Setback for Gloucester City Meadow Park redevelopment plan
PLANS to bring Gloucester Football Club back to the city have suffered a setback.
An outline planning planning application went before the city council on Tuesday night in a bid to get permission to continue with the development of former ground Meadow Park, which was destroyed by the 2007 floods.
-

Meadow Park in 2007
However, the permission was not given by councillors who had concerns about flooding issues, and also access to the stadium.
Holes were found in the application, and also a lack of detail was pinpointed when it came to identifying particular aspects of flood defence work, and how houses up and down stream of the ground could be affected in a potential flood.
Business Cards From Only £10.95 Delivered www.myprint-247.co.uk
View detailsOur heavyweight cards have FREE UV silk coating, FREE next day delivery & VAT included. Choose from 1000's of pre-designed templates or upload your own artwork. Orders dispatched within 24hrs.
Terms: Visit our site for more products: Business Cards, Compliment Slips, Letterheads, Leaflets, Postcards, Posters & much more. All items are free next day delivery. www.myprint-247.co.uk
Contact: 01858 468192
Valid until: Sunday, June 30 2013
Despite this, there was some positive news in that a technical group will now be formed in an effort to progress plans to develop the site and bring The Tigers home. The group will be made up og representatives from the planning department, highways, the environment agency and the football club itself.
Writing in tomorrow's Citizen newspaper, Editor Ian Mean condemned the decision:
"It is extremely disappointing that Gloucester City Council’s planning committee have decided not to give The Tigers a far more positive feeling of support on their journey to come “home” to a new £5 million stadium at Meadow Park.
"What the club, backed by The Citizen, wanted was a little more confidence so that the man who is bankrolling our football club could invest hundreds of thousands of pounds more of his personal money for vital flood defences to protect a new stadium and the surrounding area of businesses and homes.
"The money involved for these flood defences alone is substantial - possibly up to £2 million which Eammon McGurk is willing to invest to help Gloucester City get into the football league.
"The Citizen respects the planners and the flood experts.
But following the planning committee meeting we urge them all to get a move on or out club will disappear without trace.
"Why has it taken over four years to get to the stage where we are today - frankly, very little further forward?
"Why is it that councillors and the Environment Agency have take so long to sort the flood defences and be clear what exactly the club has to do to get the green light to start the flood defence work?
"A question nobody seems to be able to answer coherently.
"Let’s be clear. After our county’s flood devastation of 2005 and the subsequent submerging of the Tigers’ ground, we understand the importance and huge responsibility councillors must take with any decisions on flood defences.
"The last thing The Citizen wants it decisions made in haste on flood risk. But isn’t four years enough?
"The good, positive move to come out of the planning committee meeting is that they have now agreed to set up a technical group to take the flood defence plans for the club forward.
"But how long is that going to take?
"Meanwhile, a quietly determined Eammon McGurk waits in the wings with very little support from our city and the Environment Agency.
"One thing is certain. The Citizen will be monitoring the progress of the latest moves in this saga to put our football club back on the map for the community.
"And we will continue to monitor the progress of our planning, highways and Environment Agency officers who must now step up to the plate.
"The city should count itself lucky that Eammon McGurk still retains his sanity - for the time being."




Comments
by Glos_Lad34
Thursday, February 14 2013, 12:08PM
“Just put the stadium on land that doesn't flood like the old stadium was.”
by CTFCScout
Wednesday, September 12 2012, 9:31PM
“If Eamonn McGurk walks away from the club, the council will really feel the heat!”
by Walker100
Thursday, September 06 2012, 11:15PM
“Bob_Carolgees, a quick glance at Gloucester AFC website shows season tickets at £210. Other information elsewhere shows recent average attendance at 320.
Even if you're generous and go for £12 for ALL tickets that's around £81,000 for 21 games.
As has been said, even if you could get regular attendance up to 5, 6 or even 700 they would be lost at Kingsholm and, to be honest, I think 800 is just pie in the sky hopefulness.
As I have said previously, I think there needs to be serious consideration into the impact of the landfill site causing the 2007 flooding in the first place by removing the flood area the other side of the river. Look at that and bring pressure to bear.”
by Chrisgump2011
Thursday, September 06 2012, 3:18PM
“Bob_Carolgees. I know you mean well but in my experience, Kingsholm would be too big. Whether 300 or 800 supporters, they would be channelled into one stand (to keep the mandatory Stewards to a minimum) with no atmosphere at all. At least at WR or New Lawn or even Ciren the regular supporters can make their presence felt.
Meadow Park is the obvious answer, has an established use and what had been thought an acceptable remedy for the occasional flood. Sadly, Members and Officers unused to the harsh truths of business balance sheets seem to find it acceptable to 'fiddle whilst Rome burns'. We should expect better from the elected representatives and employed professionals.
