Stadium Redevelopment
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Spiderman  Horsham 11 Feb 21 2.03pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Would be more helpful if we could read it
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| TheBigToePunt 11 Feb 21 2.34pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Other random observations of mine, resulting from a browse through the planning application: 1. There is a lot of attention to detail here. To allow the ground to host international games(!), the pitch will be made a fraction longer, so much so that some work is to be done to the front row of the Whitehorse Lane End, where 690 seats will be lost, though they will be replaced by 48 wheelchair access spaces and companion seats. The Holmesdale End goal will move slightly closer to the stand, bringing the fans and the action as close to each other as anywhere I can think of in the Premier League. Compare that to the chasm between the goal and the stand at places like Leicester, Arsenal, Spurs, and of course West Ham (even after they moved the seating behind the goals recently). 2. A nice touch is that by enlarging the pitch slightly, the halfway line will line up exactly with the centre of the new stand, and with the players tunnel. I always think things like that look really good. 3. The TV gantry will be in the new main stand, as someone has finally worked out that the afternoon sun shines straight into the Arthur, which is nice if you're sitting there, but does make all 22 players seem like shadows on TV. That will no longer happen. 4. All the floodlights on all four stands will be rebuilt and moved as part of making this work. This is necessary because the lights placed in the roof of the new main stand will be so much higher up than before, and so to get an equal projection of light onto the pitch, the floodlights on top of the other stands will have to be moved up too. 5. I've alway wondered how much of the Whitehorse land end land CPFC still own. Looking at the Land Registry I reckon it's not much, probably just the seating area and the narrow concourse underneath it (i.e the extent of the old terrace circa 1990). It looks as if the executive boxes, and then the roof of the stand, were placed on top of Sainsburys land, presumably with some sort of build-over agreement. Redeveloping that stand without Sainsburys agreement is going to be nigh-on impossible in future, even if we opt for some sort of multi-storey stack of small seating tiers. Get Sainsburys on board with a project involving a new stand and a new supermarket in one development however, and we could even build something similar to the Holmesdale potentially, subject to impact on any rear-facing windows on the houses/flats on Whitehorse Lane. 6. The part of the Arthur beneath the concourse (so the old terrace basically) lines up pretty well with the lower tier of the Holmesdale, and as we are building a bank of seats in the corner to connect the two, I would imagine that any future redevelopment of the AW will involve leaving all those seats alone, and adding a new upper tier above. That is possible, but not easy. We'd never get away with the AW being as tall as the new Main Stand due to the impact on the houses on Park Road, but we could perhaps cantilever an upper tier over the top of the existing lower seats if, and possibly only if, it could be located a bit closer to the pitch than the upper tiers of the new main stand and the Holmesdale. Edited by TheBigToePunt (11 Feb 2021 2.52pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| TheBigToePunt 11 Feb 21 2.39pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Sorry all.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Attachment: | TheBigToePunt 11 Feb 21 2.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
And p32 of this will show you which houses are to go. If this doesn't work, PM me and I'll meet you at the ground and walk you round there myself!
