What will be the next development at the Turf ?

[50 shades of Grey]

I suppose we'll have to wait and see if the height of any new proposed stand and close proximity of a main road/ and housing is an issue.

that's a great picture btw claretandy.

[cricketfieldclarets]

Bob Lord needs extending backwards with a new roof built over the top. Gets rid of the pillars and increases capacity of the decent seats that are in demand (dry, with a view, side on and central). It would also help balance up the lob sided nature of the ground and improve atmosphere. At the same time the outside of the ground would be improved with a better "entrance" area to Turf Moor.

Also, this doesn't need to ruin the wonderful view from the Longside upper, it will only nibble a few inches away from the view if done sensitively.

Atmosphere is generated by those in it. Granted a better roof keeps it in. But you could build a roof over the whole ground and no noise would come from the bob lord.

[bfcwest]

New offices could be have ended any hopes of extending the BL, no where to put supports

Supports could go where the floodlights stand now and support a truss (like a massive goal post) that supports the new roof. Bit like Tynecastle or Deepdale.

[50 shades of Grey]

'Atmosphere is generated by those in it. Granted a better roof keeps it in. But you could build a roof over the whole ground and no noise would come from the bob lord.'

....creaking joints and the odd hip popping out ?

[cricketfieldclarets]

buy Anne close for tuppence and knock them down. Problem solvled

Id throw 10m and some bacon butties at them

[cricketfieldclarets]

'Atmosphere is generated by those in it. Granted a better roof keeps it in. But you could build a roof over the whole ground and no noise would come from the bob lord.'

....creaking joints and the odd hip popping out ?

I must admit. There is no finer sight than an angry bob lord stand.

[Clarets4me]

The Bob Lord stand has a capacity of barely 3,000, which for a stand that stretches the length of a pitch is extremely low for a Premiership/Championship Club. The fact that the Club has spent some substantial monies upgrading the Shop/Offices/Ticket Office over the last few years would suggest they're not thinking of replacing the stand in the short to medium term.

Once the Corner sections are completed, providing some much needed up to date facilities for our fans who live with disabilities, then the obvious Candidate is the replacement of the Cricket Field stand. We've heard much of the cramped changing rooms, by Premiership standards, a small Officials area, tiny concourse for the fans and none of the Clubs infrastructure is contained in this stand so it's the obvious target...

[Sausage]

50 shades of Grey wrote:
As mentioned previously, the height of the Bob Lord cannot be raised due to its close proximity to the houses opposite on Anne Close.

Claretandy wrote:
says who ?

says Planning legislation.

The distance between the front elevation of the houses on Anne Close and the back of the pavement on Harry Potts way is 26m (I’ve measured this using my ProMap account). We know that the height of the Bob Lord Stand is 13.6m (taken from AOD data supplied in the planning application for the new offices and club shop). However, the rear of the existing Bob Lord Stand is actually 36m away from the houses. Using some basic trigonometry, we can work out that the angle of obstruction of the top of the Bob Lord Stand from the ground floor rooms of Anne Close is 20.7 degrees.

The planning guidance for daylight and sunlight (i.e. the Building Research Establishment guidance) allows buildings to rise to a height such that the angle of obstruction to the window of a habitable room is 25 degrees. This would be deemed to be a zero impact development. Anything beyond 25 degrees needs to be properly tested, preferably by a qualified consultant. The BRE Guide allows a development to diminish the daylight levels to residential property by up to 20% on the basis that such losses are imperceptible. Anything beyond 20% is considered to have a material impact on the amenity of the occupier.

I’ve calculated that if the Bob Lord’s capacity was increased by 50% by extending the stand at its current angle, it would add an extra 6.8m in height and be closer to Anne Close by approximately 10m. This would give an angle of interference of 38 degrees. Hence, there would be a loss of daylight (not sunlight) to the ground floor windows of the houses in Anne Close and this would need to be assessed.

In planning terms, the greatest level of protection is afforded to living rooms and kitchens. At Anne Close it appears the living rooms are on the south elevation (i.e. facing away from the Bob Lord Stand). Bedrooms are afforded lesser levels of protection within reason. I can’t work out where the kitchens are but if the boiler flues are any indicator, they are also on the south elevation.

