Athletics backing for Saracens on day new images of stadium revealed (From Times Series)

Hi ..all the computer pictures look very pretty .. if you could draw in some new roads .. and a few thousand car park spaces .. go underground .. or why not build a teleportaion device . or some old fashioned magic .. as the " build it and they will come" approach to projects is why so many DO NOT WORK !! How can you get the 10,000 saracen fans in when there are not enough spaces within 2 miles .... unless everyone in the mill Hill - Edgware - Finchley - Colindale - Stanmore areas decide to stay at home, dont dare venture out or use any of the areas PUBLIC car parks. Sat games cant use Hasmo schools .. ( for those that dont know why search Sabbath on google !)

Why not try West Hams stadium they are moving soon .. or stay at Watford ..

@redrenault: I see that you still haven't read the planning application.

i have read it and its absolute tosh . how do account for access ? its conveniently forgotten that when you actually get to the gates of the site its another 1/2 mile to the stadium ! distances and times just seem to be made up, only one of the many reasons the planning authority threw it out in the first place, and why you are having to stay at Watford ...

I agree with RedRenault, but this impression does show the East stand as rather more dominating than the original birds-eye view. Of course this is the athletics configuration, and represents the site only- at best - through a bit of May, June, July and August. All this (UK Athletics please note) is not mainly for the benefit of athletics but to get a 10,000 capacity professional rugby stadium, shop, offices and a large restaurant these last three in use 52 weeks a year) on a FREE site on publicly owned Green Belt land. It ought not to be allowed!

The new artist’s impressions still do not show the flood lights, which are 33.5m tall. In the second image, the grey blocks on the left are the existing stands. These are dwarfed by the other stands. This shows the enormity of the additional build that is being proposed. Saracens have already conceded that this is inappropriate development on the Green Belt and has a 70% modal split in favour of car travel, as detailed in their planning submission. It is, I believe, valid to ask whether this development could be sited elsewhere, not on the Green Belt and where there are good public transport links.

I am sorry but I do not understand the near hysteria being shown by some people.

Copthall as it is at the moment is a decaying edifice. What Saracens are hoping to do is to rejuvanate the whole stadium and bring a world class presence into this area.

We are talking of a maximum of 18 games a season spread over September until May.

The latest technology is being used and Barnet residents should be proud to recognise that this massive ivestment will at long last put sport in Barnet on both the national and international radars.

I admit I am a Saracens supporter- I live in Edgware and can only good things happening.

If UK Athletics are now endorsing this project and I understand that the running track and other facilities will be of an Olympic standard.

All the residents should be proud of having not only a world class stadium but also support the efforts to bring world class rugby to this borough and well and truly put Barnet on the map.

The traffic situation will be dealt with and the fact of the matter is that without the Saracens brave initiative Copthall Stadium will just rot and disintegrate.

Saracenman... quick question how are you going to get there ? its about 3.5- 4 miles ??

cycle, bus, car, walk very easy

saracenman.. make a commitment to do all of the above apart from drive and you might find that most people wont be against the plans ... simple .. tell EG to come up with other sollutions .. he has them just deciding to be selective about telling his supporters ..

Hello again redrenault, Mr Growser and Dryad. Again I would make the point that it is people who are in the immediate vicinity of the stadium who are most likely to be vocally against these proposals, or so it seems whenever I raise the subject with other friends around Barnet. The general impression I get is that most others think this is an absolute no brainer, because the benefits to the borough would be so enormous. As I have said before - the most common reaction is that they think it has already been approved!

None of us can really say because 'most people' has not been qualified - unless by the number of people expressing opposition or support by letter.

At least this puts to bed the argument that the Harriers and the existing stadium users are being disadvantaged by the proposals. The new throwing area will actually be floodlit - so training can take place for much longer - and there will be indoor throwing in the new indoor cage - which doesnt exist at the moment.

Increasing hysteria and myopic nimbyism - I've had a touch of that when looking at plans for new housing estates and schools in Mill Hill - but I get over it and realise that people need places to live and receive education. I look at an increasingly decaying and underused if not pointless Copthall stadium and wonder why someone hasn't come along and said - Oh look, we could do something special with that! But wait, somebody has - they want to turn it into a facility to be proud of, to provide new facilities for a range of sports, to assist with youth sports development, to excite our children about more than just computer games - and all this for no taxpayers money. Marvellous.
Saracen man - you are welcome to park your car on my drive for free.

by the way my moniker is saracenman because I have been a proud supporter of this team for 20 years. I do not work for Saracens but am ecstatic about the future and the professional way the club is being run.
Sarries are playing Leicester this Saturday at Twickenham (for the second year running!) and hopefully will become Champions of the Aviva Premiership.

