The World Famous City Ground - Home of the PROPER WORLD‘S OLDEST LEAGUE CLUB

[king_congo_red]

The letter of objection from the Nottm and Union Rowing Club is not very good, in fact it is pathetic. Emotional to the point of being cringeworthy. It won't carry any serious weight come decision time.

Could and should have been edited down to a one-pager. The rambling nature of it means that anyone reading will give up way before halfway through.

 

[Gaz1980]

Might sound petty - but have folk outside the clubs on matchdays handing out leaflets advising what's what, and if folk still enter for a pint, they get egged!

 

[incident]

Do you not think as Notcher suggests there is a conflict of interest?

I don't think that's relevant in the slightest.

Being on-board with club proposals should not be a pre-requisite to a legitimate fan group being represented.

 

[Strummer]

Might sound petty - but have folk outside the clubs on matchdays handing out leaflets advising what's what, and if folk still enter for a pint, they get egged!

A waste of good eggs - just chuck the f***ers in the Trent.

 

[king_congo_red]

A waste of good eggs - just chuck the f***ers in the Trent.

Why would you chuck eggs in the Trent?

Oh...wait...

 

[Mr H]

Could and should have been edited down to a one-pager. The rambling nature of it means that anyone reading will give up way before halfway through.

I nearly gave up half way through…

 

[redodare]

I don't think that's relevant in the slightest.

Being on-board with club proposals should not be a pre-requisite to a legitimate fan group being represented.

Being an advisor requires acceptance (usually commitment) to an organisations goals and a pledge not to do things which inhibit achievement of the goals.

I would also ask any member of the FAB to try and act - offer advice - that benefits all supporters not just their group

Punjabi Reds have particular experiences which should be welcomed and listened to .

I'm not suggesting that they should no longer be a a member of the FAB - just a quiet conversation that outlines potential impact of their promotion at the Union Club.

 

[incident]

Being an advisor requires acceptance (usually commitment) to an organisations goals and a pledge not to do things which inhibit achievement of the goals.

I'm not sure about that. Stadium expansion/upgrades isn't the best example as it's obviously a cause that everyone should be unified behind, but there absolutely can be and will be times where the club gets it badly wrong and ideally in that scenario the FAB can be a strong voice able to speak independently.

For example - if the club decided to offset the costs of the stadium by inviting Notts County to groundshare, and to install Black and White seats into one of the stands as part of that deal - I'd hope that the FAB would not be accepting or committed to the organisations goals, and absolutely would do everything they could to inhibit it..

I'm not suggesting that they should no longer be a a member of the FAB - just a quiet conversation that outlines potential impact of their promotion at the Union Club.

Oh, absolutely there should be a conversation about the choice they've made. In my view, they've got this one badly wrong. But their presence on the FAB shouldn't hinge on it.

 

[PlayedOnGrass]

Could and should have been edited down to a one-pager. The rambling nature of it means that anyone reading will give up way before halfway through.

Just like I did!
I got part way though and just lost interest. It is just a ramble of how hard done to they have been

 

[Otis Redding]

For example - if the club decided to offset the costs of the stadium by inviting Notts County to groundshare, and to install Black and White seats into one of the stands as part of that deal - I'd hope that the FAB would not be accepting or committed to the organisations goals, and absolutely would do everything they could to inhibit it.

What!! I'd absolutely demand they don't accept it!!

 

[Lady Penelope]

I nearly gave up half way through…

You did well getting that far!

It is painful to read letters of objection, as I sometimes have to do in my job (which is to counter these 'objections' with solutions), because they are nearly always full of emotion, light on facts, and poorly constructed. The reality is that most of the arguments are not borne out by the facts once the development is completed!

I reckon the Union is upset because their neighbouring (competing?) club is going to benefit, whilst they are not. If they'd all got their heads together over a pot of tea and worked out a strategy, everyone could have been a winner.

If the Union ultimately falls well short on numbers, and can no longer survive financially, then I'm sure many, including Dad, will reminisce about the bands they saw there, and who they met and so on. I'm equally sure that Forest will say 'thank you, we could use that building for a bar of our own'!

 

[Notcher]

You did well getting that far!

It is painful to read letters of objection, as I sometimes have to do in my job (which is to counter these 'objections' with solutions), because they are nearly always full of emotion, light on facts, and poorly constructed. The reality is that most of the arguments are not borne out by the facts once the development is completed!

