A New Stadium at Broadland?

[tom cavendish 0]

PurpleCanary,Yes that is right, which is why the club should look at ways to achieve a bigger stadium without it having a detrimental impact upon the playing budget. It could also help to provide additional funds towards the team.The way to do that is to get someone else to contribute; look at who the best long-term partners are and see what the club can offer them in return.A problem is that the club doesn''t have much land remaining to develop at CR and the car park has been sold too.Congestion is going to increase as Norwich is growing, CR car park could be built upon and the stadium capacity raised. If there is a lack of stadium parking then the City stand might not even receive planning permission.

[YankeeCanary 0]

 

Purple, thanks for the input and the thought you put into it, although it does not change my previously expressed view on the situation. However, using my interpretation of your earlier input ( "very knotty problem" ) I was strictly looking at it from the perspective of the club. Perhaps you weren''t meaning it that way entirely or, indeed, not at all. Rather, you may have been weighting it from a fans perspective. 

 

Using the rough figures that you cited from Bowkett ( an annual finance cost of 2.5 million a year over 20 years ) and applying that to McNally''s 8000 seat increase, which on paper potentially could generate income of roughly 3 to 4 million a season it would appear, logistics aside, to be entirely feasible. However, whenever McNally last made the statement that 35,000 would produce a self-sustaining Premiership football club, I''m sure he shared that view in the context of all other things being equal. There may have been other considerations come into play within the club after he made the statement, such as some doubt of our ability to achieve a high sell-out of that capacity which, indeed, you yourself allude to. The level of Premiership income from media may subsequently be higher than he anticipated. The majority owners may have said "hold fire"....that expansion will come in the next majority owners tenure, not ours."

 

Of course, all of that is conjecture on my part. What is not conjecture is that, for whatever reason/s, after taking one step forward on the matter at a point in time, the club then stepped back from it. Given that the club is no longer burdened with significant debt and also back in the Premiership, I personally don''t see this issue being a "very knotty problem" for the club. I think they will treat it in the manner McNally described..."it''s something we''ll continue to contemplate." With respect to the opportunity of achieving greater attendance than our rivals being a financial advantage to us well, that was ever thus. This particular season the two comparable teams to us are WBA and Stoke. The four other "rivals", namely Bournemouth, Crystal Palace, Watford and Swansea, we already exceed them by some distance I think. All others I believe have greater capacity than us by some distance.  

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="tom cavendish"]PurpleCanary,Yes that is right, which is why the club should look at ways to achieve a bigger stadium without it having a detrimental impact upon the playing budget. It could also help to provide additional funds towards the team.The way to do that is to get someone else to contribute; look at who the best long-term partners are and see what the club can offer them in return.A problem is that the club doesn''t have much land remaining to develop at CR and the car park has been sold too.Congestion is going to increase as Norwich is growing, CR car park could be built upon and the stadium capacity raised. If there is a lack of stadium parking then the City stand might not even receive planning permission.[/quote]

The parking is a non issue - people don''t mind walking a short distance to the ground - most positively enjoy it - I know I do when I visit - and there is ample parking all within ten-fifteen minutes from CR.    Also, the roads around any new stadium would be just as congested as they are around CR, so that is not an issue either.  Also Carrow Rd does have land it can utilise - over the old Carrow Rd.

Now please answer all the points about the effect it has on the actual people

that go to matches.  Its all statistics, strategies, development,

planning.....please address what really matters - the fans and their

experience of what it would be like to have CR removed and have to

drive/bus.train/cycle to games, where at the moment they can walk from

home - or where they at least make a day of it in Norwich and walk from

the centre.    You obviously give this a lot of thought, but don''t seem to appreciate what the fans'' actual experience would be. 

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]

 

Purple, thanks for the input and the thought you put into it, although it does not change my previously expressed view on the situation. However, using my interpretation of your earlier input ( "very knotty problem" ) I was strictly looking at it from the perspective of the club. Perhaps you weren''t meaning it that way entirely or, indeed, not at all. Rather, you may have been weighting it from a fans perspective. 