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Eaglecoops CR3 11 Feb 21 2.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by TheBigToePunt
Palace can't just buy six houses and gift them to the council, we have to build six new ones. Otherwise the sum total of houses in the Borough will have decreased by six as a result of our project. Nevertheless, given the promotional stuff from the club anticipated construction beginning about two years ago, there plainly are delays here. Sainsburys is an issue, and though a CPO is a legitimate resolution, that's not a quick process, especially if sainsburys challenge it. That may be a factor in Parish persevering in negotiations this long. Another thing to consider is that Parish has spoken about the order of importance of the projects. Its something like Training Ground, Stay Up, Academy, Stay Up, Create assets in the team, Stay Up, New Stand. It might be that he wants to wait until we have the financial cushion of a more valuable, saleable squad before taking on the cost of the stand, though that would be at odds with the idea of the Americans coming in to pay for infrastructure, which seems to be their sole purpose. Overall its worth remembering that he has pledged commitment to the stand and its importance. Its natural to be impatient, but the club wouldn't have got this far unless they were serious. Edited by TheBigToePunt (11 Feb 2021 8.12am) Sorry if I misled there, I wasn’t talking about buying existing houses. Palace could go to any developer and tell them what is required. A developer would love it if Palace effectively bank rolled a development for them. I don’t entirely agree with you about CPO taking so long, it can be pushed through where there is little to argue over and as I have suggested before it would probably be better to buy under threat of CPO as there is now established Council backing. If you look at the area of land that is in question, there is very little that Sainsbury’s could put forward to support their argument anyway as it is not going to significantly impact their business. The Council have supported the development, the sec 106 has been agreed therefore something else is holding it back and it can only be money. I am frustrated that at the best possible time for developing the new stand (that is, whilst the ground is empty), there has been a lot of sitting on hands rather than driving it through and that includes the sec 106 which could, with the right will, have been agreed a long time ago. What I also find strange is why not serve the notice on the council with regard to the houses that need to be bought so it is one less thing to do. This is something that could have been done as soon as the 106 was agreed. Perhaps they have and I’m misjudging them. I understand your points about different financial aspects of the club, but wasn’t this money supposedly ring fenced? This perhaps points to something occurring in the background with the Americans and maybe we are on the go slow simply because they are on their way out. I’ll be disappointed if we arrive at the end of having two billionaire directors on our board and finish with absolutely nothing to show for it other than them making a few loans to us.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Eaglecoops CR3 11 Feb 21 2.53pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by TheBigToePunt
Other random observations of mine, resulting from a browse through the planning application: 1. There is a lot of attention to detail here. To allow the ground to host international games(!), the pitch will be made a fraction longer, so much so that some work is to be done to the front row of the Whitehorse Lane End, where 690 seats will be lost, though they will be replaced by 48 wheelchair access spaces and companion seats. The Holmesdale End goal will move slightly closer to the stand, bringing the fans and the action as close to each other as anywhere I can think of in the Premier League. Compare that to the chasm between the goal and the stand at places like Leicester, Arsenal, Spurs, and of course West Ham (even after they moved the seating behind the goals recently). 2. A nice touch is that by enlarging the pitch slightly, the halfway line will line up exactly with the centre of the new stand, and with the players tunnel. I always think things like that look really good. 3. The TV gantry will be in the new main stand, as someone has finally worked out that the afternoon sun shines straight into the Arthur, which is nice if you're sitting there, but does make all 22 players seem like shadows on TV. That will no longer happen. 4. All the floodlights on all four stands will be rebuilt and moved as part of making this work. This is necessary because the lights placed in the roof of the new main stand will be so much higher up than before, and so to get an equal projection of light onto the pitch, the floodlights on top of the other stands will have to be moved up too. 5. I've alway wondered how much of the Whitehorse land end land CPFC still own. Looking at the Land Registry I reckon it's not much, probably just the seating area and the narrow concourse underneath it (i.e the extent of the old terrace circa 1990). It looks as if the executive boxes, and then the roof of the stand, were placed on top of Sainsburys land, presumably with some sort of build-over agreement. Redeveloping that stand without Sainsburys agreement is going to be nigh-on impossible in future, even if we opt for some sort of multi-storey stack of small seating tiers. Get Sainsburys on board with a project involving a new stand and a new supermarket in one development however, and we could even build something similar to the Holmesdale potentially, subject to impact on any rear-facing windows on the houses/flats on Whitehorse Lane. 6. The part of the Arthur beneath the concourse (so the old terrace basically) lines up pretty well with the lower tier of the Holmesdale, and as we are building a bank of seats in the corner to connects the two, I would imagine that any future redevelopment of the AW will involve leaving all those seats alone, and adding a new upper tier above. That is possible, but not easy. We'd never get away with the AW being as tall as the new Main Stand due to he impact on the houses on Park Road, but we could perhaps cantilever an upper tier over the top of the existing lower seats if, and possibly only if, it could be located a bit closer to the pitch than the upper tiers of the new main stand and the Holmesdale. Thanks for that. Interesting stuff. I’ve always thought the best way to go with the Whitehorse is buy out Sainsbury’s or do a joint venture development.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| TheBigToePunt 11 Feb 21 3.09pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Eaglecoops
