You are here: Home > Message Board > Palace Talk > Stadium Redevelopment
October 15 2024 1.50pm

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Stadium Redevelopment

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 233 of 256 < 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 >

  

silvertop Flag Portishead 06 Feb 21 12.37pm Send a Private Message to silvertop Add silvertop as a friend

Originally posted by jeeagles

One of the planning conditions is that no work above the level of the existing stand is allowed to take place until 6 new dwelling have been completed (or words to a similar effect). Another states the club need to give 12 months notice to buy the houses on Wooderson Close so the council can rehome the people that live there.

Croydon Council's backhander (sorry S106) is £1m.

They had to jump through hoops with air quality, noise, and storm water assessments, and are having to review all the parking restrictions within a mile of the stadium (there's no where to park anywhere is there). For some reason a new cycle route has got to be included in the S106 as is that fashion now.

Despite huge positive the planners seemed to have filled their boots with this project and done everything possible to delay the potential benefits it brings. Blockers would be a better name for them.... particularly in Croydon as they seem to drive away development with stupid demands. Its the ultimate job for the useless power hungry civil servant.

Sainsbury's also remains an issue.

Fulham announced their plans to construct the Riverside stand, now costing £100m in 2008. Wimbledon took almost 30 years to find a new ground. Without strong political will, these projects drag on and on.

S106 issues are absolutely standard with major projects. Spuds did it quicker presumably as they are richer and just paid whatever haringey demanded? Otherwise I don't understand your innately anti local govt fury at the standard.

I also note you comment on sainsbury's by way of footnote whereas it is cited as the main obstacle.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
southnorwoodhill Flag 06 Feb 21 12.40pm Send a Private Message to southnorwoodhill Add southnorwoodhill as a friend

Originally posted by silvertop

S106 issues are absolutely standard with major projects. Spuds did it quicker presumably as they are richer and just paid whatever haringey demanded? Otherwise I don't understand your innately anti local govt fury at the standard.

I also note you comment on sainsbury's by way of footnote whereas it is cited as the main obstacle.

Wasn't Spurs case hastened by the business that was holding up planning mysteriously burning down overnight?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
silvertop Flag Portishead 06 Feb 21 12.47pm Send a Private Message to silvertop Add silvertop as a friend

Originally posted by cryrst

Anyone know what the figures are and how far apart.
If it's a mill or two then is it really a problem.
We are a PL club.

Neither side have revealed how much. All we have (unless others are ITK) is Parish saying "millions and millions".

This club takes care of the pennies which given our not too distant financial past is a good thing.

That said there is only so long you can hold out before the money at issue is surpassed by the loss of revenue.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Spiderman Flag Horsham 06 Feb 21 12.51pm Send a Private Message to Spiderman Add Spiderman as a friend

Originally posted by southnorwoodhill

Wasn't Spurs case hastened by the business that was holding up planning mysteriously burning down overnight?

Now don’t go getting ideas

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
TheBigToePunt Flag 07 Feb 21 12.56pm Send a Private Message to TheBigToePunt Add TheBigToePunt as a friend

Originally posted by silvertop

Neither side have revealed how much. All we have (unless others are ITK) is Parish saying "millions and millions".

This club takes care of the pennies which given our not too distant financial past is a good thing.

That said there is only so long you can hold out before the money at issue is surpassed by the loss of revenue.

Yes, time is a factor in the financial situation.

I can only imagine that sainsburys are using the land as a ransom strip, and that if it was only a few million pounds between the parties then Parish would have coughed up by now, if only because time is a factor.

It seems the sooner the stand is finished, the sooner our income from it increases. Given the projected figures (cost vs income) for the project overall, the income from the stand must be significant to justify the cost of building it. If its that much of an earner, only a major unreasonable cost would hold it up.

Also, consider the Americans. Parish sold them half the club specifically so they would pay for the academy and stand. They bought in specifically to invest in the bricks and mortar side of the club to increase the value of their investment before, presumably, cashing in. Any investment of that type is allowed outside of FFP constraints, so if a few million quid for sainsburys was all it took, they'd perhaps have just paid it already.

All of this is of course just my reading of it from the outside.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jeeagles Flag 07 Feb 21 1.20pm

Originally posted by silvertop

S106 issues are absolutely standard with major projects. Spuds did it quicker presumably as they are richer and just paid whatever haringey demanded? Otherwise I don't understand your innately anti local govt fury at the standard.

I also note you comment on sainsbury's by way of footnote whereas it is cited as the main obstacle.

When used properly, S106 can be great. We are just in an unfortunate situation where Croydon Council always try and demand too and good investors move away.

Extra jobs and an extra footfall of 8,000 people every other week during winter will boost business investment in South Norwood Selhurst, and Thornton Heath will have a positive impact on the surrounding area so a decent local authority would push this through with minimal demands.

Fact is, it took two years to negotiate a £1m settlement. If the additional capacity was going to generate £15m, then the local economy has missed out on more its stood to gain by delays already.

Unfortunately, planners, particularly Croydon, don't look at the project in terms of what benefit it could bring, but instead just look to see how much they can milk the cash cow.

There's enough properties being built left right and centre in Croydon already, so making the club build 6 new 4 bedroom houes seem like a pointless token jesture. The cycle lane network improvements seem completely unrelated. Altering parking seems reasonable, but Selhurst used to have a bigger capacity than it currently has, so is overstated as a factor.