All the building blocks have been put in place to create a world class brand with extreme professionalism from Chairman down to backroom staff to the players and the coaching team.

What a fantastic opportunity for Barnet Borough to boast a world class team and a world class stadium.

Once again the flag waving saracen supporters, are only looking at the big game and dont seems to give a toss about the locals .. oh yes the people that actually live here !! The saracens record of working with its previous local residents or oppositon supporters does not have a good track record otherwise they would not be in such a position. An area like Borehamwood is crying out for more investment or Hatfield and have far better transport links for its existing and potential fan base.. Once again thanks but no thanks..

Redrenault - I do live here. And I am not a 'flag waving Saracens supporter'.... as if that would actually something be to be ashamed of, in some odd way. Reading grey haired supporters post, so does he.
And saracenman says he only lives three or four miles away, which isn't next to the stadium, I grant you, but it certainly makes him local enough to have a perfect right to comment.
There are two sides to this argument. They include looking at the benefits as well as the negatives - and happen to think that the former more than compensates for whatever disadvantage there may, or may not be. Much as you may not like the fact, there are plenty of people in Mill Hill who think that this would be a good idea! I am not saying 'most' as you claimed - because as I have pointed out - none of us has done a referendum on the subject and none of us can substantiate that claim one way or the other. But plenty, nonetheless.

What point are you actually making about 'saracens record of working with its previous local residents or opposition supporters' exactly?' The reason saracens have said they need to leave Watford is because it is too big, designed primarily for football and Saracens didnt want to share with a football club any more. They have had ten years of playing in Watford, to small-ish, well behaved crowds, as I have certainly never seen anything to suggest the contrary - so much so that they are now going to be staying there whilst all this is sorted out - one way or the other. Why would Watford agree to that if it hadnt been a workable relationship?
And in case you hadnt noticed - Copthall is also crying out for investment. So is business in Mill Hill.

So I'm sorry, but I disagree. Yes please.

Yes please from another local - great to get the stadium redeveloped. A positive impact for all local children, and far better than a football team trying to move in, at least there wont be any hooligans

Barnet council should do the right thing, grant permission for this redevelopment and use the money they save from keeping Copthall going to protect public services within the area

I too am confident of finding some off-mainroad parking, walkable the stadium, that will not interfere with neighbours or travellers. Hopefully 6 spaces, available free to Saracens supporters on match days. For myself, this would be a small service to a socially valuable enterprise. If a thousand of us found we could host 2 booked cars each, would that solve the parking part of the problem? Congestion too might be solved by a bit of group think, a kind of traffic spring. Could Saracens do an on-the-day tweetnet, coordinating times, avoiding hotspots, and reminding all to not use the worst roads at all, with reasons? If just one person produces these ideas, what could a whole Borough do?
But again perhaps the most satisfying would be for us to come up with something to improve the daily flow in overcrowded areas. There are many very able local people involved, and for democracy to work we have to drive it ourselves.

Bruce .. have a look at the Mill Hill preservation society, their report lists the effects a saracen move would have on the whole area and although "locals" the report is very balanced and provides a well thought out response. If there were off road walkable car park spaces for ALL 2400 why have EG and his team or the council been unable to find these elusive gems ? and relying on distant flat spaces anywhere within the borough. At least you can see there is an obvious taffic / congestion issue .. which is more than many care to admit but your resolutions unfortunately are inadequate as there is no way to avoid the hotspots. This is what people have been saying. Short of having NO Parking on site or within 1 mile could this be avoided but all it would do is push the problem onto another area within the borough.

NW7 what business will really benefit in Mill Hill ?? The majority of supporters will park and go straight to the ground .. stop of at the occasional pub and thats it, thus taking up the car park spaces of the local residents and people that use the high street on a Saturday / Sunday.. unless your likely to drop off your dry cleaning before the game pick up a roast for your Sunday lunch or buy an engagement ring ..hmmm un-likely !!!

Also if the long term plans are not to develop the site further (5 -10 yrs)why don't we include certain caveats into the contracts now ? Where is the saracen financial plan ? how and what else are they intending to do at the site to make money ?? Would love to see it ? please do tell ..

Meanwhile they push the PR and people avoid asking the difficult questions

Hello redrenault,
Thanks for the detailed questions.
I will try to answer as well as I can, but please come back where I footfault or leave gaps etc. I think the legal term without prejudice applies, and means I may not know what I am talking about. I am fairly clear in my own mind that there are positive answers to most and maybe all of what you have raised.
Hopefully to be updated in an hour or so ..
Cheers, Bruce
Bruce

Hi redrenault,
I stuck your posting in an editor, to make it easier to follow the threads:



RR wrote:
Bruce .. have a look at the Mill Hill preservation society, their report lists the effects a saracen move would have on the whole area and although "locals" the report is very balanced and provides a well thought out response.
BD:Agreed, I had read the Pres's briefing, balanced as ever, and would like to go over the points of concern in it later with you. And was a bit upset by parts of John Turtle's invited fervent address at Copthall School. He is deeply concerned. It take several Solomons to balance all those points.

