Newest article: Don't think so by Unnamed SauceToday 21:47Today at 21:47:15view thread
Oldest article: Yeovil 1 Boro 3 by Unnamed Sauce17/8/2025 19:41Sun Aug 17 19:41:54 2025view thread
Next thread: Tuesday’s result by Dougie85/11/2025 09:35Wed Nov 5 09:35:51 2025view thread
Ground news
Views: 2117
https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/local-news/location-new-ground-nuneaton-town-32811038
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Ground news
Views: 1383
If this gets passed I'll be surprised, awful access along Tomkinson Rd and Haunchwood Road just to pander to so called core Stockingford support which has melted away in the last 20 years anyway.
I'd rather stay at the Oval.
Note to self, 'be careful what you wish for'
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Ground news
Views: 1345
If you look back on my Treasurers updated, you will see that NBBC has consulted its own planning team and other stakeholders (inc WCC highways) as to which sites would like pass planning.
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: Ground news
Views: 1334
That doesn’t mean they will be passed - this site imo will be the subject of wholesale opposition once local residents get wind of the proposals - as occurred at the Jubilee Centre proposal and the Bermuda road scheme. Stat
Consultees like the highways agency will have their say and local councillors will back their voters to the hilt.
I drove past the site tonight a 6 o’clock and it was busy as hell. Shame there isn’t road access across the railway to camp hill/ Queen Elizabeth road.
What worries me is a proposal for a step 4 ground. What happens if town gets a relatively quick return to conf north?
Settling for a step 4 build at Vale view may prove problematic in the long run.
What ever the size of the ground - the whole crowd will have to exit into Haunchwood rd bar a few that might walk Over the vale view railway bridge.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Ground news
Views: 1095
Can you name me a football ground (sensible answer please ) that doesn’t have some congestion after a game , that’s been a part of football and will continue to be apart of football for ever,
Yes people will exit the ground on to Haunchwood Road , turn right that will take you to Stockingford, Galley Common , and Camp Hill ,
Turn left , Weddington , Higham Lane , cut through Northumberland Ave , then through the Glendale est , that takes you to Hill top,
The point I’m trying to make not everyone will be going the same way.
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: Ground news
Views: 1117
It doesn’t matter what you, me or anyone thinks - it’s what the planners think - they will base their decision on what local residents say together with what statutory consultees say and other issues. Other stat consultees would
Include Natural England and even Historic England . The highways agency will be one very important consultee who have to be consulted.
Take manor Park for example - when this ground was laid out around a century ago it was on the periphery of the town of Nuneaton surrounded mostly by fields and ribbon development,then over the years development occurred around it, mostly residential. So the ground was there and the congestion of crowds accepted. These days however the planning process is far more complicated and can cost big money.
Planning applications need to show public benefit in some circumstances.
Environmental factors are massive these days.
Imagine this - if you lived next to a business that was continually making noise and other disturbances and you objected you could, with others launch statutory or public nuisance litigation to stop the disturbance - noise, lighting, smells and other things.
Now you would think if the offending business was set up 50 years ago and your house and estate was built only one year ago the offending premises would say - “ but we were here first long before the houses”
One of the major pieces of nuisance law in Britain was Sturgess v Bridgeman in 1876 whereby a doctor opened a small consulting office in his garden but was troubled by a factory making noise next door. Of course the factory owner cried we’ve been here years so we have a right to make the noise and the doctor has only just set up.
So what was the outcome? The judge found in favour of the doctor as he stated that the nature of the location was predominantly residential so the factory owner must reduce the noise. The defence available, which is still in law today is Best practicable means which a business owner can use to basically stay in business. This defence is outlined in the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
Basically ,prescription - or who was there first is no defence in law when it comes to nuisance litigation.
None of this however will be related to the planning process but it mearly shows the complexity of law relating to sites which may create noise or disturbance to nearby residents.
Town may need to show how they intend to reduce the impact of traffic congestion and other potential problems that may be outlined in consultations.
Not an easy process at all is planning but Vale view does tick more than one box.
Good location within area where fans can easily walk to games.
Large area of land.
If town can work with locals then it would be a good location.
If they are refused planning permission then they could certainly appeal but they’ll need planning agents involved and they don’t come cheap.
Let’s hope the locals accept the proposals.