Sorry if I misled there, I wasn’t talking about buying existing houses. Palace could go to any developer and tell them what is required. A developer would love it if Palace effectively bank rolled a development for them. I don’t entirely agree with you about CPO taking so long, it can be pushed through where there is little to argue over and as I have suggested before it would probably be better to buy under threat of CPO as there is now established Council backing. If you look at the area of land that is in question, there is very little that Sainsbury’s could put forward to support their argument anyway as it is not going to significantly impact their business. The Council have supported the development, the sec 106 has been agreed therefore something else is holding it back and it can only be money. I am frustrated that at the best possible time for developing the new stand (that is, whilst the ground is empty), there has been a lot of sitting on hands rather than driving it through and that includes the sec 106 which could, with the right will, have been agreed a long time ago. What I also find strange is why not serve the notice on the council with regard to the houses that need to be bought so it is one less thing to do. This is something that could have been done as soon as the 106 was agreed. Perhaps they have and I’m misjudging them. I understand your points about different financial aspects of the club, but wasn’t this money supposedly ring fenced? This perhaps points to something occurring in the background with the Americans and maybe we are on the go slow simply because they are on their way out. I’ll be disappointed if we arrive at the end of having two billionaire directors on our board and finish with absolutely nothing to show for it other than them making a few loans to us. Yes, these are the right questions to ask I think, and no obvious answers present themselves. I don't see why CPFC didn't plough straight on with agreeing the s106 and giving notice to Croydon regarding the houses immediately. It might be because we will have to pay the Council the rent they were missing out on until the new houses were built, and if the Sainsburys impasse drags on then we could end up spending a fair bit compensating the Council, but even so.. I too thought the money for the stand was ringfenced, and I don't really see why palace couldn't have employed an agent to act for them regarding the stand, and keep the ball rolling if the board / SP felt they had to focus entirely on the academy at the time. At the same time, I can't see how the Americans will be able to sell at a profit without having improved the infrastructure, so unless they have got their own money worries, I can't see why their original investment strategy wouldn't remain. But the reason for the delays is a little unclear. On the idea of a developer building six houses, don't forget that the final six houses will be handed over to Croydon Council for free, and the houses must be brand new (i.e not ones previously built or even permitted but not yet built). The only use CPFC would have of a developer is if we can find one that owns a suitable plot of land, hasn't applied for permission to build on it yet, and will sell it to us. We would have to compensate the developer for loss of earnings, meaning the plot would become even more expensive than one Palace could just find for themselves. Palace could build six separate houses around the borough if one medium-sized site isn't available, or buy a previously developed plot and redevelop it at greater density. I'd imagine the Council want six family houses rather than flats though, as that is what will be lost. That limits things a bit. It was never going to be cheap or simple, but certainly not impossible either, and I would have expected progress by now.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
eagleman13  On The Road To Hell & Alicante 11 Feb 21 3.17pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by TheBigToePunt
And p32 of this will show you which houses are to go. If this doesn't work, PM me and I'll meet you at the ground and walk you round there myself! Thank you for that, answers my Q? to a tee.
I'm a blind man, i'm a blind man, now my room is cold, |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Eaglecoops CR3 11 Feb 21 3.39pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by TheBigToePunt
Yes, these are the right questions to ask I think, and no obvious answers present themselves. I don't see why CPFC didn't plough straight on with agreeing the s106 and giving notice to Croydon regarding the houses immediately. It might be because we will have to pay the Council the rent they were missing out on until the new houses were built, and if the Sainsburys impasse drags on then we could end up spending a fair bit compensating the Council, but even so.. I too thought the money for the stand was ringfenced, and I don't really see why palace couldn't have employed an agent to act for them regarding the stand, and keep the ball rolling if the board / SP felt they had to focus entirely on the academy at the time. At the same time, I can't see how the Americans will be able to sell at a profit without having improved the infrastructure, so unless they have got their own money worries, I can't see why their original investment strategy wouldn't remain. But the reason for the delays is a little unclear. On the idea of a developer building six houses, don't forget that the final six houses will be handed over to Croydon Council for free, so the only use CPFC would have of a developer is if we can find one that has already bought a suitable plot of land, but hasn't applied for permission to build on it yet. Palace could buy that plot, though they'd have to compensate the developer for loss of earnings, meaning