With the 12 months notice required prior to start of works and the new houses needing to be complete before major works begin, I doubt the Sainsbury's issue is being pursued with much vigor at the moment. When that issue gets to the crunch point I'm sure Parish will simply go public with exactly what he's offered Sainsbury's and they'll come to an agreement very quickly.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Gribbo Flag Bromley 07 Feb 21 4.52pm Send a Private Message to Gribbo Add Gribbo as a friend

Fulham cracking on with their ground improvements. They have a wealthy backer with a genuine interest who is happy to put the funds in. They also have ambition we seem to lack. They may get relegated again this year, but they will be back, eventually replacing the likes of Palace in the division.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Jimenez Flag SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 07 Feb 21 4.58pm Send a Private Message to Jimenez Add Jimenez as a friend

Parish needs to get on the phone to Casual, he'd knock it up in a few weeks!!

 


Pro USA & Israel

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Tickled pink Flag Cornwall 07 Feb 21 5.11pm Send a Private Message to Tickled pink Add Tickled pink as a friend

Originally posted by TheBigToePunt

Yes, time is a factor in the financial situation.

I can only imagine that sainsburys are using the land as a ransom strip, and that if it was only a few million pounds between the parties then Parish would have coughed up by now, if only because time is a factor.

It seems the sooner the stand is finished, the sooner our income from it increases. Given the projected figures (cost vs income) for the project overall, the income from the stand must be significant to justify the cost of building it. If its that much of an earner, only a major unreasonable cost would hold it up.

Also, consider the Americans. Parish sold them half the club specifically so they would pay for the academy and stand. They bought in specifically to invest in the bricks and mortar side of the club to increase the value of their investment before, presumably, cashing in. Any investment of that type is allowed outside of FFP constraints, so if a few million quid for sainsburys was all it took, they'd perhaps have just paid it already.

All of this is of course just my reading of it from the outside.

Makes good sense though.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Tickled pink Flag Cornwall 07 Feb 21 5.14pm Send a Private Message to Tickled pink Add Tickled pink as a friend

Originally posted by Gribbo

Fulham cracking on with their ground improvements. They have a wealthy backer with a genuine interest who is happy to put the funds in. They also have ambition we seem to lack. They may get relegated again this year, but they will be back, eventually replacing the likes of Palace in the division.

...and their players can really pass a good ball on the pitch, they are a joy to watch! shame for them they haven't a clue how to put it in the net.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
TheBigToePunt Flag 10 Feb 21 2.34pm Send a Private Message to TheBigToePunt Add TheBigToePunt as a friend

In comparing the planning application documents with the Land Registry it seems that the section of land Palace need from Sainsbury's is something like I've sketched on the attached. It seems to work out at about 15-20 parking spaces Sainsbury's would lose. Not without value, but enough to see why Parish would baulk at paying 'millions and millions' as he put it. Sainsburys, for their part, did release a statement saying they were happy to talk with the club and sell the land for fair market rate. Either way, it's too small an issue to remain as a serious obstacle for long.

As is common, Croydon Council has a published schedule of Section 106 charges and Community Infrastructure Levy rates. That document has been scrutinised through a public consultation process before being accepted by an independent inspector. The Council can't just impose random, or unreasonable demand on a developer even if it wanted to. Every demand must be justified fully.

In this case the Section 106 legal agreement is not only standard practise, but is entirely reasonable, if not slightly generous to Palace. Outside of the replacement houses, the sum total of the requirements is unlikely to exceed £1m, or to put it in context, a month's worth of Benetke and Sakho. Perhaps those two could build the cycle lane?

It is in allowing the demolition of the Council-owned houses in Wooderson Close that the Council has been most accommodating though. Losing these houses is a very significant issue for the Council, both as the planning authority and as the landlord.

Housing shortages have resulted in the Government instructing Council planning departments to approve applications that boost overall housing numbers, in line with often unrealistic regional targets. They must approve proposals for new houses that they would previously have said no to, and say no to the loss of houses at all costs.

As a landlord, the Council has a duty of care to its tenants, who in turn had what appeared a relatively assured tenancy. Croydon is now telling them they have to go. Presumably they will be offered alternative housing but that could be miles away, even outside of the Borough.

The actual implications of this are hard to know. Perhaps the tenants are largely transient with no particular attachment to the houses and the neighbourhood. For all we know however, there may be kids that now need to move schools, people who need to change their jobs, neighbours and friends for decades now scattered from each other. No small thing if so.

In that context, you can imagine how much of a headache it is to justify the loss of the houses next door to the new stand. Croydon Council could have held out for a massively inflated price, demanded two-for-one replacements elsewhere, or simply said no. They didn't though, they just asked that the same number of houses be replaced, that the Council not be out of pocket for the rent they would have received between times, and that the tenants be given some small compensation for having their homes flattened (I think it's about £6k).

I can see why Parish publicly thanked the Council for its support, and the speed of its positive response to the planning application.

Edited by TheBigToePunt (10 Feb 2021 2.56pm)

Attachment: Selhurst Sainsburys.pdf (800.49Kb)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
doombear Flag Too far from Selhurst Park 10 Feb 21 3.55pm Send a Private Message to doombear Add doombear as a friend

Thanks for your review of things stadium TBTP.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

  

Page 233 of 256 < 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > Palace Talk > Stadium Redevelopment