I reckon the Union is upset because their neighbouring (competing?) club is going to benefit, whilst they are not. If they'd all got their heads together over a pot of tea and worked out a strategy, everyone could have been a winner.

If the Union ultimately falls well short on numbers, and can no longer survive financially, then I'm sure many, including Dad, will reminisce about the bands they sew there, and who they met and so on. I'm equally sure that Forest will say 'thank you, we could use that building for a bar of our own'!

Reading between the lines in their submission, I also got the impression they're pissed about the other club getting a shiny new facility.

 

[Chappers85]

To all those wondering re the objection, here it is, and it’s in the public domain on a public planning website:

“Dear Sirs,

PLANNING APPLICATION REFERENCE 25/02123/FUL

APPLICANT: NOTTINGHAM FOREST FOOTBALL CLUB

I write to you as Club Secretary, on behalf of the Committee of Nottingham & Union Rowing Club.

I refer to your letter dated 5th January 2026 referring to the above application.

As a committee we have reviewed the plans in detail and are extremely concerned bythe plans.

Nottingham Forest Football Club have been formulating proposals for the redevelopment of the City ground since 2019 and prior to that. We understand that they are currently in discussions with Nottingham Rowing Club regarding the acquisition of the Britannia Boathouse which was to form part of a concourse between the Peter
Taylor Stand and Nottingham & Union’s training centre, but is now proposed to be built upon.

Our club is willing to discuss all aspects of the current occupation and future in the
context of the now proposed development which is significantly more impactful than
they previously permitted scheme due to the significant increase in capacity of the ground and how this is to be achieved.

No discussions have taken place between NFFC and Nottingham & Union, and therefore in the absence of any positive discussions we are forced into the position of having to object to the current proposals. We would much prefer as a Club to be able to support the proposals wholeheartedly. We formally request that our Club is included inany discussions regarding relocation. It is not feasible to relocate one of the rowing clubs, but not the other, as they regularly share equipment, personnel and launch from the same areas.

Nottingham & Union Rowing Club was originally established in 1862 and the rowing
clubs have been on Trent side for over 150 years and are an important facet of the local community.

For many years Nottingham Forest and the rowing clubs have coexisted on Trentside
and managed to do so without serious conflict to their respective operations by
cooperation. At present other than on matchdays and for two hours before each game the rowing clubs, canoe club, dragon Boat Club have unrestricted access to Trentsidewhich provides parking for something in the order of 50 to 60 cars. It also enables access to the boat houses for moving of equipment which inevitably involves their large boat trailers and coaching launches on a frequent weekly basis.

Access to parking and for dropping off of athletes by parents is also crucial as the rowing clubs in trying to avoid conflict with Forest events by rowing from 7:00 AM on
weekend mornings and in the evenings. Other than on Trentside parking is severely
constrained in the locality and recently further constraints have been imposed with
restrictions on parking at County Hall coming into force. Without access to Trentside
therefore for vehicles it is very difficult to see how rowing activities can continue and the
development will inevitably mean that access to Trentside for rowing and kayaking will
be severely constrained by the development.

To use their premises effectively for sport the rowing clubs and Kayak club need to
carry their boats from the boathouse down to the Riverside for launching. That is
extremely difficult when there are large numbers of people trying to access the football ground. Consequently when events are held at the football ground rowing activities are effectively precluded for two hours before and after each event.

There are over 400 active participants in the sport utilising the current boathouse facilities on Trent side. Nottingham & Union Rowing Club and Nottingham Rowing Club are entirely separate clubs of roughly equal size in terms of numbers, and are the two largest rowing clubs in the East Midlands. Members of the two clubs volunteer to support local regional and national rowing events, which could not be run without the support of volunteers. Those events include BUCS Regatta (the largest student rowing regatta in Europe), and British Rowing organised events including Junior Inter Regional Regatta, Masters Regatta, and the National Championships.

Nottingham Rowing Club caters mainly for Senior Rowers aged 19-25 and Masters
Rowers. Nottingham & Union Rowing Club caters principally for Junior athletes and
Masters Rowers.

Nottingham & Union has produced athletes in recent years that have:

1. Progressed to compete in the Oxford -Cambridge boat race.

2. Qualified (and also pre-qualified) and raced at Henley Royal Regatta in Premier events (including racing against international crews that won medals at the ParisOlympics).

