Next Wednesday (30 July) is Decision Day for the public inquiry into the arena development on Dingwall Road.
Given the departure of Goodwin, director of planning and transportation at Croydon Borough Council, my guts tell me that it will be a victory for the citizens of Croydon and a defeat for the council's plans to impose an arena on us.
I could of course be 100% wrong!
Showing posts with label Dingwall Road. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dingwall Road. Show all posts
Wednesday, 23 July 2008
Wednesday, 16 July 2008
Our Non Listening Council
With very few weeks left before the results of the public inquiry, Stanhope made a full presentation to the Shadow Cabinet on 30 June.
It was, I understand, well received with extensive questioning on all aspects of the scheme including; housing mix, the new Warehouse Theatre, public performance space, build time, committed financing and the future of Fairfield Halls.
This is in stark contrast to the ruling Conservative administration of Croydon, who have refused a similar offer from Stanhope.
It was, I understand, well received with extensive questioning on all aspects of the scheme including; housing mix, the new Warehouse Theatre, public performance space, build time, committed financing and the future of Fairfield Halls.
This is in stark contrast to the ruling Conservative administration of Croydon, who have refused a similar offer from Stanhope.
Wednesday, 9 July 2008
Leaving The Sinking Ship?
Is it possible that the resignation of Phillip Goodwin, director of planning and transportation at Croydon Borough Council, is a straw in the wind indicating that Croydon Council will fail in their bid to build an Arena in Croydon?
Property Week states:
"Goodwin has also been a key backer of Arrowcroft's arena-led plans for the Croydon Gateway."
I hope that is an augury of the future.
Property Week states:
"Goodwin has also been a key backer of Arrowcroft's arena-led plans for the Croydon Gateway."
I hope that is an augury of the future.
Tuesday, 22 April 2008
The Real Scandal of The Arena
This comment has just been posted on Croydon Is Crap.
I would be very grateful if the person who posted it could get in touch with me.
Thanks.
"My company were the originators of the Stanhope Schroder scheme having secured options on the site in 1976 in open competition. The site was originally due to be developed as a Millennium Site with completion in 2000 - what a joke.
After years of frustration the Council became seduced by an individual promoting an Arena as a so called expert. This same individual has tried unsuccessfully in other UK towns and been thrown out of most of them. To this day, he has no experience of building or running an Arena.
We fully investigated the Arena concept and had it potentially valued by one of the world's top consultants. In a nutshell, the Arena would cost £80m to build (ex land cost) and be worth £5m. on completion. There is no possibility of a privately funded Arena being built in a town centre anywhere in the UK - all others in Europe have had public funding and/or free land. American Arenas are supported by Ice Hockey which is their national sport.
It is arguable that through their intransigence Croydon Council have cost borough residents (of whom I am one) £millions in lost revenue from business rates on this site.
After spending £2m. and seven years on this site, we sold to Stanhope/Schroder as we were 'losing the will to live'."
I would be very grateful if the person who posted it could get in touch with me.
Thanks.
"My company were the originators of the Stanhope Schroder scheme having secured options on the site in 1976 in open competition. The site was originally due to be developed as a Millennium Site with completion in 2000 - what a joke.
After years of frustration the Council became seduced by an individual promoting an Arena as a so called expert. This same individual has tried unsuccessfully in other UK towns and been thrown out of most of them. To this day, he has no experience of building or running an Arena.
We fully investigated the Arena concept and had it potentially valued by one of the world's top consultants. In a nutshell, the Arena would cost £80m to build (ex land cost) and be worth £5m. on completion. There is no possibility of a privately funded Arena being built in a town centre anywhere in the UK - all others in Europe have had public funding and/or free land. American Arenas are supported by Ice Hockey which is their national sport.
It is arguable that through their intransigence Croydon Council have cost borough residents (of whom I am one) £millions in lost revenue from business rates on this site.
After spending £2m. and seven years on this site, we sold to Stanhope/Schroder as we were 'losing the will to live'."
Tuesday, 6 November 2007
Arena Will Destroy Warehouse Theatre
Councillor Timothy Godfrey, who is on the Warehouse's board, has given a stark warning in the Croydon Guardian as to the fate of the Warehouse Theatre in the event that the Arrowcroft arena is built.