 

Using the rough figures that you cited from Bowkett ( an annual finance cost of 2.5 million a year over 20 years ) and applying that to McNally''s 8000 seat increase, which on paper potentially could generate income of roughly 3 to 4 million a season it would appear, logistics aside, to be entirely feasible. However, whenever McNally last made the statement that 35,000 would produce a self-sustaining Premiership football club, I''m sure he shared that view in the context of all other things being equal. There may have been other considerations come into play within the club after he made the statement, such as some doubt of our ability to achieve a high sell-out of that capacity which, indeed, you yourself allude to. The level of Premiership income from media may subsequently be higher than he anticipated. The majority owners may have said "hold fire"....that expansion will come in the next majority owners tenure, not ours."

 

Of course, all of that is conjecture on my part. What is not conjecture is that, for whatever reason/s, after taking one step forward on the matter at a point in time, the club then stepped back from it. Given that the club is no longer burdened with significant debt and also back in the Premiership, I personally don''t see this issue being a "very knotty problem" for the club. I think they will treat it in the manner McNally described..."it''s something we''ll continue to contemplate." With respect to the opportunity of achieving greater attendance than our rivals being a financial advantage to us well, that was ever thus. This particular season the two comparable teams to us are WBA and Stoke. The four other "rivals", namely Bournemouth, Crystal Palace, Watford and Swansea, we already exceed them by some distance I think. All others I believe have greater capacity than us by some distance.  

[/quote]Thanks, Yankee. I do think it is a problem for the club. The post was getting long so I didn''t go into everything, but there is the problem, which I touched on via a McNally quote, of not being able (at least in the Premier League) to fit in all the fans who want to attend. I don''t think there is too much doubt that happens. And we are not the kind of club that wants to be doing that. We need to be in a position to keep attracting in the next generation.The other point is that if this expansion has - apparently - risen from £20m to £30m in not many years, what price will it be in, say, another five years?As to your capacity comparisons with other clubs, it doesn''t matter if we are the same size as some and larger than others. The point is that any expansion raises our income. If that means we are even better off than Watford or Palace and a bit ahead of Stoke and WBA, and even just a teeny bit closer to bigger clubs, then that is all to the good.

[Tumbleweed 106]

I would suggest that expansion is not required in the Prem from an income perspective as the percentage which the NET income (after deducting building and financing costs etc) would be virtually insignificant compared to TV money. The benefit would be to us supporters who would have a larger stadium with more noise to enjoy and potentially a more hostile atmosphere. But I don''t see it as critical to compete- the right manager and playing staff are far more important IMO.

I do believe that it is more of an issue if, assuming one accepts us as a likely yo-yo club, we get relegated then suddenly the TV money reduces and gate money becomes more important. Yet the paradox is that in a lower league we would be much less likely to sell out an increased capacity. I accept that attendance levels have remained high, but really how many extra seats we would have sold outside the big matches? And when supply outstrips demand, how do we know that ST holders will remain loyal and that we won''t be a M''Boro with a big stadium and few supporters who only come out when success beckons?

So I''m not in the knotty problem camp really. Sure it would be nice to expand the City stand as the image it conveys is consistent with being a hick small town club, we know it isn''t true, but I do not think we need much extra space and £30K or so would be ample in my mind (but then I firmly believe in ensuring that demand is just a healthy level above supply, and not everyone is in the same place on that point). It is something the Board must look at, but the danger is making it a bigger issue than it really is.

[tom cavendish 0]

[quote user="lake district canary"]The parking is a non issue - people don''t mind walking a short distance

to the ground - most positively enjoy it - I know I do when I visit -

and there is ample parking all within ten-fifteen minutes from CR[/quote]It isn''t just all about you. Consider the lack of disabled parking places. Consider that fans generally don''t like a long walk to and from the stadium when the weather is bad.Consider that the car park has been sold so demand for parking places could increase a lot further. Consider if the stadium was expanded by thousands and a lot of those people will be wanting to use cars. The lack of parking means the club is missing-out on revenue from parking fees. Consider that CR competes against other venues for private hire business and that parking facilities are taken into consideration.[quote]the roads around any new stadium would be just as congested as they are around CR[/quote]Not so because of the NDR, Postick Hub and a new park and ride is now being built. There would be several routes out of the site so road access would be better at Broadland than around CR. Plus there could be cycle racks provided at a new stadium (like at Southampton) so more people could go by cycle etc.

[TCCANARY 263]

[quote user="tom cavendish"][
Not so because of the NDR, Postick Hub and a new park and ride is now being built. There would be several routes out of the site so road access would be better at Broadland than around CR. Plus there could be cycle racks provided at a new stadium (like at Southampton) so more people could go by cycle etc.
[/quote]

 

Would people want to cycle to the stadium when the weathers bad or would they add on extra busses for inclement conditions?