And of an appeal was needed it could eventually be called in by the planning inspector and could result in a public enquiry.
Hope your well 44 - mam isn’t too good these days but that’s another story.
Edited by Armchair Observer at 20:42:34 on 6th November 2025
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Ground news
Views: 1056
For information:-
FWP Architects
DWP Planning Group
DTP Dynamic Transport Planning
BEK Geo-Environmental Consulting
All 4 Consultants are on board & have contributed to DWP's Feasibility Report.
Warwickshire County Council Highways are going to be a major consultee.
DTP have outlined the need for a Transport Assessment, Traffic Surveys, Stage One Road Traffic Safety Audit & a Travel Plan.
This will all need to be paid for by NTFC.
A top quality Travel Plan will be crucial.
There may well be Section 278 Highways Works improvements required by WCC Highways, which again will need to be paid for by NTFC.
If additional local bus services are deemed necessary on match days, then Stagecoach will need to be involved & they will require a financial contribution, to be paid for by NTFC.
Also, the possibility of additional bus stops/shelters plus ongoing maintenance will be needed, again to be paid for by NTFC.
Plus numerous Geo-Environmental Reports will add to the cost to be borne by NTFC.
Not forgetting the Planning Fee.
All of these costs are currently excluded from the Budget Cost Plan.
Edited by VoR at 21:22:56 on 6th November 2025
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Ground news
Views: 1097
£££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££
Dead on VOR
Some more blackouts and discos needed.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Ground news
Views: 1032
...& most importantly given the nature of this site, a very extensive Ground Investigation Report, without delay.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Ground news
Views: 1046
This image from around 1913 shows what the geology of the vale view area is like.
This photo was taken at Stanley brothers no4 clay pit off Greenmore rd.
The camera position is more or less where the Jubilee centre grounds are looking towards where the George Elliot hospital now stands.
The coal seams outcrop near near the surface and slope in a west/ south west direction where they go much deeper and level out near Arley - shafts in that area were well over 1000 ft deep and even deeper at Daw Mill although the Arley fault prevented mining in that direction from Arley pit.
The clay pit at Vale view was on the Etruria marl in from the outcrop so historic coal working sits underneath the clay pit.
https://bgs.assetbank.app/assetbank-bgs/action/viewAsset?id=16088&index=1&total=20&view=viewSearchItem
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Ground news
Views: 1030
It is essential now that NTFC commission a Coal Mining Risk Assessment & an extensive Ground Investigation Report.
They need to appoint a Civil & Structural Engineering Consultant, who can carry out a more comprehensive desk top study & organise & commission the GI Report on their behalf & interpret the findings & make recommendations as to how to proceed, once that information is available.
My immediate concern is that FWP & their consultants have drawn NTFC's attention to the potential problems that could be encountered on this Vale View site but have qualified out the associated exceptional/abnormal costs, which could be prohibitive.
NTFC need to draw breath & step back from the process at present until a realistic/robust assessment of those costs can be determined.
NBBC have stated that they will not be offering any financial support to the Development project, so presumably they are expecting NTFC to stand the cost of site remediation, in order to bring the site forward for construction.
IMO, NTFC should not proceed any further with this site until those costs have been reliably determined.
Just my thoughts!
Edited by VoR at 10:22:18 on 7th November 2025
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Ground news
Views: 937
Perhaps the council need to do some of that
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Ground news
Views: 945
It's the Developer's responsibility.
Although NTFC being expected to pay for all of the costs of an Enabling Works Contract to remediate the site, which could be necessary, seems IMO to be very unfair, given that NBBC own the site!
Edit:
At the very least the need for piled foundations & gas measures could be required, these are abnormal foundation costs.
Edited by VoR at 11:47:15 on 7th November 2025
Edited by VoR at 11:49:54 on 7th November 2025
Edited by VoR at 11:50:29 on 7th November 2025
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Ground news
Views: 972
Yes - what was it that Max Bygraves used to shout on family fortunes back I. The day,?
BIG MANEY.
Need an all star game v Cov city
A few more discos, auctions and blackouts.
Get JG sun - he’s good at running blackouts -
What about a crowd funder too? Oh err!
🫣
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Ground news
Views: 970
ive got a cloth cap and a mouth organ.
..............every bit helps
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Ground news
Views: 920
Yes but how far will they take the club?- it has been suggested In the past by other sources that a grant figure has to be matched by the club.
