£225000 reached

[quakerste]

Is there an end of week update on how we are doing?

[JE93]

Regarding the 13K(ish) that's in the back to darlo fund. Has the club been made aware of it? eg. it makes up part of the 225K(ish) already raised? Or is this money to be added on top of what we already have?

[shawry]

Regarding the 13K(ish) that's in the back to darlo fund. Has the club been made aware of it? eg. it makes up part of the 225K(ish) already raised? Or is this money to be added on top of what we already have?

This has already been answered in this thread, the 13k is ring fenced currently and a decision will be made later on whether to add it to the money already raised.

[shawry]

Have we had an update this week on I'd we are closer to the 300k?

[Darlofan97]

The new plans look interesting. c900 capacity tin-shed moved over to the East side of the ground, c500 (in total) all seated capacity stands to be constructed (5 rows of 50 seats per stand). Existing dugouts are also to be removed. Details of the NW pipe are also on there, including the removal of their objection.

Looks like we are looking at the 8th of April as the date for when a decision regarding the planning application will be made.

[e4sby]

Is the seated stand offset to avoid the NW pipe?

[Darlofan97]

Is the seated stand offset to avoid the NW pipe?

Yes, it also looks like the movement of the tin-shed from the West to the East side is also a consequence of the NW pipe.

[Quakerz]

So how do we develop the ground to, say, a 4,000+ Conference ground on future years if one end does not look like it can be developed?

And with a 900 capacity Tin Shed, 500 seats on 1 side, and just hard standing on the water pipe end - even if we raise the 300k to develop a 3,000 capacity ground, I can't see where this 3,000 capacity is even coming from?

[divas]

So how do we develop the ground to, say, a 4,000+ Conference ground on future years if one end does not look like it can be developed?

And with a 900 capacity Tin Shed, 500 seats on 1 side, and just hard standing on the water pipe end - even if we raise the 300k to develop a 3,000 capacity ground, I can't see where this 3,000 capacity is even coming from?

Future expandability is my main concern too.

At the moment it's just a case of get us in there any way we can, which is totally understandable, but there will become a time where we need to expand, I guess it'll just be a case of having to deal with that when the time arises.

[lo36789]

I don't think it is completely out of the realms of possibility. From what I am reading above, and give my understanding of where the pipe is the south west corner of the ground is going to remain relatively undeveloped, and without restriction.

The pipe effectively goes from the north west corner through the pitch and out to the south east corner of the pitch (well at about in line with the penalty spot) - this is based on what a previous poster mentions about the manhole cover you can see on google maps.

The tin shed moving west to east means there is absolutely no interference on the west side of the ground, and by the sounds of it the stands are all shifting along to the west on the south side to again cause no obstruction.

To me that means you could have another terrace which stretches say from the edge of the 18 yard box on the west side down and around the corner on the south-west end. A [enter number] step terrace there would give you whatever is needed.

The other alternative is the modular stands on the south side move onto the west side (can they fit side by slight offset to the south?) then you build a fairly big 'main' stand on that side, but clearly not all the way to the end because of the pipe.

[e4sby]

Is the seated stand offset to avoid the NW pipe?

Yes, it also looks like the movement of the tin-shed from the West to the East side is also a consequence of the NW pipe.

Makes me wonder whether it's worth going for modular sections of 5 rows of 10 seats, not even sure if this is possible.

Leaving the seating at bishop for the west end of the ground is even more mind boggling. 300 seats at that end of the ground and a better view of the game from them makes for a better match day experience.

The NW water pipe has really effected future developments. The only way possible to develope the ground further would be to redesign the club house. Not sure what the scope for this would be but I know the cost wouldn't be cheap.

Only positive is we are moving home, we have no other options and I guess in a few years time we will have to cross the ground development bridge again.

[al_quaker]

The new plans look interesting. c900 capacity tin-shed moved over to the East side of the ground, c500 (in total) all seated capacity stands to be constructed (5 rows of 50 seats per stand). Existing dugouts are also to be removed. Details of the NW pipe are also on there, including the removal of their objection.

Looks like we are looking at the 8th of April as the date for when a decision regarding the planning application will be made.

New plans?

[JE93]

For anyone interested here's a link to the planning applications site: http://msp.darlington.gov.uk/Planning/l ... g.Planning

Application Reference No: 14/01251/FUL


The pipe is an issue, but first and foremost I think many people agree the most important issue is to get back to the town asap. I think I actually prefer putting the tin shed on the opposite side of the ground, because in the future if the pipe problem was resolved and we could develop further we could have more space to build a structure at that end giving us more options. As someone else has said a possible club house redevelopment could be an option in the future too.

As said before just delighted that the barriers are being taken away and we will atleast be back in town as soon as possible.

