Re: Stadium Development Thread : Tue Mar 08, 2011 6:55 pm  

duke street 10 wrote:

You would think the owners of Xscape would be chuffed to have thousands of potential customers in the area every 2 weeks?.

Money talks in this day and age,hope a comprimise can be sorted quickly

Having read the letter I can't disagree with any of the points made - Xscape car park does get very busy on the weekends and so its not as if supporters parking their cars there are doing so in a space that would otherwise remain empty.

I'm just disappointed Xscape have only raised their objections now. Then again, if Cas have altered the planned number of parking spaces included with the stadium from that detailed in the outline planning application they (Cas) have only got themselves to blame!

Re: Stadium Development Thread : Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:44 pm  

I wonder if we could offer some sort of compromise by increasing our number of parking spaces and offering them to Xscape/Junction 32 for use in their busy periods ie xmas, january sales etc etc

Re: Stadium Development Thread : Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:57 pm  

Castigers/Ramsdens reduce the number of spaces by 325 in this application.

Xscape have 400 overflow spaces that none of their customers use.

Xscape may have to pay for a lease and upkeep of these spaces as they do not own the land.

Castigers take over the lease on a ready made car park for 400 spaces.

Castigers save on the cost of constructing 400 spaces

Castigers and Xscape both Happy Bunnies.

Just a thought but I may be wrong

Re: Stadium Development Thread : Tue Mar 08, 2011 9:45 pm  

bigalf wrote:

:IDEA:

Castigers/Ramsdens reduce the number of spaces by 325 in this application.

Xscape have 400 overflow spaces that none of their customers use.

Xscape may have to pay for a lease and upkeep of these spaces as they do not own the land.

Castigers take over the lease on a ready made car park for 400 spaces.

Castigers save on the cost of constructing 400 spaces

Castigers and Xscape both Happy Bunnies.

Just a thought but I may be wrong

You missed getting Xscape out of a S106 and possible planning condition... but otherwise good and very possible theory!

Re: Stadium Development Thread : Tue Mar 08, 2011 9:47 pm  

As I said on the other thread, what will be, will be.

Re: Stadium Development Thread : Tue Mar 08, 2011 10:12 pm  

Fully wrote:

As I said on the other thread, what will be, will be.

Does that mean bigalf is correct then?

Re: Stadium Development Thread : Tue Mar 08, 2011 10:21 pm  

Inflatable_Armadillo wrote:

Does that mean bigalf is correct then?

No, it means I'm getting sick of this whole topic and just want the frigging thing to be built now.

Re: Stadium Development Thread : Tue Mar 08, 2011 10:32 pm  

Fully wrote:

No, it means I'm getting sick of this whole topic and just want the frigging thing to be built now.

So why comment?

Re: Stadium Development Thread : Tue Mar 08, 2011 10:50 pm  

Inflatable_Armadillo wrote:

So why comment?

Ditto

Re: Stadium Development Thread : Tue Mar 08, 2011 11:24 pm  

Inflatable_Armadillo wrote:

So why comment?

Because I wanted to?