I would think the club have avenues to explore related to grants but construction costs? 3-6 million? Who knows but one thing I can tell you is that modern construction don’t come cheap.
Who knows perhaps an old lady in Nuneaton has bequeathed 8 million to Boro in her will- the council? They won’t give a penny.
As I’ve said money and local residents reaction are the key issues. And Boro planning applications near Nuneaton housing have never been plain sailing have they?
Time will tell though - all the club can do is give it their best shot and get the right advice and I’m sure they will.
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: Ground news
Views: 1071
I haven't managed to get through all great comments, but some fascinating stuff about the geology that made Nuneaton prosper.
I shared digs at college with 2 geologists, and they they used to tell me how impressive the geology was from my home town.
But I digress, would it not be cheaper and easier to go cap in hand, to the current LW owners, and humbly beg forgiveness, with perhaps a large deposit of cash as rent in advance?
reply to this article | return to the front page
3 people
Re: Ground news
Views: 940
Good post Liberty Way is such a ready made waste
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Ground news
Views: 943
I suspect NBBC are tearing their hair out over that situation.
The NBBC Cabinet Report makes it clear that the Cabinet will not support the building of another football stadium.
Realistically who can criticise them?
They already own two football stadiums in the Borough, albeit one is also an athletics stadium.
Their concern with Vale View, or any other site for that matter, if they grant a 49-year lease, is whether NTFC is a sustainable business on Council owned land, hence I believe that is why they are distancing themselves from providing any financial support for the project & who can blame them?
The telephone numbers being talked about in the costings at the moment are extortionate & the sooner the FWP Budget Cost Plan is updated to include their exclusions, the better.
Then NTFC can get the knife out & bring some reality to their expectations & make radical changes to the new Stadium design & we can start to see some real progress being made & NBBC might start to take more interest in the project.
Edit:
I have seen it all before!
Edited by VoR at 21:11:04 on 7th November 2025
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Ground news
Views: 975
your last line makes a lot of sense and i have to say realism for all parties concerned
alas dont hold your breath.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Ground news
Views: 964
What is interesting is that NBBC have stated that they want 'mediation' with the other sporting clubs in the Borough to be exhausted, before a new Stadium is considered/progressed.
I assume NBBC are looking to 'mediate' the way it is worded.
That is a very sensible & pro-active approach from the Council.
Grown-up advice.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Ground news
Views: 933
Cabinet Meeting minute 13.1 second bullet point.
The Report that you posted on here!
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Ground news
Views: 951
Read 13 first, then 13.1 and so on :)
---
Hope is not a plan.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Ground news
Views: 982
The words 'mediate' & 'exhaustion' are relevant.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Ground news
Views: 936
As are all the words next to 13
---
Hope is not a plan.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Ground news
Views: 955
Read it again. I’m fed up of correcting your mistakes and assumptions now!
reply to this article | return to the front page
3 people
Re: Ground news
Views: 977
I think you have provided enough very detailed historical information in your numerous recent posts to set the alarm bells ringing about this Vale View site.
All very impressive research work AV.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Ground news
Views: 1001
Has anyone asked the club whether they already knew this and have the next steps in hand? Almost as if they maybe know what they are doing?
reply to this article | return to the front page
3 people
Re: Ground news
Views: 990
I was wondering if the football club has explained why Vale View is their preferred site. If it has been revealed on here then apologies.
Little by little.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Ground news
Views: 967
They have stated that no other sites that have been put forward by NBBC are sustainable.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Ground news
Views: 1060
That will happen anyway because it’s on top of the extensively worked Warwickshire coalfield outcrop. Not to mention the rubbish all squeezed into that hole. There’s is no former clay pit in Nuneaton that has been built on- save for the top end of the Haunchwood no2 works pit between heath end and Arbury roads- that section was filled with spoil form Griff no4 pit.
I support the vale view site but imo it might be a hard sell to the locals
We shall see.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Ground news
Views: 1057
If it becomes a community hub it may be easier to sell to the locals.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Ground news
Views: 1040
Camp Hill has the excellent CHESS Centre which I believe is utilised fully.
There is also the Stockingford Community Centre.
