Rushcliffe approved Forest's plans for up to 52,500 fans on 16 September. Crowds stay at today's level until a new way across the Trent is approved and built.

Nottingham Forest’s plans to expand the City Ground have been approved. Rushcliffe Borough Council’s Planning Committee resolved to approve them on Wednesday evening, 16 September. (Rushcliffe Borough Council)

The two applications would take the ground from a certificated capacity of 31,212 to 45,000, and then to up to 52,500. But not one extra spectator can come in until a new way of getting crowds across the River Trent has been approved and built.

Council leader Cllr Neil Clarke said he was “very pleased the Planning Committee, through its independent process, saw it fit to grant permission to assist the club with its plans”. The council has not yet published the minutes or the voting record.

What was approved

  • 25/02123/FUL, full permission: a new Peter Taylor Stand for about 16,000 people, new tiers over the Trent End roof, and the corners filled in. Capacity rises to 45,000.
  • 25/02122/OUT, outline permission: up to 7,500 more seats on the Brian Clough Stand, taking the total to up to 52,500. Only the scale was decided. The design comes back later.

The height figures changed on the day. The officer report had scaled the heights off the drawings. Papers tabled for the meeting replaced them with the architects’ own figures:

  • Peter Taylor Stand: top of the roof arch 61.13m, highest point of the roof 46.53m, measured from ground level
  • Brian Clough Stand: a maximum of 57.9m including the roof, lower than the 59.4m the officer report had assessed

(Late representations, 16 September 2026)

It is not a permission yet

The committee’s decision is a resolution to approve. The permission itself is only issued once a Section 106 legal agreement has been completed. Officers were given delegated authority to settle its final wording.

Once issued, Forest has three years to start work.

The applications will not go to the Secretary of State. The Environment Agency first objected on flood risk, which would have forced a referral. It then said it was minded to withdraw the objection, provided the flood defence is rebuilt to at least 25.17m AOD and more floodplain storage is created than is lost. (Officer report, 25/02123/FUL)

What has to happen before the City Ground can hold more fans Four steps. First, the Section 106 agreement is completed and permission is issued. Second, an initial river crossing and crowd flow scheme must be approved before any work starts. Third, a comprehensive scheme must be approved before the stands rise above ground level. Fourth, that scheme must be fully built before crowds go above 31,712. Capacity would then rise from 31,212 today to 45,000 and up to 52,500. Approved, but four gates stand before more fans What the officer report and draft Section 106 agreement require, in order 1 Section 106 agreement completed Only then is planning permission actually issued. Three years to start work after that. 2 Initial river crossing and crowd flow scheme approved Before any work starts. The borough council decides, in its absolute discretion. 3 Comprehensive scheme approved Before the new stands rise above ground level. 4 Comprehensive scheme fully built Before crowds go above 31,712, today's certificated 31,212 plus a 500 margin. Capacity: 31,212 today → 45,000 (full application) → up to 52,500 (with the outline) Source: Rushcliffe Borough Council, officer reports on 25/02123/FUL and 25/02122/OUT, Planning Committee 16 September 2026 Graphic by West Bridgford Live
The permission is staged so that the river crossing comes before the extra seats.

Why Trent Bridge decides it

The whole decision turns on one bridge. Forest’s own crowd flow report says Trent Bridge would give 10.4m of clear walking width after a match. It says 11.5m to 12.5m is needed for crowds to leave comfortably.

Forest proposed closing a traffic lane each way and holding fans in queues on Pavilion Road for 30 to 60 minutes after the final whistle. Both highway authorities objected.

Their reasons, from the officer report:

  • fans favour the eastern pavement by about five to one, so an even split across both pavements does not happen
  • Nottingham City Council says holding departing crowds in queues was tried at the Lionesses match in March 2026, and stewards concluded it would not work for Forest matches
  • the city council “cannot support the proposals as submitted” because they remove a traffic lane in each direction for good

Officers were blunt. Without the river crossing obligation, they said, the conflict “would be of such weight as to warrant refusal of the application”. With it, the obligation “prevents occupation above the Existing Capacity” until a crossing scheme “has been delivered in full”.

The Safety Advisory Group, which advises on crowd safety at the ground, wrote in again before the meeting. It said many of its January concerns had been overtaken by Forest’s revised crowd flow report of July 2026. But it said the Trent Bridge width is still “not fully resolved” and that the stated answer is still “monitoring and management”. Officers said that matched their own conclusion.

A new pedestrian and cycle bridge is the option both highway authorities favour. The agreement does not name one, so the permission does not depend on a single design.

The rowing clubs

Two rowing clubs share the riverbank next to the ground, and they come out of this very differently.

Nottingham Rowing Club loses the Britannia and Sims boathouses, which are inside the site. The Section 106 bars their demolition until replacement facilities are in place.

Nottingham and Union Rowing Club gets no such protection. In a late letter it said Forest’s application boundary overlaps part of its training centre. It said it had been served a formal ownership notice on 21 July 2026 and had been left out of talks. British Rowing backed the club and asked for a round-table meeting before any permission.

Officers said Forest served that notice “on a precautionary basis” and does not accept the land is the club’s. They said ownership disputes are “a private legal matter” and not a planning consideration. They added that planning permission “does not authorise development of land in third party control”.

Changes made on the day

The committee papers amended several conditions. The ones residents will notice:

  • Colwick Road access: the vehicle entrance serving the eastern car park was to be for emergency vehicles only. It can now also be used by construction traffic while the stands are built, then goes back to emergency use only.
  • Flooding: a new condition requires a water entry strategy, approved with the Environment Agency, before anything is built above ground level.
  • Archaeology: a fuller condition requires a mitigation strategy once an archaeological evaluation is done, with a report published locally.

Support and objections

By the day of the meeting the council counted 918 comments in support of the full application and 916 of the outline one. Officers said 71 and 53 of the latest batches were the same pro-forma email, and that “the volume of letters of support, like the volume of objections, is not itself determinative”.

The Nottingham Forest Supporters Trust wrote backing both applications, including the river crossing requirement. It asked to join the community liaison group for the project, and Forest has confirmed that can be accommodated.

What it means for you

  • Match days do not change yet. Crowds stay capped at today’s level until the river crossing is built. No date has been given for that.
  • If you live on Colwick Road, construction lorries can use the eastern car park entrance during the build.
  • The match-day parking zone is not in force. The plans include a zone reaching about a 25-minute walk from the ground, funded by a £990,000 contribution. The Traffic Regulation Orders it needs must go through statutory consultation, and both highway authorities say they are “not guaranteed to be implementable”. Watch for notices on your road.
  • Trent Bridge stays as it is for now. The lane removals Forest proposed are not part of the approved plans unless separately justified.

Our preview of the committee report has the full list of buildings to be demolished, the £4.17m in Section 106 payments and the parking figures. For this week’s closures, including the Lady Bay Bridge match-day order, see our roadworks and travel page.

Sources