So why should an FGR supporter care? Well, I know what huge efforts are going in by volunteers to restore City's fortunes and how every penny counts. That spirit is also why the likes of City, Rovers, Shortwood and yes even Cheltenham Town deserve our support. Is there any doubt that the heart of British football is fostered at our level rather than by spoilt squillionaires of the Premiership and Championship.
For pity sake Gloucester City Council, pull your fingers out”
by Bob_Carolgees
Thursday, September 06 2012, 2:23PM
“Sorry was meant to add - on a City matchday 400 pints are sold in the bar at £2.80 a pop = £1,120. 50 burgers are sold at £2.50 = £125. 250 cars park in the car park for £1 = £250. That's £1,500 pretty much for the rugby club a game not including anything else sold or the commerical/hospitality side. Add in a rental fee per game of 4k = £5.5K a game. 3 games a month = £16,500 for the rugby club.”
by Bob_Carolgees
Thursday, September 06 2012, 2:08PM
“The club have spent a fortune already getting to this point, a task force was already there (and then disbanded by a member who was on the council board last night). It really is a ridiculous situation. Being outside the City is killing the club. No two ways about it. They HAVE to return.
Theres nowhere else now other than Kingsholm, the list of other potential sites the (previous, sigh) task force looked at was exhaustive and all deemed not suitable.
Let's say for arguments sake the rent at Kingsholm is 100k a season. Given Kingsholm is double the size of Whaddon Road, so doubling the rent and adding a bit more on 100 grand is not an unreasonable figure (not to say they'd accept that, but it's reasonable)
The pricing structure is £12 adults, £5 under16s and under 11s are £1. Rugby season ticket holders get in for half price to encourage more bums on seats.
Whilst I would hope for more, without getting ahead of myself the football club get an average of 800 fans in, which is not unreasonable given their past attendances in Gloucester and the novelty of returning home and playing at Kingsholm, 200 are city season ticket holders at 9 quid a game. 400 pay 12 quid. 50 are rugby season ticket fans. 100 are under 16s/concessions. 50 are under 11. That's a total of £7,450. Including cup as well as 21 home league games let's say 25 home games. So 100 grand rent works out at 4 grand a game.
I'm sure that extra revenue once pitch maintenance etc is paid would go nicely to another player's wages for the rugby club.. I guess the top earners in rugby union are on 70-80k a year. 75k a year salary is 6,250 a month without factoring in Tax and NI...They'd be getting 16.5K from the club a month if they averaged around the 800 mark..This doesn't even take into account those missing sponsorship deals the club could secure from moving to said site, or the benefits it would bring back to the City in terms of revenue for the rugby club and that area of town.
Could extra revenue created by the football club be the difference between the possibilties of another top class front row for GRFC that could take them that one step further? Could a firm such as Keyway who are the major backers of the football club on board be a mutally beneficial partnership when eventually the shed or any other redevelopment is considered in Kingsholm?
Obviously financially it means diddly squat, but the good PR of having the football club there would see the rugby club as pretty much a local "saviour". Local businesses' would no doubt see the commerical benefits of having their companies exposure increased from having two teams there too.
No doubt there are plenty of people who are ardent GRFC supporters who dislike the round ball game and will be against this, but at the same time I'm sure there are plenty of people who have the complete opposite view or actually enjoy both codes. It shouldn't be seen as "I don't want football played there" or which sport people prefer. It really should be seen as beneficial for the city as a whole - from youth development, business, commerical revenue and tourism to the City.
Over to you Mr Walkinshaw.”
by Chrisgump2011
Thursday, September 06 2012, 11:23AM
“JFT96 gives the accurate background information. Delay is the killer here. It seems convenient for the planning authority to defer rather than decide (which appears to be the nature of the beast). Where does it think that the costs of delay and duplicated consultancy work will come from?”
by safeandnice
Thursday, September 06 2012, 11:22AM
“Could they moor a large barge on site?”
by IDunn
Thursday, September 06 2012, 11:18AM
“I agree with Beekeeper, why on earth are they sharing with Cheltenham when they represent our City? They should be at Kingsholm and given a chance to progress, I speak as a Gloucester rugby football club season ticket holder. It's plainly obvious the council don't want them in Hempsted and seem intent on stopping this area from having redevelopment. Unless Tesco fancy opening a store there I assume of course!”
by IDunn
Thursday, September 06 2012, 11:02AM
“So a application with 2,000 signatures of support and hundreds of letters from residents of Gloucester and local business close to the stadium doesn't get approved, yet the India House which had the same amount of people signing a petition but in OBJECTIONS does get approved. What a total farce!!”