RR: If there were off road walkable car park spaces for ALL 2400 why have EG and his team or the council been unable to find these elusive gems ?
BD:Because their plans neatly involved using the school car parks shown on their match-day travel plans. I say neat because few schools use their parks on weekends except by prior arrangement, the payment to the school would be valuable, the cars would all be off-road except for access, and a marshall would be available to watch over them, as well as check on those who did not take up their pre-booked site. If I were organising it, and I am only an amateur.

RR:and relying on distant flat spaces anywhere within the borough.
BD:There are several others that even I spotted that are better, some out of borough, but they wouldn't contribute to our schools, and to me doing good things for sporting and wider education is more what this about than the matches or the congestion issues. - which do badly need sorting.

RR:are better perhaps r possibilitiesAt least you can see there is an obvious taffic / congestion issue .. which is more than many care to admit but your resolutions unfortunately are inadequate as there is no way to avoid the hotspots. This is what people have been saying.
BD:Could we make a definitive total list of the hotspots? Page, Pursley, Bunns, and their side roads for starters. One coach snafu'd on those .. ugh, but solvable.

RR:Short of having NO Parking on site or within 1 mile could this be avoided but all it would do is push the problem onto another area within the borough.
BD:I question that this is unsolvable. Rugby people respect the ref where I come from. Doubly if a police presence meant access to the DVLC database. The devil's advocate in me says that really naughty non-rugby cars might even get chased away earlier!

RR:NW7 what business will really benefit in Mill Hill ??
BD:What if a family shopping and presents jaunt with one child say was included in the day trip? Or a cafe stop? Or a supporter wanting to check house prices? We source all our furniture on the Broadway, plus nice wine, decent food and fast food, flowers, plus the whole ambience there of the outdoor continental lifestyle is a nice thing to share. Plus a post-match curry.
RR .. fans head straight to the ground (BD: Yay!) or
RR:stop of at the occasional pub and thats it,
thus taking up the car park spaces of the local residents (BD only if they have fly-parked see above for monitoring) and people that use the high street on a Saturday / Sunday.. unless your likely to drop off your dry cleaning before the game pick up a roast for your Sunday lunch or buy an engagement ring ..hmmm un-likely !!!

BD: Posh shops do attract quality ie well-walleted customers. One ring would activate a lot of bells! And our superb Mill Hill fixit services deserve more patronage. Likewise F Central and BX and ..

RR:Also if the long term plans are not to develop the site further (5 -10 yrs) why don't we include certain caveats into the contracts now ?
BD: Why not? What would you suggest? I have thought of several, but would prefer to see a combo of CCI and the Copthall monitoring group of 13 years and RfR that I am peripheral to, would like to see develop and the longer than one lifetime Pres type groups monitor with the teeth of public opinion behind them. Terrier Turtle at the fore! People in high places rightly listen to him.

RR:Where is the saracen financial plan ? how and what else are they intending to do at the site to make money ?? Would love to see it ? please do tell ..
BD:Frankly, I trust this sort of outfit, as I have said elsewhere. I have watched them for over half a century, from when their ilk picked me up when dad died. I have never been a rugby person, nor discussed it with them, but you don't get integrity at the bottom unless the brain and diet are honest.
The money is not an issue: the Mill Hill thing is not a money-making venture. Break-even here would be ideal for them, the aim is community support and conviviality. This not something us 9 to 5ers can easily sense. Only in retirement has my focus shifted from self-survival to wider issues, and believe me when I say I am loving and achieving far more than I did at the chalkface, for all that I gave it my best shot. Except now its grand-avuncular and I can clearly see why someone would risk a large number of millions of pounds for the satisfaction of bringing nations together in amity, one of the major unsung aims of the sport.


RR:Meanwhile they push the PR and people avoid asking the difficult questions.
BD: No PR, no planning permission, it's the rules and the customs we set up. But please keep asking the questions, and checking the RfR faqlist until you are happy each has been covered. Plus you now know why I want to see this work. All sub judice, of course ;)

Warmly, Bruce

Bruce, Thanks for taking the time to respond so eloquently. In response to using the schools in the surrounding areas I would be VERY surprised if two of the country’s most religious Jewish schools let you use their car park on a Saturday, a Sunday, possibly but still doubtful when you consider the security issue – How many other schools have 20ft fences, security guards and entry phone systems ? Lets give you the benefit of the doubt and say they find said places even you raise the issue of access ( and in your words – you are an amateur) even realise that its a problem, one local residents are struggling most with.