the plot would become even more expensive than one Palace could just find for themselves. Thing is, it could be six separate houses all over the place, so Palace could find six smaller sites if one medium-sized one isn't available. Or but a plot that has been built on, and redevelop it. Not cheap or simple, but certainly not impossible either, and I would have expected progress on that by now. Edited by TheBigToePunt (11 Feb 2021 3.20pm) Haha, with regard to the tenants, if they are on benefits we will be doing the Council a favour! With regard to development I see it a little more simple to you. Palace can go to maybe Wimpey and say we will pay on completion an agreed price for 6 of your new build houses on site X or sites XY and Z and then transfer these to the Council on completion. This is still the provision of new housing to the borough and it would be wholly unreasonable to expect a football club or any other non-property company to do different. I cannot believe that would be a reasonable or acceptable clause in a sec 106 agreement. I’d need to read the 106 to know for sure. Edited by Eaglecoops (11 Feb 2021 3.43pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| TheBigToePunt 11 Feb 21 3.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Eaglecoops
Haha, with regard to the tenants, if they are on benefits we will be doing the Council a favour! With regard to development I see it a little more simple to you. Palace can go to maybe Wimpey and say we will pay on completion an agreed price for 6 of your new build houses on site X or sites XY and Z and then transfer these to the Council on completion. This is still the provision of new housing to the borough and it would be wholly unreasonable to expect a football club or any other non-property company to do different. I cannot believe that would be a reasonable or acceptable clause in a sec 106 agreement. I’d need to read the 106 to know for sure. Sorry, I did edit my last post to better address this. The six houses must be new ones in every sense - ones that have already been approved, even if not built, will not be eligible. We have to provide six absolute virgin houses in every way! The reason for this is that to meet its government targets the Council has to show how many new houses it has approved through the planning system. If a developer has already got permission for 10 houses somewhere, and we buy six of them to hand to the Council, the total number of approved new houses will remain as it was before. We need to add to the total number of approved new houses by six. There are lots of faults with this system of course, not least that the Council can approve planning applications for thousands of new houses, but that means nothing if developers don't actually build the houses which have been permitted. That happens, for a variety of reasons. But that's another story! Edited by TheBigToePunt (11 Feb 2021 3.50pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 11 Feb 21 4.04pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by TheBigToePunt
Sorry, I did edit my last post to better address this. The six houses must be new ones in every sense - ones that have already been approved, even if not built, will not be eligible. We have to provide six absolute virgin houses in every way! The reason for this is that to meet its government targets the Council has to show how many new houses it has approved through the planning system. If a developer has already got permission for 10 houses somewhere, and we buy six of them to hand to the Council, the total number of approved new houses will remain as it was before. We need to add to the total number of approved new houses by six. There are lots of faults with this system of course, not least that the Council can approve planning applications for thousands of new houses, but that means nothing if developers don't actually build the houses which have been permitted. That happens, for a variety of reasons. But that's another story! Edited by TheBigToePunt (11 Feb 2021 3.50pm) Also worth remembering that although the council have apparently listed the planning dept as 'protected' from the current financial malaise, and subsequent cuts, I've recently been dealing with them on a residential level and I can say that they are even more understaffed and slow to respond than they were before they went bankrupt. So I think this is another element to add to the mix in terms of delays, I very much doubt their responsiveness is at an all time high even if we are talking bigger projects at the commercial level.
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Eaglecoops CR3 11 Feb 21 4.49pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by TheBigToePunt
Sorry, I did edit my last post to better address this. The six houses must be new ones in every sense - ones that have already been approved, even if not built, will not be eligible. We have to provide six absolute virgin houses in every way! The reason for this is that to meet its government targets the Council has to show how many new houses it has approved through the planning system. If a developer has already got permission for 10 houses somewhere, and we buy six of them to hand to the Council, the total number of approved new houses will remain as it was before. We need to add to the total number of approved new houses by six. There are lots of faults with this system of course, not least that the Council can approve planning applications for thousands of new houses, but that means nothing if developers don't actually build the houses which have been permitted. That happens, for a variety of reasons. But that's another story! Edited by TheBigToePunt (11 Feb 2021 3.50pm) Wow, I find that incredible to believe. Still, there are plenty of developers with land banks so we will probably have to find one of these plots and get the developer to make a planning application in Palace’s name and then buy the finished property off them to hand to the Council. I suppose the upside to this is they could choose one of the more borderline sites to submit an application on and it will get pushed through under the guise of social housing, (which developers hate anyway as it eats into their profits). Win, win perhaps for developer and Palace.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.