 

 

[chicken 0]

Sorry Tom but you are a gotal idiot if you think that access at broadland would be better for everyone.

The city is on everyone''s bus route. It''s not just about one person. It''s about the fact the majority of people travel by various means to around ten mins walk of the ground.

In most cases this is actually getting easier by public transport due to roads such as St.Stephens being shut to general traffic.

As for disabled fans you need to ask them first rather than speak for them. I know some and they have few issues at the moment.

A bike rack is not going to improve anything either. Pathetic.

[Lessingham Canary 99]

Tom Cavendish

Have you visited Brighton''s shiny new stadium ? sounds like you have lifted their blue print, Parking is a nightmare there, worse than envisaged at the planning stage, the park and ride is pathetic, stories of people taking 2 hours after a match (worse than Wembley car parks) to get their cars out of the park and ride.

Lets find a way of developing CR and look forward to another 80 years at our spiritual home.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="lake district canary"]The parking is a non issue - people don''t mind walking a short distance

to the ground - most positively enjoy it - I know I do when I visit -

and there is ample parking all within ten-fifteen minutes from CR[/quote]It isn''t just all about you. Consider the lack of disabled parking places. Consider that fans generally don''t like a long walk to and from the stadium when the weather is bad.Consider that the car park has been sold so demand for parking places could increase a lot further. Consider if the stadium was expanded by thousands and a lot of those people will be wanting to use cars. The lack of parking means the club is missing-out on revenue from parking fees. Consider that CR competes against other venues for private hire business and that parking facilities are taken into consideration.[quote]the roads around any new stadium would be just as congested as they are around CR[/quote]Not so because of the NDR, Postick Hub and a new park and ride is now being built. There would be several routes out of the site so road access would be better at Broadland than around CR. Plus there could be cycle racks provided at a new stadium (like at Southampton) so more people could go by cycle etc.[/quote]

I know it''s not just about me.   If there are not enough disabled spaces at CR then that can be addressed. If the weather is bad, the weather is bad. Regarding the roads, you will find that congestion on main roads is just as great as it is now because more people will be driving there and 20,000 cars all trying to move from one area will make congestion as bad as it is now - probably worse, because at the moment people park further away because of the accessibility to car parks and parking places all over the city. Your whole argument is based on creating an infrastructure that  requires people to catch buses, catch trains or use their bicycle where previously they could have walked either from home or from the city where they have been for the day with family or whatever.You seem to think that the club should get more parking fees too.  You''ll be suggesting next they should get income from people parking their bikes too. Your idea will create a money making, money grabbing situation that is against the convenience and more costly to the majority and only be convenenient to a small proportion of fans. 

Out of town stadiums in other places do work up to a point, but we are talking about Norwich, not Southampton or anywhere else.  The demographic of Norwich and why people are so committed to NCFC has quite a large degree to do with where the stadium is.  Remove it to the outskirts and you will ruin the club in the long term.   Your idea will please no-one except planners and people who just want to generate revenue.   People are ultimately what matters - you seem to think you can manipulate them to do whatever you want - you are wrong in that.  Every time a big new stadium is created, it gains a few new "customers" but loses a whole lot of fans who don''t like the change.  Man City lost a lot of older supporters (age 50+) when they moved. I would suggest that the older fans at Norwich - of which there is a large proportion - would lose interest at any change.  You would ruin the club.  It would be change for change''s sake.

[tom cavendish 0]

[quote user="Lessingham Canary"]Tom Cavendish

Have you visited Brighton''s shiny new stadium ? sounds like you have lifted their blue print, Parking is a nightmare there, worse than envisaged at the planning stage, the park and ride is pathetic, stories of people taking 2 hours after a match (worse than Wembley car parks) to get their cars out of the park and ride.[/quote]1) The Brighton stadium is situated on the A27 which is the main road in and out of Brighton. There are often huge delays on that road even on non-matchdays. In contrast, a stadium at Broadland would have a number of different routes to and from the stadium. 2) The stadium at Brighton doesn''t have many people living within walking distance of the stadium whereas the Broadland growth triangle is planned to have 22,000 new local residents. A lot of people from Thorpe St Andrew, Dussindale, Sprowston, Thorpe End etc. could also opt to walk to a stadium at Broadland.

