FAQKey IssuesNo Kingsford Stadium

It's a non-starter: ACC report highlights multiple flaws in stadium plans

report which provides the committee with details of the application plus a summary of the various consultees comments and representations. Many of the significant consultees have objected, raised serious concerns or imposed planning conditions.  These include the Aberdeen Council Roads Management team, the Aberdeen Economic Development team, the Aberdeen City & Shire Strategic Development Planning Authority (SDPA), Aberdeenshire Council, and both the Westhill and Kingswells Community councils. There are literally so many concerns that it’s hard to pick out the main ones, but we suggest these are some of the most significant –

  • Planning condition imposed that a 650m section of the dual carriageway must be narrowed to allow the widening of the footpath, such are the concerns over the safety of large numbers of pedestrians walking to and from the Kinsgwells park and ride
  • The proposed Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) – planning condition imposed that this must be deliverable and that Police Scotland can manage it prior to any construction. This is the responsibility of Aberdeenshire Council, who have objected to the application.
  • Footbridge over A944. This cannot be a condition of planning.  It will require planning permission in its own right.  In the event ACC grant permission for the stadium development, it can only be possible if the footbridge can be delivered.  This is again the responsibility of Aberdeenshire Council, and will need to be a separate planning application with public consultation.
  • There will be economic benefits from the construction phase only. Net offsite benefits to the city will be marginal.
  • Justification for co-location of stadium and training facilities is particularly weak (SDPA).
The report also lists the legislative requirements that the councillors must take into consideration when making a decision.  We have maintained the position from the outset that this application is not about football, it’s about planning, and when you see all the planning requirements in black and white, we must again ask how on earth has this planning application even seen the light of day.  AFC have stated in their application that much of legislation simply ‘ does not apply’  to them. So, narrowing a major route into Aberdeen to widen a core path, a dependency on a bridge and CPZ in another local authority area,  no clear economic benefit for the North East and no valid justification for co-locating the stadium and training facility.  There are now so many “show-stoppers” that this application cannot stand a realistic chance of approval. AFC should now withdraw this application and then work with the city council to deliver the identified site at Loirston or Kings Links. The full report is here.]]>

2 thoughts on “It's a non-starter: ACC report highlights multiple flaws in stadium plans

  1. I agree with all the above reguarding the proposed stadium,
    I was surprised yesterday at the objectors meeting at the site with the Aberdeen Council Planners, there seems to be a new set of plans for the stadium now.the Stadium is now moved East, Parking provided, but note Playing fields cut down in numbers ( likely to affect local teams I would think )

  2. It is not just the CPZ in and around Westhill that should be a concern. Planning requirements for this development limit the number of parking spaces to about 1,300. The AFC application deliberately seeks to evade that by dumping the excess parking spaces in Aberdeenshire.
    Whether the loan/lease of parking spaces in the office and industrial park requires a review of the planning consent by Aberdeenshire Council, or the leases agreed between the developers and the tenants of the relevant buildings, should perhaps be examined.
    In any case, while the owners or lessees of the parking spaces may feel easily able to agree to the use of ‘their’ parking spaces at a time when they have reduced the headcount, once the oil industry returns to something more like its normal level of activity and seven day working, will they be so eager to do so?
    And did the transport survey take account of the additional domestic traffic that is likely to be generated by the housing development to the south of Westhill that is in the structure plan, and which will join the A944 at the traffic lights next to the proposed stadium site?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.