You are here: darlofc.co.uk » Board index » The Uncovered Forums » Virtual Feethams
It is currently Tue Nov 13, 2018 9:08 pm View unanswered posts | View active topics



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: DFCSG AGM
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2018 12:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 11:06 am
Posts: 1
Team Supported: Darlo
I met with NWL's head of asset protection a few months back to discuss the pipe. The pipe is a 39" high pressure raw water main of steel construction, running from north west to south east across the pitch. It's the same pipe that Reynolds paid to have diverted around the Arena. You can see the location easily enough if you go onto Google Earth and draw a straight line between the two manhole covers.

To give you an idea of the hazard these pipes can pose, here's a video of a pipe bursting in Ukraine:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO0aHS7JO1Y

This was one of a few videos I was shown during the meeting, and whilst I can't remember the exact dimensions that were quoted, I do remember that the pipe in the video was of significantly smaller size/pressure than the one at BM.

Understandably, NWL get nervous about development in the vicinity of these pipes, and enforce a 6m development stand off (easement) either side of the pipe. This is also to guarantee access should they need to excavate the pipe and make emergency repairs. The construction of football stands gives them particular concern due to the compression/vibrations that can be exerted on the ground by a large group of people jumping up and down at the same time. In short, building anything resembling a stand within the easement is a non-starter.

My next question was what it would cost to have the pipe diverted. The answer is that it would be upwards of £800,000. The bulk of this cost doesn't come from the laying of new pipe, but rather the cost of stopping the flow and putting in a temporary diversion. Again, a complete non-starter. They won't do it for free and we'd be able to buy a sizeable chunk of land elsewhere in Darlington for that sort of money.

So, if we're to stay on the BM first team pitch for the forseeable future, this leaves two options:

1) Work around the pipe easement.

2) Remove the mound at the western end of the pitch, reconfigure the manhole cover, and move the pitch c.12m south-west so that the pitch perimeter fence is flush to the new manhole cover (which would be raised above ground level due to the presence of an air valve protruding upwards from the pipe).


The current thinking re. Option 2 is that whilst it would deliver some cosmetic benefit, it would not represent value for money in terms of increasing the amount of land available around the pitch as we look to increase capacity for Ground Grading/FL Membership requirements. The main cost associated with this option would be uprooting the Tin Shed roof and moving it either slightly west with the pitch or to another part of the ground. Not ruling it out entirely, but it currently seems unlikely that this would represent the best way forward. In any case, it's far from certain that RFC would agree to it as the clubhouse position would be less central relative to the pitch.

Regarding the obviously desirable cosmetic benefit, NWL have indicated to me in informal discussions that they would be willing to consider the construction of a roof that spans the easement provided that it wasn't founded within the easement nor restrict access to the pipe (i.e. have large access gates on the back of the structure). However, we've got to make the numbers work before we start thinking about cosmetics.


Lee K


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: DFCSG AGM
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2018 1:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:33 am
Posts: 59
Team Supported: Darlington
All I would say to the last bit would be what would be the point of building a roof over the easement anyway, as it could only be above hard standing. Unless of course we wanted to run the seated stand full pitch length with obviously a gap in the seating where the easement is.

_________________
TAFKAQ

@1883Of


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: DFCSG AGM
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2018 1:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:53 am
Posts: 1637
Team Supported: Darlington
DFCSG Infrastructure wrote:
I met with NWL's head of asset protection a few months back to discuss the pipe. The pipe is a 39" high pressure raw water main of steel construction, running from north west to south east across the pitch. It's the same pipe that Reynolds paid to have diverted around the Arena. You can see the location easily enough if you go onto Google Earth and draw a straight line between the two manhole covers.

To give you an idea of the hazard these pipes can pose, here's a video of a pipe bursting in Ukraine:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO0aHS7JO1Y

This was one of a few videos I was shown during the meeting, and whilst I can't remember the exact dimensions that were quoted, I do remember that the pipe in the video was of significantly smaller size/pressure than the one at BM.

Understandably, NWL get nervous about development in the vicinity of these pipes, and enforce a 6m development stand off (easement) either side of the pipe. This is also to guarantee access should they need to excavate the pipe and make emergency repairs. The construction of football stands gives them particular concern due to the compression/vibrations that can be exerted on the ground by a large group of people jumping up and down at the same time. In short, building anything resembling a stand within the easement is a non-starter.

My next question was what it would cost to have the pipe diverted. The answer is that it would be upwards of £800,000. The bulk of this cost doesn't come from the laying of new pipe, but rather the cost of stopping the flow and putting in a temporary diversion. Again, a complete non-starter. They won't do it for free and we'd be able to buy a sizeable chunk of land elsewhere in Darlington for that sort of money.

So, if we're to stay on the BM first team pitch for the forseeable future, this leaves two options:

1) Work around the pipe easement.