3. Competed and won Gold medals at GB Under 19 level.

4. Won medals (including Gold medals) at Junior level at the National Schools regatta and also at similar events.

5. Won junior events at the Junior Inter-Regional Regatta, competing for the East Midlands.

6. Won multiple national events and at the World Rowing Masters Championships.

7. Won both the Junior Club pennant and the Masters D Pennant at the Head of theRiver Race on the Thames in 2022.

8. Won the Jackson Trophy (as the fastest Club crew) at the Head of the River Race.

9. Their coaching Team have been awarded British Rowing’s National Coaching Team of the Year Award.

10. Club coaches have both represented the region as Team Manager of the JuniorInter-Regional Team and also as England Team Manager.

11. As well as their current commitments at Club level coaches currently provide
expert coaching to the coaching team of London Youth Rowing and Redhill
Academy with an emphasis on making the Sport more widely available to State
Schools, and those from less privileged backgrounds.

The drawings lodged with the application recognise the existence of the boathouses,
but the application fails to address how they will be restricted by the development
makes no mention of how it is anticipated they will be able operate in the future or more
likely not. Although discussions may be taking place between NFFC and Nottingham
Rowing Club that has no positive impact upon the other Clubs on Trentside, including
ourselves, Nottingham University Rowing Club or the Kayak Club.

We are concerned for the following reasons:

 The height, location and appearance of the Peter Taylor stand on the revisedplans is out of keeping with the surroundings, and abuts immediately up to our Training Centre building leaving no access behind the stadium for safetyreasons.

 The stand is overbearing in comparison to the size, height and location of the
rowing club buildings and completely dominates them. They will be completely
overwhelmed by what is overdevelopment, and is oppressive.

 The new stand will block sunlight at key times of the day. In particular, in the winter the bank, which is used by rowers to adjust and fit boats, and then launch them will be within the shadow of the new stand. Ice forms on that area and will not thaw. When it does thaw it will remain excessively slippery for much longer, and no information has been included in the planning documents showing how shadowing will affect the locality, particular during winter, and early in the morning and in the evenings. We are concerned that slippery conditions will pose
a danger to athletes in slippery conditions.

 The clubhouses are much smaller than the new stadium and the flats. The new stadium is now proposed to be much closer to the rowing club buildings, and this will create a funnel of wind between the Waterside Flats (approx. 55m high), and the extended stadium (approx. 65m) which in high wind will cause extensive damage to the older buildings. No studies have been produced to show the effect of wind in adverse weather conditions.

 Under the previous proposals 19/02589/HYBRID the Britannia Boathouse was to be acquired on the understanding that it would not be built upon, but had to be acquired to create a concourse to allow pedestrian access along Trentside on
match days. The plans on the current application show no concourse, and
pedestrian access and emergency vehicle access will both be restricted under
the current proposals. The fact that the Peter Taylor stand abuts immediately up
to our training centre building means that in the event of emergency access to
the Forest ground on match days in particular will not be adequate orappropriate.

 Access and parking on training days is currently all alongside Trentside on
training days and this will be restricted by the buildings as shown on the current plans.

 The extremely close proximity of the new buildings to the remaining rowing buildings and the need for access from Trent side to the rear of the new Peter

Taylor stand will have to involve significant groundworks and changes in level to
enable this access route to be created that will further restrict the physical access
to the Nottingham and union RC training centre forecourt which currently is used
for boat trailer parking. Manoeuvring of the boat trailers is only possible from this
space with the cooperation of Nottingham Rowing Club and the utilisation of the
forecourt to the Britannia boathouse.

 The plans appear to show the site boundary for the development in this location
overlapping and including part of the Nottingham & Union Rowing Club demise
associated with its training centre premises.

 Parking by athletes on training days is also currently at County Hall. Under current proposals this will be restricted by the County Council going forward,leading to a greater number of vehicles wanting to park on Trentside, putting greater pressure on existing parking arrangements along Trentside. The current proposals further limit parking on Trentside compared to the current position,
blocking areas that are currently used, and altering the levels of others effectively
preventing their future use.

 Our attendance at events across the country requires the loading of trailers on
, and on occasion up to 2 or 3 trailers need loading simultaneously.

