Signs of Progress?

According to Property Week there may finally be signs of progress wrt developing the Gateway site next door to East Croydon Station:

"Stanhope and Schroders have submitted a planning application for the redevelopment of Ruskin Square, adjacent to East Croydon Station.

The mixed-use scheme, which will be developed on a nine acre site, will provide1m sq ft of office space and 550 new homes, creating a new business and residential quarter at the ‘front door’ to Croydon.

The Ruskin Square masterplan also provides for a new direct route connecting the East Croydon Station with the town centre through the site.

David Camp, chief executive of Stanhope, said: “Just 15 minutes from central London by train, Ruskin Square offers modern workspace and residential accommodation in a new place just 2 minutes from an improved transport hub with competitive property prices and easy access to town centre retail and cultural amenities.”

Ian Mason, head of UK property fund management at Schroders, added: 'Ruskin Square is the centerpiece of East Croydon’s transformation into a new central business district. It will deliver restaurants, cafes, a theatre, new homes, new public routes and outdoor space and 1m sq ft of grade ‘A’ office space.'

A first phase of housing at Ruskin Square could be started to coincide with the expected opening date of the new station access footbridge in 2013."

The Times has issued a separate report on the subject, which indicates that Nestle may be persuaded to move there.

Lest there be any doubt, the reason that this site remains undeveloped is because of the council (both the current administration, and the previous Labour administration) allying themselves to the doomed Arena project.

Plus Ca Change

Property Week reports that Croydon Council has finally admitted defeat in its long running battle to impose an arena on Croydon, and said that "it is eager to work with Stanhope and Schroders" the developers of the rival Gateway site in East Croydon.

The council's agreement with rival developer Arrowcroft terminated at midnight last night.

The council and Arrowcroft had six weeks to mount a legal challenge to the Secretary of State's refusal of planning permission. Having not made this challenge, the agreement terminated last night and the council is now talking to Stanhope and Schroders about taking their rival 1m sq ft Ruskin Square scheme forwards.

Councillor Tim Pollard said:

"By there being no challenge to the public inquiry decisions, the opportunity exists for the Stanhope Schroder partnership to make its mark in Croydon through the early development of the site.

What matters now is building a positive relationship with Stanhope so that their scheme can be taken forward on what is the most prestigious building site in the town.

The Gateway site has stood empty for far too long – a real blot on our landscape and an unwelcome sight for every train passenger passing through East Croydon. Now that planning issues have finally been resolved there is no longer any obstacle preventing its redevelopment.

A chapter has closed and a new one opened – with a great opportunity for Stanhope to do something special for Croydon. Our early talks with the developer will aim at achieving a happy ending."

Re:

The Gateway site has stood empty for far too long – a real blot on our landscape and an unwelcome sight for every train passenger passing through East Croydon.

I am glad Councillor Pollard agrees with me, I have been saying that for years now (see www.croydoniscrap.com and this site).

The irony being that had the council not tied themselves to the mast of Arrowcroft's sinking ship, and thus delayed the development becuase of their CPO and public hearings etc, the site would have been developed by now.

The council are the cause of the delay.

The Final Nail in The Coffin

The final nail in the coffin of Croydon council's plans to impose an arena development on Croydon has been firmly hammered in.

The Croydon Guardian reports:

"Croydon council has been thwarted in its plans to force the Croydon Gateway developers to sell its land.

Hazel Blears, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, has rejected Croydon Council’s request for a compulsory purchase order on the land next to East Croydon station.

It effectively spells the end of any hopes held by the council-backed developer Arrowcroft to build a 12,500 seat arena on the site..."

Property Week also covers the same story:

"The Government has given Schroders and Stanhope the green light to commence the Croydon Gateway development, alongside East Croydon railway station.

Hazel Blears, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, has refused to confirm Croydon Council's compulsory purchase order on the site, which is owned by Schroders and Stanhope.

Last week she refused consent for a development scheme centred on a 12,500-seat arena, proposed by Croydon Council and developers Arrowcroft.

William Hill, managing director of Schroders Investment Managers, said:

'We are delighted that the Secretary of State has declined to support the CPO. We argued at the planning inquiry that the arena scheme was not appropriate for this site and we are pleased to see that the Secretary of State agrees that it does not justify taking our land.'.."

I personally am delighted, it is a victory for the citizens of Croydon.

However, I would remind people that Dingwall Road has remained untouched for years because of the intransigence of the previous and current council administrations. Had they not pushed for an unwanted and poorly thought through arena project, the site would have been developed by now.

We have not been well served by either the Tory or Labour administrations.

Those who pushed this scheme should resign, now!