>>>> Former Nuneaton Boro fan <<<<
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Ground news
Views: 1054
That’s a really good point Bert’s. It could be a very good local facility on non match days- that area would certainly benefit from such a thing. There is clear public benefit and that could be reinforced In the planning. application.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Ground news
Views: 943
And if you look at some of the facilities at grounds we play at it certainly can work. Incorporate the community centre, stand and changing rooms.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Ground news
Views: 946
Yes but not on landfilled clay holes. I don’t see a problem at vale view technically - the only problems I see are costs and the reaction of nearby residents - sort them and I reckon it’s a goer.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Ground news
Views: 942
The maximum target cost for a National League standard Stadium should be £5 million.
NTFC are a long way away from that target at present & the Budget Cost Estimate that FWP have presented has numerous significant cost exclusions, which is expected at this very early stage in the process.
The Main Stand will need to be re-designed to be more cost effective & compromises made on the facilities provided.
Edited by VoR at 14:19:34 on 7th November 2025
Edited by VoR at 14:20:02 on 7th November 2025
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Ground news
Views: 838
It will be at least 10 years before we are anywhere near the National League we just need room for a phased development. Main priority - changing rooms, social club and seated stand. Ground capacity 2000.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Ground news
Views: 821
I have just started a new thread with my comments on the Main Stand design.
The Supporters Bar can be added at a later date.
The Community Changing Rooms need to be in a separate Building to aid a Grant Application.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Ground news
Views: 820
No bar? Really?
Note to self, 'be careful what you wish for'
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Ground news
Views: 944
I struggle to understand how all these funds are going to be raised.
Literally the country is staring into a financial abyss, with a hard reckoning and a reality check for most of us. So the chances of VV happening are slim. The kindly old benefactor donation is probably our only hope.
I sometimes ponder what could have done with Manor Park, if it could have been downsized and some land released for social housing.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Ground news
Views: 932
ive always been led to believe that MP was downsized
as it stretched to Beaumont close place ( memory )
and behind the main stand which went back further
also im led to believe the pitch was turned 90 degrees when the land was sold
i stand to be corrected, but thats what i was led to believe
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Ground news
Views: 917
That’s on the money - hard times ahead- I won’t get political so not to offend the leftists on here.🫢 Not easy for a football club to build a new ground with no asset to fund it.
Must be other examples though - didn’t Runcorn build a basic new ground that cost a few million? Over to the non league experts!
Happy to be corrected but sure someone will know.
I see Town and Beduth getting closer and closer faced with the financial constraints of these times. If town fans are happy with the oval then so be it.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Ground news
Views: 833
There are grants for deprived areas and ex-mining areas. Shame we left the EU more grants would be available
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Ground news
Views: 958
It’s a lot of money to find.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Ground news
Views: 1054
The deal breakers are likely to be the exceptional costs for remediating the site (there are potentially many issues that need to be resolved), the cost of the abnormal foundations, highways issues & floodlighting lux levels.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Ground news
Views: 1325
The FWP Feasibility Study is loose in it's future intentions, although I put that down possibly to the Brief that they have been given from NTFC.
The Development as presented is for a Level 8/Step 4 Stadium with a progression to Level 7/Step 3 (1950 capacity).
Yet, the Main Stand layout plans show a future seating capacity for 500 seats, which complies with the ground grading requirements for the National League at Level 5/Step 1.
The Feasibility Study contains a throw-away paragraph refering to 'future proofing' the new Club.
I doubt that this has been worked through properly at the moment?
Truro City have built a new National League South standard Stadium for £4,460,000 with the required on-site parking.
They are in the process of increasing their seating capacity from 250 seats to 500 seats (a requirement of now being in the National League), at a further cost of £180,000
It's important that the Planners know now what NTFC really intend to build in their sustainable phased build plan.
I don't think this has been made clear as yet?
Edited by VoR at 19:52:41 on 5th November 2025
Edited by VoR at 19:53:33 on 5th November 2025
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Ground news
Views: 1266
Your last but one sentence dead on VOR.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Ground news
Views: 1887
We'll see about that!
I respect all you and the other board members have done Lee really good hard work but it's still a shit site.
Note to self, 'be careful what you wish for'
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Ground news
Views: 1289
It is what it is. Every other site is either unavailable, wouldn't pass planning or would present restrictions on the stadium due to available space.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Ground news
Views: 1280
Better than nothing, hope all goes well at the NBBC and getting the funding.