In his view, and the view of the board of the theatre, the arena will spell the end of the Warehouse Theatre.
Quote:
"The proposed location is of concern. I still consider that the location, and indeed design of the theatre, is an afterthought.
Given the lack of deliverability of a new Warehouse Theatre in so many areas we recommend that planning is refused and the CPO declined.
The Arrowcroft scheme just doesn't seem to have been thought through or properly finished. We are happy with the plans with Stanhope Schroder and the general view is that if the Arrowcroft scheme goes through then we've had it."
The arena is unwanted, unloved and unnecessary.
Let us get on with developing that ugly canker on the backside of Croydon, known as Dingwall Road.
Sign the petition against the arena via this link on the Number 10 website: Petition
In his view, and the view of the board of the theatre, the arena will spell the end of the Warehouse Theatre.
Quote:
"The proposed location is of concern. I still consider that the location, and indeed design of the theatre, is an afterthought.
Given the lack of deliverability of a new Warehouse Theatre in so many areas we recommend that planning is refused and the CPO declined.
The Arrowcroft scheme just doesn't seem to have been thought through or properly finished. We are happy with the plans with Stanhope Schroder and the general view is that if the Arrowcroft scheme goes through then we've had it."
The arena is unwanted, unloved and unnecessary.
Let us get on with developing that ugly canker on the backside of Croydon, known as Dingwall Road.
Sign the petition against the arena via this link on the Number 10 website: Petition
Monday, 29 October 2007
Welcome To Lah Lah Land
Those of you who are worried about the negative impact that the arena will have on the quality and availability of public transport in Croydon, need not worry.
Here is the "plan" for controlling and "marshalling" the extra crowds expected to descend upon Croydon, if the arena is built:
Summary of Agreement with Tramtrack Croydon Ltd. (1.10.07)
1.2. TCl suggest that a higher percentage of visitors to the Arena will use the trams and, therefore, additional trams will be required for major events. An agreement has been completed with Tramtrack that secures marshalling requirements and the provision of additional trams to be paid for by Central Croydon Regeneration Limited Liability Partnership (CCRLLP) when certain triggers are reached ("the Agreement").
2.4.1. Where marshalling requirements are implemented through the Arena Management Plan and where attendance at an event is below 7,500 the number of Additional Tram Services to be provided by TCL eastbound to meet anticipated demand during the hour after the event ends is zero; between 7,500 and 9,250 it is one; between 9,250 and 10,000 it is two; above 10,000 the number of Additional Tram Services to be provided by TCL eastbound to meet anticipated demand during the Exit Hour is three.
2.4.3...and to discuss with TCL the feasibility of extending the East Croydon Tram Platforms so that they are capable of holding 2 stationary trams as part of those works.
2.4.4. (a)....... the following information will be communicated within the Arena to spectators attending a Major Event:
(i) the arrival times of trams at the East Croydon Tram Platforms during the Exit Hour; and
(ii) subject to TCL having obtained the prior written agreement of TfL, that the Wellesley Road Platform is for alighting only and boarding of the trams by visitors to the Arena will not be permitted at this platform during the Exit Hour;
(b).......include the following Marshalling Requirements:
(i) To segregate tram passengers in an area not less than 400 m2 from those customers of the Arena seeking to use East Croydon Railway Station and bus stations and car parking in Fairfield.
(ii) To organise the management of separate queues for each tram destination as agreed between the Developer and TCL and hold waiting passengers in those queues pending the availability of trams for the relevaant designation.
(iii) Release passengers from relevant queues on instruction from staff of the Tram operator.
(iv) Consider with the Developer appropriate management of passenger flows in the direction of Wellesley Road for West Croydon station and local Car parks and determine whether similar queueing and segregation will be required for Wellesley Road tram stop.
Oh yes, this will definitely work!
Sign the petition against the arena via this link on the Number 10 website: Petition
Here is the "plan" for controlling and "marshalling" the extra crowds expected to descend upon Croydon, if the arena is built:
Summary of Agreement with Tramtrack Croydon Ltd. (1.10.07)
1.2. TCl suggest that a higher percentage of visitors to the Arena will use the trams and, therefore, additional trams will be required for major events. An agreement has been completed with Tramtrack that secures marshalling requirements and the provision of additional trams to be paid for by Central Croydon Regeneration Limited Liability Partnership (CCRLLP) when certain triggers are reached ("the Agreement").