 There is no information within the planning proposals regarding how Trentside
and access to the rowing clubs will be affected during the construction period and
there have been recent problems during construction of the new executive boxes
which are of much smaller scale.

 Our understanding from the application documents is that the ground will
continue to operate and matches will be played during the construction and it is
of concern that to facilitate construction long periods of closure and restriction on
use of Trentside will be required. There does not seem to be any recognition of
the impact of this on the remaining rowing facilities. Recent experience during the
construction of the new executive boxes at the ground suggests this will be a
major problem for the remaining rowing facilities during construction.

Furthermore:

 The stadium plans make an economic argument for development, and as part of
that proposal it will be necessary for NFFC to hold additional events at the
stadium, including womens’ football matches, concerts and boxing matches. In
order to achieve results on the National and international level set out above the
Club’s athletes must train 7-10 times a week (in some cases twice each day) days a week, and do so on weekday evenings between 4.30pm and 8pm, and at
weekends between 7.45am and 12.30pm.

 The increased capacity proposed by the current plans puts a strain on public
transport at these times when public transport provision is by its very nature
restricted.

 A significant majority of our Club’s athletes must travel to training by car. Travel by car will be more difficult, and there will be greater congestion as a result of the increased capacity of the City Ground in its current location.

 Parking in the locality is already significantly restricted due to increased parking
restrictions. With County Hall due to prevent parking as is currently the only viable parking location for our athletes on training days will be on Trentside. The current plans restrict the length and width of the areas on which parking can take place.

 The proposals involve an increase in the capacity of the ground from its current
30,000 to 50,000. At present on match days Trentside is closed for two hours
before each match or event. The documentation with the application does not deal with the necessity for closure of Trentside other than to refer to the existing
situation and that there is some working group which will in the future determine
what measures are necessary on event days. An increase in capacity of 20,000 will inevitably involve the need for closure of Trentside and its use for spectators
to gain access to the ground for longer than the current 2 hours before each game. Put simply getting another 20,000 people into the ground is going to take
longer and Trentside is one of the main routes if not the main route that spectators will follow to get to the ground.

The proposals specifically look to

improve and increase the pedestrian capacity of the Trentside route to the ground. This means that on event days it will be necessary to close Trentside for longer and restricting access to the rowing club preventing rowing activities at these times and precluding access for parking and parents dropping off etc.

 Furthermore the Application documents make it clear that the viability of the new stadium is dependent on there being additional events held at the ground such
as concerts boxing and international matches and no doubt other events. This means that not only will the existing restrictions applied to use of Trentside have to be increased in duration they will also be much more frequent. HVM Bollards currently restrict access to Trentside up to 2 hours prior to kick off on match days. With an increased capacity rising to over 50,000 seats those restrictions will be for an increased length of time prior to kick off, and with additional events taking place the restrictions will be put in place more frequently.

 This restricts access to our property (and we have parking on our own premises

which we cannot access during those times), but this will also restrict access on foot by athletes for scheduled

You know, an ant with the best intentions or the most diabolical schemes is just exactly an ant

 

[Lady Penelope]

The Brit building is available/not needed following the merger of the Brit and the Boat clubs to form the Nottm Rowing Club (NRC), a merger that was a necessity because of falling numbers of members. Now, if I was a member of the Union club, and I saw that the NRC had shiny new facilities and a few quid in the bank, I'd be worried about my existing members sliding over there and, more importantly, about future members. Can the Union offer the same facilities?

They are clearly getting desperate.

Forest are very confident about their relationship and agreement with the NRC so the future looks, well, interesting. There's a lot that could be done with the rowing clubs on Trentside North, retaining the pleasant existing buildings with the riverside location, whilst providing better facilities for rowers and Forest fans alike.

If only everyone would get around the table, get the kettle on, and not be stupidly, suicidally competitive

 

[The Red Mill]

You did well getting that far!

It is painful to read letters of objection, as I sometimes have to do in my job (which is to counter these 'objections' with solutions), because they are nearly always full of emotion, light on facts, and poorly constructed. The reality is that most of the arguments are not borne out by the facts once the development is completed!

I reckon the Union is upset because their neighbouring (competing?) club is going to benefit, whilst they are not. If they'd all got their heads together over a pot of tea and worked out a strategy, everyone could have been a winner.