[Bogratsteve]

.wrong thread

[Darlofan97]

The new plans look interesting. c900 capacity tin-shed moved over to the East side of the ground, c500 (in total) all seated capacity stands to be constructed (5 rows of 50 seats per stand). Existing dugouts are also to be removed. Details of the NW pipe are also on there, including the removal of their objection.

Looks like we are looking at the 8th of April as the date for when a decision regarding the planning application will be made.

New plans?

Amended plans were submitted on 17/03/2015, due to NW pipe issue.

You can view them on DBC's Planning Application's external link.

[Quakers1883]

I'm pleased to see the Tin Shed is being moved the the other end as it almost faces the same direction as the one at Feethams did

[Darlofan97]

Is the seated stand offset to avoid the NW pipe?

Yes, it also looks like the movement of the tin-shed from the West to the East side is also a consequence of the NW pipe.

Makes me wonder whether it's worth going for modular sections of 5 rows of 10 seats, not even sure if this is possible.

Leaving the seating at bishop for the west end of the ground is even more mind boggling. 300 seats at that end of the ground and a better view of the game from them makes for a better match day experience.

The NW water pipe has really effected future developments. The only way possible to develope the ground further would be to redesign the club house. Not sure what the scope for this would be but I know the cost wouldn't be cheap.

Only positive is we are moving home, we have no other options and I guess in a few years time we will have to cross the ground development bridge again.

Trying to be positive, there is still room on the South East part of the ground to be developed (albeit not that much) as well as terracing (which can be either seated and covered) all the way up to the goal on the West side from the proposed new stands.

Would possibly agree with the seats currently situated at Bishop Auckland but I'm not sure of the full costings of 1.fixing the current damaged concrete, 2.moving it to BM and 3.developing it into a permanent structure. But yes, it would provide a better view.

I think that the current plans would probably give us a start capacity of c2,400 (if the current seating can be counted towards the capacity).

[e4sby]

I'm sure if the board asked fans for help on this matter I'm positive a builder/someone in construction could organise the dismantling and reassemble of at BM. Surely worth a shot?

[princes town]

So how do we develop the ground to, say, a 4,000+ Conference ground on future years if one end does not look like it can be developed?

And with a 900 capacity Tin Shed, 500 seats on 1 side, and just hard standing on the water pipe end - even if we raise the 300k to develop a 3,000 capacity ground, I can't see where this 3,000 capacity is even coming from?

Future expandability is my main concern too.

At the moment it's just a case of get us in there any way we can, which is totally understandable, but there will become a time where we need to expand, I guess it'll just be a case of having to deal with that when the time arises.

The time when we need to expand is a long way off. A 3k facility is more than enough to cover 80% of games played since the conference.

[dickdarlington]

Looking at this, my initial concerns are somewhat abated.

The seats being moved closer together and the subs benches being removed actually improve the seated structure (although I only calculate 492 seats and not the 500 required for the conference).

The terrace being moved is an issue for me, but one we'll accept. It's original placement was to shield the fans from the prevailing wind. Now, much like the temporary stand at Bish, it will blow right into the home fans faces. A sacrifice worth making.

Now, taking into consideration the 902 capacity for the terrace, the cut of the sewer and the remaining space, we can easily accommodate a conference standard ground (3500 with 500 seats). As follows...

East terrace (902 standing) as planned.
South Stand (500 seats) as planned
South eastern terrace (to the right of the sewer) 8 steps deep, 20m wide (300 spaces uncovered - possibly extending into East terrace via corner - dependent on access and facilities). The sewer route acts as a natural sightline barrier for the seated stand.
West Terrace (to the south of the sewer), 15 steps deep, 35m wide (987 standing) ideally covered.
North terrace (against the club house - taking into consideration access to pitch, and entrance to club house), 5 steps deep, 90m wide (excluding access) (846 uncovered standing).

Capacity 3535, 500 seats (excluding additional flat standing spaces).

After that we would struggle, but it would get us back to the town, and allow us to focus on a long term solution. For the space between the club house and the pitch I have been conservative, and a volume of people will be able to be accommodated.

I really think the football club should be looking to move the temporary stand to Blackwell, even if it's not built straight away. There is plenty of space to store it, and it will be of use in the future. Otherwise it's a waste of (I believe) £30K. We could place it over the sewer behind the goal as it won't affect access, and can easily be dismantled.

[Quakerz]

Looking at this, my initial concerns are somewhat abated.

The seats being moved closer together and the subs benches being removed actually improve the seated structure (although I only calculate 492 seats and not the 500 required for the conference).

The terrace being moved is an issue for me, but one we'll accept. It's original placement was to shield the fans from the prevailing wind. Now, much like the temporary stand at Bish, it will blow right into the home fans faces. A sacrifice worth making.