2.4.1. Where marshalling requirements are implemented through the Arena Management Plan and where attendance at an event is below 7,500 the number of Additional Tram Services to be provided by TCL eastbound to meet anticipated demand during the hour after the event ends is zero; between 7,500 and 9,250 it is one; between 9,250 and 10,000 it is two; above 10,000 the number of Additional Tram Services to be provided by TCL eastbound to meet anticipated demand during the Exit Hour is three.
2.4.3...and to discuss with TCL the feasibility of extending the East Croydon Tram Platforms so that they are capable of holding 2 stationary trams as part of those works.
2.4.4. (a)....... the following information will be communicated within the Arena to spectators attending a Major Event:
(i) the arrival times of trams at the East Croydon Tram Platforms during the Exit Hour; and
(ii) subject to TCL having obtained the prior written agreement of TfL, that the Wellesley Road Platform is for alighting only and boarding of the trams by visitors to the Arena will not be permitted at this platform during the Exit Hour;
(b).......include the following Marshalling Requirements:
(i) To segregate tram passengers in an area not less than 400 m2 from those customers of the Arena seeking to use East Croydon Railway Station and bus stations and car parking in Fairfield.
(ii) To organise the management of separate queues for each tram destination as agreed between the Developer and TCL and hold waiting passengers in those queues pending the availability of trams for the relevaant designation.
(iii) Release passengers from relevant queues on instruction from staff of the Tram operator.
(iv) Consider with the Developer appropriate management of passenger flows in the direction of Wellesley Road for West Croydon station and local Car parks and determine whether similar queueing and segregation will be required for Wellesley Road tram stop.
Oh yes, this will definitely work!
Sign the petition against the arena via this link on the Number 10 website: Petition
Friday, 26 October 2007
Questions Over Funding
The public inquiry into the Arrowcroft and Croydon Council arena heard this week that there were question marks over the funding of the project.
It was pointed out that Arrowcroft and the council have not signed contracts with banks or third parties to provide the funding required for the project, and that so far Frogmore has only committed £3M to the project.
Source PropertyWeek.com
At a public inquiry last Friday, the possibility of the sale of the controversial Croydon Gateway site was raised, which could end the decade-long fight between the two rival developers: Stanhope and Schroders; and Arrowcroft and Croydon Council.
If a sale of the site can be agreed it will end the matter before it goes to secretary of state for communities and local government Hazel Blears at the end of the inquiry.
Stanhope and Schroders own the site in question, and have planning permission for a 1m sq ft office and residential-led scheme called Ruskin Square.
However, the council and development partner Arrowcroft, with funding from Paul White's Frogmore, have proposed a 2m sq ft Croydon Gateway scheme that would feature a 12,500-seat arena.
The inquiry, which has one week left to run, deals with two issues: whether planning permission should be granted to the arena-led scheme; and, if it is, whether Croydon Council can go ahead with a compulsory purchase order to force Stanhope and Schroders to sell the 9 acres that they own in the 13 acre site.
Last Friday, the inquiry heard that the council and Arrowcroft have never made a formal offer to Stanhope and Schroders to buy their part of the site.
Alan Jones, finance director of Arrowcroft, said this was because the company was unsure whether any purchase of the land would contain an overage provision.
This would state that a larger sum would have to be paid if planning consent for a higher use value were to be obtained.
Keith Lindblom QC, acting for Stanhope and Schroders, told the inquiry that no such provision existed, and that any bid for the land would be welcomed.
It is thought that if Arrowcroft and the council receive written confirmation that there is no overage provision, they will make an offer to buy the land owned by Stanhope and Schroders after evidence on the site’s value is heard next week.
However, evidence is to be submitted showing a £47m to £55m difference in how much the two sides think the site is worth.
William Hill, head of property at Schroders, said: 'I can confirm that Arrowcroft and the council have made no offer to us or the previous landowners for part or all of the site.
However, there is no encumbrance to them doing so. If they made us an offer at a price that reflected the value and potential return of the site, then we would, of course, consider it. But as it stands, it is our intention to continue with our development.'
As the inquiry enters its final week, it has moved from examining whether the council and Arrowcroft’s scheme should be granted planning permission, to whether it should be allowed to use a CPO to purchase the land.