[TCCANARY 263]

 

If a lot of people from those areas opt to walk to the stadium the footpaths will get very congested.

 

Would people want to walk to the stadium when the weathers bad or would they add on extra busses for inclement conditions?

 

What about we don''t move but provide a virtual reality system to people who want to see the games but can''t get in because it''s full? These systems are coming down in price and a season ticket wouldn''t be expensive, it would also save the club millions as they wouldn''t have to build anything new apart from some VR facilities.

 

 

[lake district canary 4,531]

You never, ever, address the positives of staying at Carrow Rd - and there are positives. The benefits to the city are many with the stadium being near the centre and it''s accessibility for all fans from whichever part of Norfolk or Norwich they are from - and the time and money spent in the city.  I keep saying it, but get no resonse - it''s people that matter, not logistics, traffic infrastructure etc etc.   Your plan might look ok to planners around a table - but the problem is your refusal to accept the effect it will have on people and their attitude to the club if it is on the outskirts, especially out to the east.

[The ghost of Michael Theoklitos 0]

[quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="Lessingham Canary"]Tom Cavendish

Have you visited Brighton''s shiny new stadium ? sounds like you have lifted their blue print, Parking is a nightmare there, worse than envisaged at the planning stage, the park and ride is pathetic, stories of people taking 2 hours after a match (worse than Wembley car parks) to get their cars out of the park and ride.[/quote]1) The Brighton stadium is situated on the A27 which is the main road in and out of Brighton. There are often huge delays on that road even on non-matchdays. In contrast, a stadium at Broadland would have a number of different routes to and from the stadium. 2) The stadium at Brighton doesn''t have many people living within walking distance of the stadium whereas the Broadland growth triangle is planned to have 22,000 new local residents. A lot of people from Thorpe St Andrew, Dussindale, Sprowston, Thorpe End etc. could also opt to walk to a stadium at Broadland.[/quote]People from Sprowston could walk? You''re completely deluded. Carrow Rd is actually closer to Sprowston than Broadland Business Park.Stop inventing stuff to try and justify a horrible idea. Please let the tread die!

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,024]

Tom, if as you say there are going to be thousands of new homes on the Broadland Business Park what evidence have you got in respect of the % of these will be inhabited by Norwich City fans. I had a quick "tot up" of the people who sit around me and where they travel from, including myself the locations are:

Hockwold

Beccles

Newton Flotman

Loddon

Caister

Stalham

Holt

Essex/Herts

None of these places are within the Norwich City Council area, and we all drive in to Norwich, as part of that trip in we all make use of the city centre for eating, drinking, shopping etc. I attended the game at The Liberty Stadium, Swansea, an identikit stuadium on a souless, identikit out of city business park.

My suggestion would be for improved public transport links from the Broadland Business Park into the city centre to ferry all the worker, residents to and from the city centre and thus a wide range of eating, drinking, shopping and leisure amenities, all within easy walking distance of Carrow Rd

 

[Gainer the Gopher 0]

Such melodrama! Yes, if a new stadium is built elsewhere, things will change.

Lake, you keep saying Norwich City have as many fans as we do because people like the stadium. Really? I''m pretty sure almost every fan we have has a connection with Norfolk, generally thru family and/or personal experience. I''d be stunned if anyone''s main reason for supporting City is because of the stadium. By your line of thinking, if a new stadium was built, with all the improved amenities associated with modern stadium designs and easier accessibility for those not walking to the games, attendance would drop.

Has there been a study to determine what size stadium would be appropriate for Norwich? What % capacity is ideal? How many tickets are currently not sold because people who want 2 or 3 or 6 can''t get them together so they just don''t go at all?

[tom cavendish 0]

[quote user="The ghost of Michael Theoklitos"]People from Sprowston could walk? You''re completely deluded. Carrow Rd is actually closer to Sprowston than Broadland Business Park.[/quote]From Woodbridge Road, Sprowston :A) 1.5 miles walk to the Broadland Growth Triangle site if going over the foot-bridge at Dussindale. B) 1.6 miles walk to the Broadland Growth Triangle site if going under the rail bridge at Green Lane (near to where the council wants a new railway station). C) 2.2 miles to CR...

[E.L.F. 0]

So the personal experience of Norwich for you Houston would be google maps? That''s quite an attachment.