Car accidents , road works, regular Sat / Sun road users , Buses ... all solvable traffic issues ? Yes but not with the additional loads you are talking about if Saracens move in, the road infrastructure is not capable of handling that increased flow ! Hence the 1 mile exclusion zone should be considered, increased public transport usage – even walking / cycling.. but as 80% of your fans will rely on cars ( in the proposals ) it’s a big issue. The naughty non-rugby car users you refer to ARE the residents Bruce come on !!

Bruce .. your shopping argument falls flat .. sorry. No-one from MK or travelling fans are going to frequent the local shops to buy a new pair of trainers , order / buy a pine chest of draws or pick up a M&S £10 meal special on the way to Rugby .. and on the way home most will be closed. I have been to enough Rugby games to know that ! and I don’t expect a Quins fan to make a detour to BX to have a waxing either.

I am not bringing into question the personal integrity of the Rugby fraternity in any way or the charitable work they do, but I do question the philanthropic intentions of some of the financial institutions backing them. I – not being a 9-5er as you put it, do not believe that money is “ .. not an issue”. The game is too big, too costly, and in today’s society it would be naive to believe it can’t be a money making venture. If I am wrong show the public the financial plans. If they are so altruistic let the plans speak for themselves. I can’t see the players playing for love either or main team for £30k a year !

I am saying consider other venues and put as much effort into researching them or an alternative and non confrontational traffic solution. EG says he is “ Engaging with the community” but he has not taken any of the comments or suggestions on board, just ramming home the same initial – unaltered plans.

Kind regards RR

We are talking 10,000 spectators as the norm.....their average crowd this season has only been around 6-7,000! I think they are still a way off reaching a sold out 10,000 week in week out! Wembley is their biggest crowd and thats of no concern to Copthall.

Taking 16 days as the most matches they can play (as I believe is in the lease agreement). Looking at that in another figure, am I right in saying that works out at just over 4% usage in the year?! 4%....thats nothing! And another, say the average rugby match day lasts 6 hours? Tell me if wrong. Thats 16 x 6 = 96 hours (in the year)! out of a possible 8,760 hours....again...not
hing! An unbelieveably small price to pay for what could be an outstanding stadium. I wish them all the best of luck (and as ANOTHER local resident).

Lionel .. those 96 hours are the prime weekend hours which in a year are only 2496 so the % is far higher and personally I enjoy my weekends and dont need all the delightful chaos this project is bringing with it. The saracens NEED 10,000 to make the project work and will be doing their utmost to get there .. So its no SMALL price, its a bloody HUGE one for the community, despite the kids projects ..

Regards RR

It is a small price compared to the benefits it will bring, not just for rugby, but for the community and the children
Indoor training for all year round, access for community groups to be able to use the space, further investment in the area as businesses move in to take advantage of the opportunity on match days as well as the rest of the year
For what will be minimum disruption the benefits far out weigh the negatives

Some people just dont like change do they rr.....Oh and another thing...according to that Paul Herman fellar and his anti lot there is no crime or gangs to speak of barnet borough area...?! Maybe not (plenty of other examples like this too) Maybe we should get them teaming up with the community and off the streets?!: http://www.times-ser
ies.co.uk/news/topst
ories/9050669.Man_an
d_woman_jailed_after
_violent_attempted_r
obbery/?ref=mr

Lionel.. If only they had learnt how to play Rugby Eh !! maybe the UN should try it.. The anti lot consists of a few thousand " local" people.. so quite a rabble !

rr - last I heard it was a few hundred. And they are nearly all from the roads immediately around the stadium. But reading these posts - by no means everyone around the stadium. And if I am not much mistaken, didnt I read that they are outnumbered by several thousand letters in favour? A large number from Barnet residents? In my experience, that in itself is surprising as it is always much more difficult to get people to actively support something, whilst, if people are objecting - they are much more likely to be very vocal about it!
But in the end it isnt actually about that - it is about planning, so although it is an interesting set of assumptions - it isnt a beauty contest.
I love your last idea! Get everyone to play rugby - or athletics or any sport for that matter. We'd all be a lot fitter, healthier and learn new skills. Probably save the NHS a fortune!

Hi again RR and friends,
Reading and re-reading your last post shows we are finding much more synergy towards the real quality of life goals we all seek. Of course I still think you are wrong where we disagree, perhaps because I am too thick/arrogant/pig-h
eaded to admit it, or we just hav'n't suggested an idea that would work for all parties. Yet ;)
Perhaps our bigger problems include lack of trust in governance in a world we now perceive as untrustworthy; and where our focus fades before we can read the answers on the postcard. These ARE two bigger issues I would LOVE to invest time in - and yes they are relevant to the future of the stadium.