“Wafty
Maybe we will just have to disagree on it being in the wrong place.
I feel it is the correct location - easy road access from the A52 which leads to the M1, A50, A38 and M6, close to the train station, opening it up for visitors from Nationwide. Adjacent to route 6 and 54 of the National Cycle Network and on a corridor of sporting / cycling facilities extending out from the city centre, Bass's rec and the Alvaston BMX track for example
Im quite sure the two can be managed, after all how often are games re-arranged? Not very, the chance of them clashing with a concert (also not the main income for the centre) is extremely minimal)
How much parking is there for such a facility if built as suggested at Moorways? Not as much I imagine
Besides we digress from the article which is about a rather silly it would seem objection by the Environment Agency and Health and Safety Exec”

“littlemoaner - some good points, although I would argue with the council's assertion that events and football matches will be managed to prevent both occurring on the same day - take, for example, the re-scheduled Forest game - would the club/football authorities really accept possibility of some fixture dates being unavailable if the venue becomes genuinely popular? will the council ensure that Tuesdays and Wednesdays are kept clear 'just in case'? - what about when Sky decide to move a game at relatively short notice? typical concerts are being scheduled 9-12 months ahead of time - we're likely to miss out on a number of the acts they're trying to attract if they have to blackout dates when football may be played ( based on this season, that could be any day of the week, so do we only have concerts in the summer?)
In addition, they talk about asking local land-owners regarding match day parking - don't forget that this is the same council who a couple of years ago started issuing threats to pride park businesses if the opened their car parks to football fans as they would be in breach of the planning regulations - it really does seem that this is the right development in the wrong-place, but that the council will say and do anything in order to make it happen.....”

“by CoachOgre
Wednesday, February 08 2012, 8:49AM

Coachogre have you even looked at the plans
I have let me dispell some of your assumptions and myths -

1. "with land getting covered in tarmac, hedgerows being ripped up there is more run off into rivers et cetera when it rains. "
What hedgerows? The site is on the location of the existing tarmaced park and ride, and on land now sacrifised to underground gass pipes (redundant). in fact instead of ripping up hedgerows the plans include to expand the existing nature reserve.
Any development would have a SUDS plan (Sustainable urban drainage) therefore limiting surface water run off and dispersal into the river (run off here would not cause flooding on the same site, and the EA havenet objected on the grounds of increased run off causing flooding downstream)

2. "the established bird sanctuary would not be affected, the park and ride site part of the green transport policy would still be there. "
Neither are affected by the plans, the park and ride is currently underused by 50% other than on matchdays, and the plans see an overall increase in parking alloawance of 70+ spaces
The plans incorporate and expand on the existing nature reserve

3. "Could the reason they do not want to put it at Moorways be they hope to sell off all or some of the publicly not council owned land that they manage on our behalf for housing/development? "
No it is not at moorways because the multisports arean is £20m of a bigger £50m pot of money for improving liesure and sports facilities. Included in the additional £30m is plans to redevelop Moorways as a sports venue and build a new swimming pool

4. " Look at the chaos now on match days around pride park with so called intelligent people walking like zombies across roads without thinking about cars etc. Imagine what it would be like with even more cars or people heading in the same general direction to attend an event. Pride Park/Wyvern and the surrounding areas would become gridlocked"
The traffic paln and planning documents indicate that there would not be events held at the venue on matchdays, and that this would be managed, along with an increase in overall parking spaces there is mention of negotiations with local landowners over matchday parking by DCFC


May I suggest before making such assumptions you arm yourself first with the full facts. They are available on the Derby City Council Planning website”

“The environment agency might be covering their backs but with land getting covered in tarmac, hedgerows being ripped up there is more run off into rivers et cetera when it rains. There were several sites identified as possible locations for the Velodrome including Moorways which has easy access, is on the outskirts of the city, on several bus routes and would help boost local economy of the area. Had it been put here there would have been no chance of flooding, the established bird sanctuary would not be affected, the park and ride site part of the green transport policy would still be there. Could the reason they do not want to put it at Moorways be they hope to sell off all or some of the publicly not council owned land that they manage on our behalf for housing/development? Look at the chaos now on match days around pride park with so called intelligent people walking like zombies across roads without thinking about cars etc. Imagine what it would be like with even more cars or people heading in the same general direction to attend an event. Pride Park/Wyvern and the surrounding areas would become gridlocked.”

“from John Stewart, Chairman, South Pennine Road Club.

This is the typical Environment Agency approach of object first and talk sensibly later. Pride Park was reclaimed and redeveloped to EA requirements, with all "development platforms" above the advised 1 in 100 year flood level. Subsequently, as part of the great climate change panic, the EA raised its projected maximum rainfall figures for a 1 in 100 year flood and decided that everything built to its previous requirements was now substandard.

In a 1 in 100 year scenario, car parks are normally regarded as sacrificial in flood situations; people either move their cars or they get flooded. In Derby, such a flood would not come as a flash flood but as the climax of a long period of rising levels and warnings of such down the Derwent Valley. Even someone who had parked and gone into the City shopping would have time to return. As for the pollution risk, a flood of the feared magnitude would both create pollution from washing down material from developments well upstream and minimise it because of the huge dilution factor of the volumes of water involved.

As other commentators have said, it's a case of posterior protection.”

“I agree it is quite ridiculous to accuse the Environment agency of jealousy. What they do stand accused of is blatant backside covering. In the highly unlikely event that the 1 in 100 year flood should happen they can say "we told you so". Same with the Health and safety issue. But were they troubled by that when Pride Park stadium was built or the existing park & ride? Sadly they conform to modern claim culture and will spoil it for everyone. They have even tried to stop a street party having bunting in case it "It falls down on somebody". Isn't it time to stop this ridiculous over the top meddling?”

“@awest987:
"Do you seriously expect people to believe that Environment Agency officials are sat in an office in Nottingham trying to find excuses to block the building of a Cycle track in Derby?"

nope - they're far too busy studying a picture of an elbow and a picture of a backside and trying to tell the difference between them.....”

“It really is laughable to read the usual paranoid, chip on the shoulder comments by the anti Nottingham brigade.

Do you seriously expect people to believe that Environment Agency officials are sat in an office in Nottingham trying to find excuses to block the building of a Cycle track in Derby?

Grow up!”

“I was part of a team who surveyed the old railway workings, (pride park and the surrounding area) we were finding the water table from the river at around 2 mtrs, this was around Feb/Mar time two decades ago and it's never flooded yet. Around 6 years ago while cycling the river path in summer I found an old work colleague digging trial holes alond the top of Alvaston Park bank and everything was in order then but further down river passed raynesway the force of water completely removed Alvaston side bank. Since I helped construct the cycleway from raynesway to Elvaston in the 1990s nothing major has taken place but we were made fully aware of Derby's hundred year flood.
I have seen the river in some very swollen states, where it concerns me mostly is the raynesway area and downstream of that.”

“It really is laughable to read the usual anti-Nottingham paranoia that seems to affect some of the more parochial Derby residents. Do you seriously expect people to believe that officials at the Environment Agency are sitting in their offices in Nottingham trying to find excuses to block the building of a Velodrome in Derby? Grow up.”