Note to self, 'be careful what you wish for'
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: Ground news
Views: 1078
Yet again do you see any other alternatives then ?
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Ground news
Views: 786
Did answer that
Note to self, 'be careful what you wish for'
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: Ground news
Views: 1242
That will depend on the scale of the Development.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Club statement
Views: 1987
https://www.nuneatontownfc.co.uk/news/back-to-nuneaton-update
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
NBBC Papers
Views: 1919
Include NTFC feasibility study:
Page 11 onwards
https://www.nuneatonandbedworth.gov.uk/download/meetings/id/1382/Download%2520the%2520Agenda%252C%2520reports%2520and%2520appendices
It's good that we now see progress after some inertia from NBBC.
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: NBBC Papers
Views: 1423
My comments as follows:-
The top priority now is to obtain a Coal Mining Risk Assessment & to locate the mineshafts on the site & in the surrounding area.
Filling, grouting & capping off mineshafts is expensive & is also time consuming, because there has to be a period to allow for settlement, before further development work can commence.
There is also a risk with mineworkings for groundwater contamination.
The comments about the site being used by NBBC as a tip for household waste & 'possible other types of waste' including industrial waste suggest that, unless NBBC have accurate records of the material bring tipped, it could have been uncontrolled tipping.
The reference to tanks is concerning, without knowing what was stored in those tanks.
As far as the new Stadium design is concerned, none of the 5 schematics presented show the Main Stand positioned in the West.
The Budget Cost Plan is at the top end of the costings, which is to be expected & has typical exclusions.
What is concerning to me is that it doesn't properly address the cost of any potential remediation works for the site, particularly contamination & ground improvement requirements, although it does mention piled foundations & gas protection measures.
What is most concerning are the NBBC Cabinet comments about not wanting a football ground in Nuneaton, questioning the sustainability of such a development on NBBC owned land & also not wanting a football ground at Vale View.
Also, NBBC are not prepared to offer any financial support to NTFC.
The rent will be a fair market rent, assuming a 49-year lease is granted.
Just my thoughts!
Edit:
NTFC also need to obtain an estimate of how much the Planning Process will cost, which should be possible, if it hasn't already been provided by the professionals they have already employed.
This cost is presently excluded from the Budget Cost Plan.
Edited by VoR at 11:35:57 on 5th November 2025
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: NBBC Papers
Views: 1403
Value view - before the Great War.
https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=15.5&lat=52.52436&lon=-1.50667&layers=6&b=ESRIWorld&o=100
reply to this article | return to the front page
Vale view site
Views: 1413
This image show the vale view site in 1913 when it was the Haunchwood no2 clay pit - the clay was taken via a tunnel under the railway line and into the works grinding mill which was opposite the no1 clay pit which is now a pool.
The brick yard chimneys are on the right and the chimneys of Haunchwood Nowells colliery are on the left. Behind the camera Is the apex position of the Haunchwood road. Not a simple site to build on but foundations for light weight steel stands and a new single story club house.
https://bgs.assetbank.app/assetbank-bgs/action/viewAsset?id=16094&searchId=-1&index=7&total=20&view=viewSearchItem
And just before ww2
https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=15.1&lat=52.52397&lon=-1.50590&layers=10&b=ESRIWorld&o=100
Edited by Armchair Observer at 14:11:58 on 5th November 2025
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: NBBC Papers
Views: 1415
The site was Haunchwood brick and tiles no2 clay hole situated on what was once the ancient Haunchwood. The clay hole was more or less worked out by the Great War and was latterly filled with household waste. This pit extracted Etruria marl which outcropped in a line from approx Brett’s Hall near Ansley common and running to Bedworth through Stockingford and Chilvers Coton.
The coal seams including the four foot, Two yard or Ryder, nine feet, seven foot and bench outcropped on the eastern edge of the thin outcrop at marl and they dipped towards Arley. Haunchwood did indeed sink very small shafts into the coal and they also worked other clays including fire clays. There were shafts in the vicinity of the main Haunchwood no1 works where Whittleford park now stands. As for a new ground on this land - probably not a problem with modern foundation/ raft techniques but foundations of complex can be expensive.
The clay pit was probably around 80 feet deep.
Totally correct though VOR about the need for a thorough investigation related to local mining activity in the local.