Now, taking into consideration the 902 capacity for the terrace, the cut of the sewer and the remaining space, we can easily accommodate a conference standard ground (3500 with 500 seats). As follows...

East terrace (902 standing) as planned.
South Stand (500 seats) as planned
South eastern terrace (to the right of the sewer) 8 steps deep, 20m wide (300 spaces uncovered - possibly extending into East terrace via corner - dependent on access and facilities). The sewer route acts as a natural sightline barrier for the seated stand.
West Terrace (to the south of the sewer), 15 steps deep, 35m wide (987 standing) ideally covered.
North terrace (against the club house - taking into consideration access to pitch, and entrance to club house), 5 steps deep, 90m wide (excluding access) (846 uncovered standing).

Capacity 3535, 500 seats (excluding additional flat standing spaces).

After that we would struggle, but it would get us back to the town, and allow us to focus on a long term solution. For the space between the club house and the pitch I have been conservative, and a volume of people will be able to be accommodated.

I really think the football club should be looking to move the temporary stand to Blackwell, even if it's not built straight away. There is plenty of space to store it, and it will be of use in the future. Otherwise it's a waste of (I believe) £30K. We could place it over the sewer behind the goal as it won't affect access, and can easily be dismantled.

You missed out the 146 seats that are already on the north side. Also, you failed to take into account that you'd have hard standing along half of the West End too. And in that gap between the modular seating and your proposed terrace on the south side. Probably 250ish there too, between both.

To be fair that would take us to very near 4,000 although it would be a well odd looking ground with your proposed half width 15 step terrace at one end, and half a side of seats with a gap, then a narrow uncovered 8 step terrace...but for future capacity increases, terraces wherever we can fit them have to be the cheapest option and the way to go.

Tell you what though, it'd be a right mish mash of existing structure, new terrace build, modular seating, gaps with hard standing...NOBODY could ever accuse the "finished" ground of lacking character though!

[dickdarlington]

The existing seats are not being considered in the plans given their location (to allow people to stand next to the barrier and to allow the benches to be constructed for the subs). However, they are also of modular construction and can simply be unbolted and moved.

I haven't calculated the hard standing as in all honesty i don't know how it's worked out, plus given the access requirements to terraced structures, I'm not sure if it'll be allowed. Again, not considered the temporary stand as it's been suggested that it'll be staying at Bish, and if it does move we can't use it for ground grading.

Plenty of mishaped grounds, and small terraces. I prefer to look at is as 'classical non league'. Looking at Grays Athletic's old ground, or Braintree, they had/have odd shaped grounds. Morcambe's has a small terrace along one side. And Accrington is as equally a ramshackle.

It will be full of character. And it won't be perfect. But it will be in the town, and it will be sustatainable. Do we want any more than that? Let's face it, Feethams was built and developed within some pretty restrictive boundaries, and we all liked that.

[shawry]

So does anyone know how close (if at all) we are to the 300k? to be honest I expected a weekly update, as per the previous weeks, but the only update is to say there are only 7 days left.

[Darlo_Pete]

So does anyone know how close (if at all) we are to the 300k? to be honest I expected a weekly update, as per the previous weeks, but the only update is to say there are only 7 days left.

I agree the lack of updates is frustrating. An update might generate a bit of excitement and help sell a few more.

[BlackandwhiteBOB]

Or an update could have the opposite effect!

[dickdarlington]

Just checked and the Cat A is now 4K and not 3.5K capacity as I had thought.

I had a leftwing thought last night. Not sure how feasible it would be, given how far along we are. But has anyone considered moving the pitch 10m south?

This way the pipe would run corner to corner and not affect any construction along the sides/ends. It would also open up the opportunity for a significant structure to be built on the club house side in the future?

Given the only obsticles at present are the benches and floodlights (both of which are to be moved), and that the pitch is to be relaid anyway, the only downsides i can see are the encroachment of the 2nds rugby pitch (which could be rotated) and the time to re-adjust.

Thoughts?

[wizardofos]

I presume that this is the only option to get us back into Darlington thereby giving us a chance of survival rather than a slow decline at Bishop.
Can't think why else you would spend hundreds of thousands of pounds (or even millions going forward) developing a stadium around a pitch which a utility company has a legal right to dig up at a moments notice.

[Bogratsteve]

The pipe goes under the potential stand area not the pitch, right?

[divas]

The pipe goes under the potential stand area not the pitch, right?

It goes under the lot - diagonally through the pitch.

[onewayup]

I believe martin jasper,David mills,and company, have and are fully aware of all and any obstacles which could have had a detrimental effect on the planning and building of the stadia. Lets leave the guys to get on with it,they are doing a great job of getting us back into Darlington.