I believe what LDC is saying is that supporters are proud of FCR as it''s a recognised symbol of the club, just like yellow and green is. Again Houston, since you never answered my question in the other thread, how much Council Tax have you paid? It''s very odd that for someone with no attachment to Norwich, you got a whole load of opinions about us. In your own words, it''s like you''re stalking us.

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user="tom cavendish"]It isn''t just all about you. [/quote]Well actually Tom, this is all about me and the thousands of others just like me who either walk to the ground or come into Norwich from all points of the compass and find the position of Carrow Road very accessible. A soulless business park at Poswick is never going to emulate the experience of an inner City stadium with its convenient position, its history and all the other attractions of the City Centre for the fans and their families. The other point that nobody seems to want to address is that simply building a 35k stadium doesn''t mean that we will suddenly be entertaining 35k crowds. Anything over 30k is going to be a very rare event, especially as we cannot guarantee perpetual Premier League status. The population of the county has certainly increased and is probably getting on for double what it was 60 years ago. However you will find that a huge majority of our plus 35k crowds happened more than 50 years ago. There is no immediate demand for a stadium of this size and if people find that they can still be sure of a seat without buying a season ticket we will soon find that large numbers will find it more convenient to be more selective about which games they will attend.Any serious analysis much surely come to the conclusion that expanding Carrow Road is the only sensible option.

[Gainer the Gopher 0]

Elfie, if you weren''t impotent, I''d say you have a hardon for me.

Stick with Blue Bombers Forum, idiot. Lake can speak for himself. Now go jump in a lake. Lake Winnipegosis for example.

[E.L.F. 0]

A good example of that ricardo would be Wolves. Increased to about 31000 in 2012 and the last two seasons average attendance was 22000 and 20000 respectively in the Chump and L1.

[E.L.F. 0]

Now why would I do that Houston when I have the Caribbean Sea just a stones throw away. I think you''re just jealous because you''re stuck in Piss Wind, Saskatchewan with your ma and pa and your sixteen brothers and sisters.

You''re a fraud and like others have said you''re just a sad WUM and I''ll keep reminding you of that. By the way you still never answered my question.

[tom cavendish 0]

[quote user="Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB"]

I had a quick "tot up" of the people who sit around me and where they travel from, including myself the locations are:

Hockwold

Beccles

Newton Flotman

Loddon

Caister

Stalham

Holt

Essex/Herts

None of these places are within the Norwich City Council area, and we all drive in to Norwich, as part of that trip in we all make use of the city centre for eating, drinking, shopping etc.

[/quote]People driving from Holt etc. could use the NDR so saving time from having to go through the congested city centre. They would also benefit from more convenient parking at the stadium.People driving from Caister, Stalham etc. would benefit from the stadium being nearer. They would also benefit from more convenient parking at the stadium.People driving from Hockwold, Beccles, Newton Flotman, Loddon, Essex/Herts etc. the distance to a new stadium wouldn''t make much difference but they would benefit from more convenient parking at the stadium.I am sure the club would rather people spent money eating and drinking at the stadium but if any of those people wanted to go into the city centre then they could:A) Use the Postwick park and ride so saving money on parking costs and save time finding parking spaces. It would only be 12 minutes right to the Castle Mall.B) Possibly get a train to Norwich involving a 4 minute journey.C) Park in the city centre to do shopping etc. and then drive to the stadium where parking would be more convenient and quicker to leave for the drive home.

[TCCANARY 263]

[quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="The ghost of Michael Theoklitos"]

People from Sprowston could walk? You''re completely deluded. Carrow Rd is actually closer to Sprowston than Broadland Business Park.

[/quote]

From Woodbridge Road, Sprowston :

A) 1.5 miles walk to the Broadland Growth Triangle site if going over the foot-bridge at Dussindale.
 
B) 1.6 miles walk to the Broadland Growth Triangle site if going under the rail bridge at Green Lane (near to where the council wants a new railway station).

C) 2.2 miles to CR...

[/quote]

 

Interesting journeys, starting from somewhere that doesn''t exist to somewhere that doesn''t exist, the most amazing thing is that the journey can be measured!