Haunchwood Nowells pit behind the miners arms and the Nuneaton new colliery sunk ( behind the Cherry tree pub) around 1864 were active in this locality. Haunchwood Nowells pit was probably the oldest pit in the Warwickshire coalfield being sunk in the 18th century - it closed in 1925 and became a pumping station for the Haunchwood tunnel pit at Galley common sunk around 1892 until the tunnel closed in 1967.
As for the vale view site
Right location.
Good amount of land and a barrier of a rail line and Whittleford park on its northern edge.
The only negatives for me are the potential costs and whether the locals will kick up a stink as it is bordered by Vale view and Haunchwood rd and access egress is constructed to flow onto Haunchwood rd.
The club need to do plenty of work with the LA and the locals with plenty of good will to get this site through I reckon but we’ll see.
And as you’ve said before VOR the plans needs to reflect the best future scnarip and I reckon that would be for a national league facility. No point in obtaining permission for a small southern league ground only to be screwed of it needed expanding for step 1 or 2 of they ever got there.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: NBBC Papers
Views: 1346
The m2 rate for the Main Stand facility used in the Budget Cost Plan is at the very top end & I am interested to know whether that reflects the construction of deep piled foundations.
If the clay pit was excavated to a depth of 80ft as you say, that would require the piles to be 25-30m long & would likely be steel cased cast-in situ type piles, to toe-in to the natural underlying strata, given that the ground conditions would likely offer no sideways resistance.
Precast interlocking driven piles could also be an option.
The Feasibilty Study refers to a Step 8/Level 4 Stadium, with the potential to expand to Step 7/Level 3 (1950 capacity)
Given the Highways access/egress/on-site & off-site parking situation, IMO it would be difficult to see a satisfactory Planning Permission being granted for any further expansion.
For comparison, The Oval's current capacity is 2550 with plenty of room for further expansion.
Edited by VoR at 13:57:09 on 5th November 2025
Edited by VoR at 14:02:35 on 5th November 2025
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: NBBC Papers
Views: 1282
Can’t see piling being needed for a small single story clubhouse - would be big piles for such a small structure.
And if only building for step 3 that could be a problem - good chance of step 2 in the future- with step 1 not ImPossible. Football pleague although not out of the question would be a pipe dream. 5000 capacity would be fine with 500 seats and a level hard standing behind a stand for the opportunity to erect a temporary stand of Town played a huge 3rd round cup game - a rare occurrence. but not out of the question.
Money though determines everything but growth may increase finances.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: NBBC Papers
Views: 1316
The proposed design is two-storey.
It would be good to know the specification for the 3G pitch.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: NBBC Papers
Views: 1252
Still light weight - steel frame - block internal walls - cladded exterior.
Over to the structural engineers though.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: NBBC Papers
Views: 1391
You've misunderstood the paper.
The recommendation from the Officers is to in principle agree the lease at V V or another site.
Separately other possible option for the Cabinet are then listed including Nuneaton not needing a football ground - they are other options but not the recommendation.
The decision will be made next week.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: NBBC Papers
Views: 1391
"What is most concerning are the NBBC Cabinet comments about not wanting a football ground in Nuneaton, questioning the sustainability of such a development on NBBC owned land & also not wanting a football ground at Vale View."
The report has to outline the other options that the cabinet could take, along with what is being put forward in the report. This is in section 13. The cabinet make the decision next week.
---
Hope is not a plan.
Edited by mark-nbfc at 12:16:13 on 5th November 2025
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: NBBC Papers
Views: 1378
sorry Mark we crossed.
although these options arent rejected yet. The decision will be next week by the Cabinet.
Edited by Gustavus at 12:12:28 on 5th November 2025
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: NBBC Papers
Views: 1351
No problem. Sorry you're right, ill revise my post. Cheers
---
Hope is not a plan.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: NBBC Papers
Views: 1339
Gala Field is one of the other options.
IMO, that is the best site.
The Report also refers to Liberty Way & there is a reference to 'mediation'.
Mediation between who & who is the mediator, is it NBBC?
I wouldn't go any further with Vale View until NTFC have obtained a Coal Mining Risk Assessment & that is just for starters.