Victory

Breaking News

"In a decision announced this morning communities secretary Hazel Blears has rejected the council-backed Arrowcroft arena, homes and offices scheme planned for the Gateway site at East Croydon."

Excellent!

A lot of good people put in much time, effort and energy into opposing this scheme, today is their day.

Let us not forget that had the council not tried to push through this unwanted scheme, the eyesore that is Dingwall Road would have been redeveloped by now.

The people who have suffered because of the council's arrogance are the citizens of Croydon. It is now time for high level resignations from the council.

A copy of the full decision can be downloaded here: Decision

Gateway Decision Update

I am advised that Hazel Blears, in her wisdom, is posting the decision by Royal Mail today and won't tell anyone the result until they have all received it in the post.

Has she not heard of email?

Slow Response

Sent to Hazel Blears today:

"Dear Ms Blears

Please advise as to when you will respond to my letter sent via email and snail mail on 28 February re the Croydon CPO.

I have yet to receive any acknowledgement.

Thank you.

Kind regards

Ken Frost MA FCA FIPFM

Croydon Against The Arena

www.catarena.org"

Croydon Council Stalling

In a particularly pathetic attempt to slow the development of The Gateway site down, and favour their preferred project submitted by Arrowcroft, Croydon Council have been stalling on making a decision about the planning application submitted by Stanhope Schroders (the owners of the site) in December 2006.

Stanhope and Schroders have now lodged an appeal against the council.

David Camp, chief executive of Stanhope, and William Hill, director of property at Schroders, is quoted in Property Week as saying:

"Stanhope and Schroders already have planning permission, a fully assembled site and funding in place to commence work on the redevelopment of the Croydon Gateway main site - called Ruskin Square.

It is extremely frustrating to find ourselves in an appeal situation once again particularly when the development in question will deliver the much needed regeneration of a key site and additional affordable housing to Croydon in line with Council policy."

Croydon Council, by their actions (or rather their "inactions"), are demonstrating yet again that they are not acting in the best interests of the citizens of Croydon.

The Gateway site, had it not been for the obstacles put up by Croydon Council would have been well on the way to being developed by now.

The Theatres Trust

15 February 2008
Ms Deborah Tobin
The Planning Inspectorate
4/04 Kite Wing
Temple Quay House
2 The Square
Temple Quay
Bristol BS1 6PN

Dear Ms Tobin,

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 – Section 77 Application by Arrowcroft Limited. Site at land adjoining East Croydon Station, George Street, Dingwell Road and Lansdowne Road, Croydon Application ref: APP/L5240/V/1198485 Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)(England and Wales) Regulations 1999

London Borough of Croydon (Land West of East Croydon Station, the Gateway Site) Compulsory Purchase Order 2007

The Theatres Trust was sent a CD on 25 January 2008 of information which responds to comments and criticisms of the Environmental Statement (dated 2007) made by objectors to the planning application. I am writing to express our concern over proposals for the replacement for the Croydon Warehouse Theatre (WT).

The Theatres Trust is The National Advisory Public Body for Theatres and a statutory consultee on planning applications affecting land on which there is a theatre. This applies to all theatre buildings, old and new, in current use, in other uses, or disused. It was established by The Theatres Trust Act 1976 'to promote the better protection of theatres'. Our main objective is to safeguard theatre use, or the potential for such use, but we also provide expert advice on design, conservation, property and planning matters to theatre operators, local authorities and official bodies.

The Theatres Trust has no confidence in the additional information supplied following the Public Inquiry and does not consider that the proposals put forward guarantee a proper replacement for the Croydon Warehouse Theatre. The referred plans are inadequate in that there are no existing and proposed sections or plans for the theatre and therefore it is difficult to assess the integral design or whether the theatre will be fit for purpose. Theatres are very complex buildings technically and do need to be very carefully planned both inside and out. Furthermore, we would need to be certain that safeguards are in place to secure the sustainability of the theatre set out in a Section 106 Agreement.

We are deeply concerned about the suggestion on page 39 (S12.5 P12.51) of WSP's Response that 'the relocation of the WT will be dependant on agreeing lease terms and Theatre to relocate, fit out and operate a replacement theatre and the production of a business plan demonstrating to Arrowcroft's satisfaction that would be able to operate a theatre within the development on a viable basis.' This clause would make the prospect of the Warehouse Theatre moving to new premises virtually impossible.