The important thing to remember is that even when there is material loss of daylight to a property, it does not necessarily mean that the local planning authority is obliged to refuse planning permission. The authority can still grant permission if it considers that the benefits of the development outweigh the harm to residential amenity. In this instance, there are six properties in Anne Close that would definitely be impacted and a further two (to the west) where the impact would be marginal.

Given the importance of the football club to the town in terms of its prestige, the number of people it employs, the wider economic benefit of 18,000 - 20,000 people turning up every fortnight and spending money in pubs, takeaways, Council-owned car parks etc, I doubt the impact on six houses would be sufficient to persuade Burnley Borough Council’s planning committee that a bigger Bob Lord Stand should be refused.

[Clarets4me]

It's always a pleasure to read a post from someone who clearly knows what he/she's talking about, and has given some thought to the matter under discussion ! Thanks, Sausage !!

[MiltonKeynesClaret93]

That was so satisfying to read.
Bravo, sausage.

[Rick_Muller]

I'm trying to think of ways to make fun of Sausage and what appears to be an obsession with large erections at Turf Moor blocking out the daylight of some ladies house - especially around the back passage, but I cant think of any.



very informative though, thanks Sausage

[claretandy]

The distance between the front elevation of the houses on Anne Close and the back of the pavement on Harry Potts way is 26m (I’ve measured this using my ProMap account). We know that the height of the Bob Lord Stand is 13.6m (taken from AOD data supplied in the planning application for the new offices and club shop). However, the rear of the existing Bob Lord Stand is actually 36m away from the houses. Using some basic trigonometry, we can work out that the angle of obstruction of the top of the Bob Lord Stand from the ground floor rooms of Anne Close is 20.7 degrees.

The planning guidance for daylight and sunlight (i.e. the Building Research Establishment guidance) allows buildings to rise to a height such that the angle of obstruction to the window of a habitable room is 25 degrees. This would be deemed to be a zero impact development. Anything beyond 25 degrees needs to be properly tested, preferably by a qualified consultant. The BRE Guide allows a development to diminish the daylight levels to residential property by up to 20% on the basis that such losses are imperceptible. Anything beyond 20% is considered to have a material impact on the amenity of the occupier.

I’ve calculated that if the Bob Lord’s capacity was increased by 50% by extending the stand at its current angle, it would add an extra 6.8m in height and be closer to Anne Close by approximately 10m. This would give an angle of interference of 38%. Hence, there would be a loss of daylight (not sunlight) to the ground floor windows of the houses in Anne Close and this would need to be assessed.

In planning terms, the greatest level of protection is afforded to living rooms and kitchens. At Anne Close it appears the living rooms are on the south elevation (i.e. facing away from the Bob Lord Stand). Bedrooms are afforded lesser levels of protection within reason. I can’t work out where the kitchens are but if the boiler flues are any indicator, they are also on the south elevation.

The important thing to remember is that even when there is material loss of daylight to a property, it does not necessarily mean that the local planning authority is obliged to refuse planning permission. The authority can still grant permission if it considers that the benefits of the development outweigh the harm to residential amenity. In this instance, there are six properties in Anne Close that would definitely be impacted and a further two (to the west) where the impact would be marginal.

Given the importance of the football club to the town in terms of its prestige, the number of people it employs, the wider economic benefit of 18,000 - 20,000 people turning up every fortnight and spending money in pubs, takeaways, Council-owned car parks etc, I doubt the impact on six houses would be sufficient to persuade Burnley Borough Council’s planning committee that a bigger Bob Lord Stand should be refused.

excellent post.

[Sausage]

That was so satisfying to read.
Bravo, sausage.

And there's me thinking I've written yet another thread-killer.

[RocketLawnChair]

I once walked off the Bob Lord Stand at the end of a 3-1 home defeat to Halifax in 1986 and my Grandad turned to me and said “ this Stand would be better if the seats faced Brunshaw Road lad”