Warwickshire County Council Highways would be the next on my list.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: NBBC Papers
Views: 1380
I dont know why anyone thinks V V was a mine? Its was a clay pit, filled in with landfill.... late 60's early 70's.
reply to this article | return to the front page
2 people
Re: NBBC Papers
Views: 1290
Home to Stockingford Villa in the 60's. About 30 yards down too.
Little by little.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: NBBC Papers
Views: 1378
Nope - think again - Nuneaton new mined that area from 1864 to 1900. And Haunchwood Nowells very close - the Etruria marl was on top of the coal albeit sloping to the west. Nowells shafts were only around 600 feet deep and Nuneaton new would have been similar as they were sank just in from the outcrop. The roadways however followed the dip in the seams so at Galley Common the tunnel shafts were over a Thousand foot deep. If you know what I mean.
Lots of historic extraction in that area and not that deep in mining terms.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: NBBC Papers
Views: 1254
Means nothing .... see old map in this thread.
The club want/hope to build opposite the old cherry tree pub, closest mine shaft is opposite end of landfill site where the old brick works maintenance buildings once stood.
The other closest one is at the end of Cumberland drive as it is now, it was virtually on my drive ( old house ) topped off with old bricks.
The site was landfill on and old clay pit
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: NBBC Papers
Views: 1249
Geology of vale view site - the dotted lines are the exposed coal seams that outcropped at the surface.
The pinky colour is the Etruria marl outcrop used for making blues.
Imagine this lot as a cake but turned around 40 degrees with the whole thing sloping towards Arley. So much mining in this area historically. Having seen many local mining plans it’s absolutely staggering just what was extracted.
Towns new ground would go on a pile of household rubbish.
You need to zoom into Nuneaton and set the parameter layers to show you what is on the site.
https://mapapps2.bgs.ac.uk/geoindex/home.html
Edited by Armchair Observer at 20:12:16 on 5th November 2025
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: NBBC Papers
Views: 1229
Means everything because the coal outcrop which runs from Tamworth to Binley goes right through Vale view and was mined for centuries as the coal was near the surface. There are many, many filled in mine shafts which worked the outcrop coal. Not only that the major collieries in that location which I have named also worked the area and the roadways were extensive.
Stanley brothers purchased Nuneaton new colliery in 1877 and had worked it out by 1900. All developments in our area are subject to mining reports.
The vale view site would be developable with modern techniques but he biggest hurdle will be getting planning permission as the site is hemmed in on all sides bar the northern edge with housing and busy roads. I’ll be absolutely amazed if there isn’t a very noisy opposition once the locals hear about the proposal- and their local councillors will fight to the death to support them as they always do. The site is suitable with regard to location and space available but as history has shown regarding Boro relocations- the natives are always . anything but accepting. A football ground is considered noisy and antisocial and many living near Manor park were relieved when it went.
We’ll see.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: NBBC Papers
Views: 1307
Previous useage?
The high level desk top study has revealed the location of 4Nr mineshafts & probable mineworkings in the north-east corner of the site.
It is a Coal Authority defined Development High Risk Area.
Edited by VoR at 12:39:50 on 5th November 2025
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: NBBC Papers
Views: 1380
"Gala Field is one of the other options."
Is that the same Gala Field that already has tenants? The one that's leased to Griff?
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: NBBC Papers
Views: 1286
NBBC Cabinet refer to 'mediation'.
I am sure they would be prepared to mediate between NTFC & any of the other sporting clubs in the Borough, to obtain a sustainable groundshare agreement for NTFC.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: NBBC Papers
Views: 1756
Sounds very promising in general.
reply to this article | return to the front page
1 person
Re: NBBC Papers
Views: 1608
£6.5m for a small stadium.
Note to self, 'be careful what you wish for'
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: NBBC Papers
Views: 1625
It was never going to be cheap .
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: NBBC Papers
Views: 1440
There is a bloke on the Boro chat page already saying no because it`s opposite his house... and he`s supposedly a Boro fan if he`s a member of that page. If so called supporters are saying no just think of the objections of others. Overall it`s a descent proposal though
reply to this article | return to the front page
Re: NBBC Papers
Views: 1438
He's a Coventry Sphinx fan
---
Hope is not a plan.
reply to this article | return to the front page
Previous thread: Why not look at other grounds by bert's dad7/11/2025 11:43Fri Nov 7 11:43:55 2025view thread