 

 

 

 

[tom cavendish 0]

[quote user="TCCANARY"]

[quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="The ghost of Michael Theoklitos"]People from Sprowston could walk? You''re completely deluded. Carrow Rd is actually closer to Sprowston than Broadland Business Park.[/quote]From Woodbridge Road, Sprowston :A) 1.5 miles walk to the Broadland Growth Triangle site if going over the foot-bridge at Dussindale. B) 1.6 miles walk to the Broadland Growth Triangle site if going under the rail bridge at Green Lane (near to where the council wants a new railway station). C) 2.2 miles to CR...[/quote]

Interesting journeys, starting from somewhere that doesn''t exist to somewhere that doesn''t exist, the most amazing thing is that the journey can be measured!

[/quote]Try Woodside Rd ;) to those bridges onto the Broadland Growth Triangle.

[lake district canary 4,531]

What do you do about those fans that WALK from their homes in Norwich now - and those that live outside the centre and get a short bus ride to the centre of Norwich and WALK to the stadium.  Those that shop/eat/drink in the city, park all around it and WALK to Carrow Rd.  Those that catch a  train and WALK from the station.  You are creating a system where some who are lucky enough to nearby walk, but for the vast majority you are giving them extra travel to do which also has the byproduct of taking people - and income to shops/restaurants - out of the city.   In short, unless you are disabled - for which there is provision and potential to improve - everyone walks to CR.   Walking 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 20 minutes is no problem for most people, even in the rain, so you have a solution to a problem that doesn''t exist because the present stadium suits very well - and always will.  It has the potential to expand by two or three thousand without huge logistical problems too, because people will still WALK to the stadium from wherever they park - and in any new magical stadium that has car parks, people will still have to walk from their cars in the rain.    

The way Carrow Rd has evolved over the years, still has some way to go in it''s potential.   Room for a small scale expansion to take us over the 30,000 mark is feasible - either by rebuilding or extending the City stand backwards over the old Carrow Rd and/or filling the hotel corner.  Its position is central - and that is part of its value to the city and the community. 

Your continued thoughts on these pipe-dreams of the UEA or Broadland - because that is what they are - pipe-dreams - have so many potential flaws and risks to them, that only a fool would take them on and risk ruining the club forever.  Its a paper exercise, but nothing more.

[The ghost of Michael Theoklitos 0]

[quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="The ghost of Michael Theoklitos"]People from Sprowston could walk? You''re completely deluded. Carrow Rd is actually closer to Sprowston than Broadland Business Park.[/quote]From Woodbridge Road, Sprowston :A) 1.5 miles walk to the Broadland Growth Triangle site if going over the foot-bridge at Dussindale. B) 1.6 miles walk to the Broadland Growth Triangle site if going under the rail bridge at Green Lane (near to where the council wants a new railway station).C) 2.2 miles to CR...[/quote]1) But your initial point wasn''t referring to the ''Broadland Growth Triangle''. It was referring to existing suburbs / residents.[quote user="tom cavendish"].... A lot of people from Thorpe St Andrew, Dussindale, Sprowston, Thorpe End etc. could also opt to walk to a stadium at Broadland.....[/quote]2) Stop inventing new ''advantages'' without addressing the counter arguments everyone keeps telling you about!Your plans are the type of thing you see scribed on the walls of a mental hospital. Written in $hit.

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="TCCANARY"]

[quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="The ghost of Michael Theoklitos"]People from Sprowston could walk? You''re completely deluded. Carrow Rd is actually closer to Sprowston than Broadland Business Park.[/quote]From Woodbridge Road, Sprowston :A) 1.5 miles walk to the Broadland Growth Triangle site if going over the foot-bridge at Dussindale. B) 1.6 miles walk to the Broadland Growth Triangle site if going under the rail bridge at Green Lane (near to where the council wants a new railway station). C) 2.2 miles to CR...[/quote]

Interesting journeys, starting from somewhere that doesn''t exist to somewhere that doesn''t exist, the most amazing thing is that the journey can be measured!

[/quote]Try Woodside Rd ;) to those bridges onto the Broadland Growth Triangle.[/quote]Having lived in Norwich all my life I must say that I''ve never heard anyone describe Woodside Rd as being in Sprowston. Thorpe or Heartsease maybe but not Sprowston.

[ricardo 7,395]

Woodside Rd isn''t and never has been in Sprowston.

[tom cavendish 0]

[quote user="ricardo"]Woodside Rd isn''t and never has been in Sprowston.[/quote]Perhaps you could let the police, council, rightmove etc. know...?http://www.britishstreets.info/woodside-road-sprowston-civil-parish-norwich-norfolk