2) Remove the mound at the western end of the pitch, reconfigure the manhole cover, and move the pitch c.12m south-west so that the pitch perimeter fence is flush to the new manhole cover (which would be raised above ground level due to the presence of an air valve protruding upwards from the pipe).


The current thinking re. Option 2 is that whilst it would deliver some cosmetic benefit, it would not represent value for money in terms of increasing the amount of land available around the pitch as we look to increase capacity for Ground Grading/FL Membership requirements. The main cost associated with this option would be uprooting the Tin Shed roof and moving it either slightly west with the pitch or to another part of the ground. Not ruling it out entirely, but it currently seems unlikely that this would represent the best way forward. In any case, it's far from certain that RFC would agree to it as the clubhouse position would be less central relative to the pitch.

Regarding the obviously desirable cosmetic benefit, NWL have indicated to me in informal discussions that they would be willing to consider the construction of a roof that spans the easement provided that it wasn't founded within the easement nor restrict access to the pipe (i.e. have large access gates on the back of the structure). However, we've got to make the numbers work before we start thinking about cosmetics.


Lee K


Thank you for this information, this, for me, rules out any viable option of staying at Blackwell for the long-term - Blackwell is a short term fix and not the answer to the future ground requirements. For now where we are as a club we should keep spending on the ground to a minimum, and only under take spending if we think the viability of reward is good - I am positive that Dave Johnson is doing this anyway.
I am hopeful that the ground issue will eventually be resolved, it will most likely be with major help of council, grants, lottery and business as part of a re-development of a part of the town.

_________________
“If you can't hit a driver, don't.”
Greg Norman


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: DFCSG AGM
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2018 1:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:27 am
Posts: 1261
Team Supported: Darlington
Likewise a terrace which spanned the length of the pitch behind the goal opposite the Tin Shed would have to have a big gap in it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: DFCSG AGM
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2018 1:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:27 am
Posts: 1261
Team Supported: Darlington
Problem is PQ, what do you call long term? If nothing is sorted with the Sporting village, and we got promoted, we would have to redevelop BM anyway to play in the National League.
I am sure Lee Kilcran is working with the other members of the Infrastructure group to see if BM can reach the magic numbers for FL status - 5,000 with 2,000 seats within 3 years. If not, then BM really is a non-starter.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: DFCSG AGM
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2018 1:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:33 pm
Posts: 1123
Team Supported: Darlington
Vodka_Vic wrote:
Problem is PQ, what do you call long term? If nothing is sorted with the Sporting village, and we got promoted, we would have to redevelop BM anyway to play in the National League.
I am sure Lee Kilcran is working with the other members of the Infrastructure group to see if BM can reach the magic numbers for FL status - 5,000 with 2,000 seats within 3 years. If not, then BM really is a non-starter.


We only need to aspire the absolute bare minimum Football League requirements.

The match day experience in more pertinent than any other factor, excluding ground grading.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: DFCSG AGM
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2018 2:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:27 am
Posts: 1261
Team Supported: Darlington
Those are the bare minimum requirements. But are they achievable at BM?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: DFCSG AGM
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2018 4:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:33 am
Posts: 59
Team Supported: Darlington
Vodka_Vic wrote:
Those are the bare minimum requirements. But are they achievable at BM?


No I don't think so.

Not unless we build much deeper stands within the footprint that is available. This would mean dismantling the stands already built, and starting again!

By the way, a terrace or stand at the open end wouldn't need to have a gap in it, because if you look at where the pipe is, it roughly cuts across the edge of the 6 yard box - as it is on a diagonal that shifts the pipe easement zone a little further across towards the changing rooms once you get as far back as the stand

So a terrace or stand could be built roughly 2/3rds pitch width.

_________________
TAFKAQ

@1883Of


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: DFCSG AGM
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2018 4:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:01 am
Posts: 5740
Team Supported: Darlington
Ghost_Of_1883 wrote:
Vodka_Vic wrote:
Those are the bare minimum requirements. But are they achievable at BM?


No I don't think so.

Not unless we build much deeper stands within the footprint that is available. This would mean dismantling the stands already built, and starting again!

By the way, a terrace or stand at the open end wouldn't need to have a gap in it, because if you look at where the pipe is, it roughly cuts across the edge of the 6 yard box - as it is on a diagonal that shifts the pipe easement zone a little further across towards the changing rooms once you get as far back as the stand

So a terrace or stand could be built roughly 2/3rds pitch width.


Would probably look like how Fleetwoods away end does.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: DFCSG AGM
PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2018 6:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 8:41 pm
Posts: 1177
Team Supported: Darlington
Trouble is as soon as any land becomes vacant it`s snapped up for houses straight away


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dfc4me, robsraiders and 45 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group