsed of absolutely everything if this fails!

As mentioned before, AFC will be going out of their way to build bridges with these idiots, to keep a positive relationship with the local community, so they’ll want as minimal as possible comeback on them too.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...