Stanhope and Schroders were among the objectors to the scheme being given planning permission. Their evidence to the planning inspector stated that the arena was not economically viable, and that the scheme did not contain enough affordable housing.
But in its submission regarding the CPO, Croydon Council said the arena was vital to regenerating Croydon and changing its image as a 'concrete jungle'. Jon Rouse, chief executive of Croydon Council, said in his evidence: ‘We all want it to happen because we know that it will have a profoundly positive impact on the prospects of this town.
'Only the Gateway [site] makes sense as the location for a major entertainment and leisure facility.'
However, Stanhope and Schroders sought to show that the funding and operation of the potential arena is far from secure. Lindblom pointed out that Arrowcroft and the council have not signed contracts with banks or third parties to provide the funding required for the project, and said that so far Frogmore has only committed £3m to the project.
However, Paul White, managing director of Frogmore, who agreed to fund the scheme in February, said: 'I am reasonably offended by the suggestion that I would go back on my word. Frogmore has an unblemished reputation when it comes to providing funding.'
Sign the petition against the arena via this link on the Number 10 website: Petition
It was pointed out that Arrowcroft and the council have not signed contracts with banks or third parties to provide the funding required for the project, and that so far Frogmore has only committed £3M to the project.
Source PropertyWeek.com
At a public inquiry last Friday, the possibility of the sale of the controversial Croydon Gateway site was raised, which could end the decade-long fight between the two rival developers: Stanhope and Schroders; and Arrowcroft and Croydon Council.
If a sale of the site can be agreed it will end the matter before it goes to secretary of state for communities and local government Hazel Blears at the end of the inquiry.
Stanhope and Schroders own the site in question, and have planning permission for a 1m sq ft office and residential-led scheme called Ruskin Square.
However, the council and development partner Arrowcroft, with funding from Paul White's Frogmore, have proposed a 2m sq ft Croydon Gateway scheme that would feature a 12,500-seat arena.
The inquiry, which has one week left to run, deals with two issues: whether planning permission should be granted to the arena-led scheme; and, if it is, whether Croydon Council can go ahead with a compulsory purchase order to force Stanhope and Schroders to sell the 9 acres that they own in the 13 acre site.
Last Friday, the inquiry heard that the council and Arrowcroft have never made a formal offer to Stanhope and Schroders to buy their part of the site.
Alan Jones, finance director of Arrowcroft, said this was because the company was unsure whether any purchase of the land would contain an overage provision.
This would state that a larger sum would have to be paid if planning consent for a higher use value were to be obtained.
Keith Lindblom QC, acting for Stanhope and Schroders, told the inquiry that no such provision existed, and that any bid for the land would be welcomed.
It is thought that if Arrowcroft and the council receive written confirmation that there is no overage provision, they will make an offer to buy the land owned by Stanhope and Schroders after evidence on the site’s value is heard next week.
However, evidence is to be submitted showing a £47m to £55m difference in how much the two sides think the site is worth.
William Hill, head of property at Schroders, said: 'I can confirm that Arrowcroft and the council have made no offer to us or the previous landowners for part or all of the site.
However, there is no encumbrance to them doing so. If they made us an offer at a price that reflected the value and potential return of the site, then we would, of course, consider it. But as it stands, it is our intention to continue with our development.'
As the inquiry enters its final week, it has moved from examining whether the council and Arrowcroft’s scheme should be granted planning permission, to whether it should be allowed to use a CPO to purchase the land.
Stanhope and Schroders were among the objectors to the scheme being given planning permission. Their evidence to the planning inspector stated that the arena was not economically viable, and that the scheme did not contain enough affordable housing.
But in its submission regarding the CPO, Croydon Council said the arena was vital to regenerating Croydon and changing its image as a 'concrete jungle'. Jon Rouse, chief executive of Croydon Council, said in his evidence: ‘We all want it to happen because we know that it will have a profoundly positive impact on the prospects of this town.
'Only the Gateway [site] makes sense as the location for a major entertainment and leisure facility.'
However, Stanhope and Schroders sought to show that the funding and operation of the potential arena is far from secure. Lindblom pointed out that Arrowcroft and the council have not signed contracts with banks or third parties to provide the funding required for the project, and said that so far Frogmore has only committed £3m to the project.