If the Union ultimately falls well short on numbers, and can no longer survive financially, then I'm sure many, including Dad, will reminisce about the bands they saw there, and who they met and so on. I'm equally sure that Forest will say 'thank you, we could use that building for a bar of our own'!

It was the Boat Club, the middle one, that had all the famous bands play there, including Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Motorhead, Scorpions, Def Leppard, Stranglers, U2, Ultravox, Ian Dury Rod Stewart etc who you might know, and many many possibly better bands you won't have heard of such as UFO, Stray, Groundhogs, Strife, etc.
Fleetwood Mac did play the Union in 1968, though.

 

[Steve B]

The Brit building is available/not needed following the merger of the Brit and the Boat clubs to form the Nottm Rowing Club (NRC), a merger that was a necessity because of falling numbers of members.

Forest are very confident about their relationship and agreement with the NRC so the future looks, well, interesting. There's a lot that could be done with the rowing clubs on Trentside North, retaining the pleasant existing buildings with the riverside location, whilst providing better facilities for rowers and Forest fans alike.

They might even find themselves getting renamed NFRC and getting some nice new red shirts as part of the deal

 

[Indored]

They might even find themselves getting renamed NFRC and getting some nice new red shirts as part of the deal

Exactly.
EM built a lot of different sports teams over in Greece so may see an opportunity here.

 

[DizzyBala]

I'd love the stadium works to get done but I read their complaints and honestly, I thought quite a bit of what they said made sense.
Their facilities that they have at the moment suit their needs, they have a pretty good spot by the bridge, they've been there for a long time and because their neighbours want to expand, they're essentially being given the boot.

I don't know if they have a good case or not, but it does seem a little bit tough on them from their position.

 

[YellowBelly Red]

And there's me thinking that Nottingham was host to the National Water Sports Centre.

 

[Notcher]

And there's me thinking that Nottingham was host to the National Water Sports Centre.

Imagine if it was...erm...I dunno...home to boating clubs. I know, I know, mental idea.

 

[Lady Penelope]

They might even find themselves getting renamed NFRC and getting some nice new red shirts as part of the deal

I'd had similar thoughts. It would make a lot of sense for all involved.

 

[Lady Penelope]

It was the Boat Club, the middle one, that had all the famous bands play there, including Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Motorhead, Scorpions, Def Leppard, Stranglers, U2, Ultravox, Ian Dury Rod Stewart etc who you might know, and many many possibly better bands you won't have heard of such as UFO, Stray, Groundhogs, Strife, etc.
Fleetwood Mac did play the Union in 1968, though.

I'll ask my dad, he has an encyclopaedic memory of the bands he saw, and where.
More on this in due course ... might even need a dedicated thread.

 

[Lady Penelope]

I'd love the stadium works to get done but I read their complaints and honestly, I thought quite a bit of what they said made sense.
Their facilities that they have at the moment suit their needs, they have a pretty good spot by the bridge, they've been there for a long time and because their neighbours want to expand, they're essentially being given the boot.

I don't know if they have a good case or not, but it does seem a little bit tough on them from their position.

They are not being given the boot. The Union can stay as it is, if it so wishes. The Nottm Rowing Club (a Brit and Boat club merger) is keeping its existing boathouse but the Brit building is coming down. They are getting newer and better on the BC side, plus a good few quid as well.

 

[Lady Penelope]

They might even find themselves getting renamed NFRC and getting some nice new red shirts as part of the deal

Dod you mean No F@@ing Rowing Club or Nottm Forest Rowing Club? Just checking ...

 

[bearwood red]

As I’m sure many people on here have been at some stage, I used to be involved in running an amateur sports club.

If I was running the Rowing club, I would be looking at the redevelopment as an opportunity to develop closer ties with the football club for mutual benefit. Ie what funding can we get for improved facilities, equipment, coaching etc. in return for our support of the rebuild and maybe some profit share on our increased matchday bar revenue?

However, their objection letter is an emotional rant (some of which is factually incorrect) which will be given little weight by the planning officers/committee. But it is also not in the best interests of their club and shows a lack of competent leadership - in my opinion.

The reality is that the redevelopment will be approved. The only way it does not, will be if the planning committee are not satisfied with the mitigations on transport and parking. So rather than picking a fight you’re not going to win, get on board and work with the club to secure the best deal for your members.