However, Paul White, managing director of Frogmore, who agreed to fund the scheme in February, said: 'I am reasonably offended by the suggestion that I would go back on my word. Frogmore has an unblemished reputation when it comes to providing funding.'
Sign the petition against the arena via this link on the Number 10 website: Petition
Wednesday, 22 August 2007
Objections To Arena
EAST CROYDON GATEWAY SITE
Town & Country Planning Act 1990 – Section 77 Application by Arrowcroft Ltd
Site and Land Adjoining East Croydon Station, George Street, Dingwall Road and Lansdowne Road, Croydon Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/293)
REASONS FOR OBJECTION TO THE PLANNING APPLICATION
SYNOPSIS
Chairman, Canning & Clyde Road Residents Association
Also on behalf of Park Hill Residents Association, Morland Park Residents Association, H.O.M.E Residents Association and the Croydon Transport Focus Group
Town & Country Planning Act 1990 – Section 77 Application by Arrowcroft Ltd
Site and Land Adjoining East Croydon Station, George Street, Dingwall Road and Lansdowne Road, Croydon Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/293)
REASONS FOR OBJECTION TO THE PLANNING APPLICATION
SYNOPSIS
- The development is not sustainable. Worse it will cause considerable harm to neighbouring communities that are sustainable and have been so for many years.
- There has been no proper consultation or community involvement as prescribed by PPS1. In fact there has been much shrouding in mystery to such an extent that we have had to resort to the Freedom of Information Act twice to gain information from
the Council. - For a large event based development a robust transport plan is needed. The information the applicant has provided relies upon sparse or out-of-date surveys and nowhere mentions improvements to the public transport infrastructure.
- It is indicated that the Council - to respond to Arena customers parking in residential streets - would likely introduce new parking zone regimes in our areas which are unwanted.
- We think that a sequential approach should have been applied in selecting the location for the proposed development.
- Nothing in the applicant’s material leads us to believe that the proposed development is commercially and financially capable of delivering the metropolitan status rebranding and regeneration of Croydon. We have yet to see a business plan for the operation of the Arena.
- The applicant does not mention off-site law, order and crowd control.
- We think the latest design for the Arena with apparently 50 or so steps poses a natural danger and appears to contain more oppressive greyness and glass with which Croydon has been architecturally overburdened since the 1960s.
- The UDP Inspector’s Report said that an Arena on this site was not essential.
Chairman, Canning & Clyde Road Residents Association
Also on behalf of Park Hill Residents Association, Morland Park Residents Association, H.O.M.E Residents Association and the Croydon Transport Focus Group
Wednesday, 13 June 2007
Moving The Goalposts
Those of you with sharp eyes may have noticed some small printed notices stapled to trees on Dingwall Road, near the Gateway site.
These notices are Arrowcroft's method of informing the world that they have moved the goalposts, and have changed their planning application.
Their site does contain the revised planning application, but you have to hunt for it a bit.
-Go to their website www.croydongateway.com
-Then go to "The Development" tab at the top of the page
-Then click on the "Planning Application" tab at the bottom of the page
-Then click on "Download Planning Statement (4.7MB)"
I wonder why they have made no mention of the changes to the planning application on their website?
These notices are Arrowcroft's method of informing the world that they have moved the goalposts, and have changed their planning application.
Their site does contain the revised planning application, but you have to hunt for it a bit.
-Go to their website www.croydongateway.com
-Then go to "The Development" tab at the top of the page
-Then click on the "Planning Application" tab at the bottom of the page
-Then click on "Download Planning Statement (4.7MB)"
I wonder why they have made no mention of the changes to the planning application on their website?
Thursday, 3 May 2007
Date Set For Inquiry
A date has been set for the gateway planning inquiry, which will determine which development will be built on Croydon's Gateway site.
The inquiry whiill start on September 17th 2007.
The inquiry is expected to last six weeks, and a verdict could be announced next summer.
So, thanks to Croydon Council's insistence on pursuing a CPO, we have to live with the dereliction of Dingwall Road for another year.
Thanks for nothing!
The inquiry whiill start on September 17th 2007.
The inquiry is expected to last six weeks, and a verdict could be announced next summer.
So, thanks to Croydon Council's insistence on pursuing a CPO, we have to live with the dereliction of Dingwall Road for another year.
Thanks for nothing!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)