The Warehouse Theatre or indeed any other theatre operator would never be able to prove that such a business would be viable particularly where additional capital money would be required for fit-out. Small independent theatre companies have very tight margins and work for the cultural benefit of the local community. They rely on public funding from bodies such as the Art Council Lottery Fund, the Heritage Lottery Fund, The Big Lottery, the RDA or the local authority. Funders require evidence of need to be demonstrated by catchment and competition analysis, public benefit, social, economic and environmental impact, and evidence that stakeholders' views have been taken on board through consultation.

Furthermore we note that a separate application for the Warehouse Theatre would be required and that it is only Arrowcroft who have to be satisfied that the theatre can operate on a viable basis. With so many indeterminable outcomes the Trust fails to see how a replacement theatre would meet conditions as required by Arrowcroft. In addition Arrowcroft appears to put all the risk onto the theatre but does not accept any responsibility or offer any compensation for the environmental or operational conditions that would be imposed by its development and which would adversely affect the delivery of a viable business plan.

Without clear plans planning permission and fair provisions with a Section 106 The Theatres Trust continues to oppose the application.

Yours sincerely,

Mark J Price
Planning and Architecture Adviser

www.theatrestrust.org.uk

The Theatres Trust is the National Advisory Public Body for Theatres, protecting theatres for everyone.

A list of the trustees can be viewed here.

Canning and Clyde Road Residents Association

Attention: Deborah Tobin
The Planning Inspectorate
4/04 Kite Wing
Temple Quay House
2 The Square
Temple Quay
BRISTOL BS1 6PN
13 February 2008

Dear Ms Tobin

APP / L52040 / V / 06 / 1198485
Application by Arrowcroft Limited in respect of a proposed development at land adjoining East Croydon Station
Notice of Submission of Further Information to an Environmental Statement

We have been informed by Berwin Leighton Paisner that we have an opportunity to comment upon the Further Information to an Environmental Statement for the important East Croydon Gateway site. As before, we are sending this objection on behalf of Park Hill Residents Association, Morland Park Residents Association, H.O.M.E. Residents Association and our own Association. This represents over 4,000 households in the vicinity of the proposed development. We are aware of strong opposition to the applicant’s scheme by other residents who do not have the representation of an association.

Our comments in this letter do not repeat anything we said in our letter of 11 August 2007 with reference to the Planning Application nor anything in the Canning & Clyde Road Residents Association letter of 18 August with reference to the Compulsory Purchase Order. We would ask that the comments in all three letters and supporting documentation be taken into account by the Inspector and Secretary of State.

Our comments are restricted to the Transport Assessment and Crowd Management Strategy sections of the revised statement.

1. Transport Assessment

1.1 The revised Transport Assessment states that the mass transport system has enough spare capacity to accommodate the peak hour of patrons arriving at East Croydon for an event at the Arena on a Monday to Friday. It only shows that there is spare capacity on trams from Wellesley and Lebanon Gardens or on trains from South Croydon, Selhurst and Norwood Junction. This is not adequate. The Transport Assessment needs to demonstrate that the transport system has spare capacity for the whole of the journey that is required to be made. In the evening peak hour there is no or very little spare capacity on trains leaving Clapham Junction for East Croydon or on trams from Wimbledon. This means that the usable spare capacity available for Arena patrons on trains from

Clapham Junction and trams from Wimbledon has been substantially overstated and indicates a need to increase train and tram services. It is our understanding that there is no spare track capacity to increase train services or trams available to increase tram services.

1.2 Patrons arriving for evening events at the Arena by car will be travelling into Croydon at a time when the main travel demand is out of Croydon. Most roads, except those such as the Mitcham Road, where peak travel demand is similar in both directions, will have some spare capacity but traffic congestion will be increased at junctions such as Purley Cross, Lombard Roundabout and Fiveways. Congestion at junctions has only been considered in the immediate vicinity of East Croydon but the impact of the Arena may be more serious on certain junctions further afield. This issue needs to be considered.

1.3 There is no comparison for door-to-door journey time between car and mass transport (if available) for homeward journeys after 2300 hours and no evidence that there is adequate spare capacity on all southbound trains after 2300 hours on a Friday night to demonstrate that mass transport is a reasonable alternative to the car.

Arena patrons are likely to want to get home without having to hang around too long and therefore leave en masse. There are likely to be severe capacity problems in and around East Croydon Station as people leave.

The simultaneous egress of large numbers of cars from any car park will be a slow, noisy and polluting process. It may well deter motorists from using the car parks again on their next visit to the Arena and will encourage them to park in surrounding roads instead.

After customers to public transport have queued and been subjected to stewards with loudhailers it may well make the use of cars seem more appealing for a subsequent visit.

1.4 The distribution of arrivals by time and the modal split for patrons arriving for events at the Arena are all based on those found at the inner suburban O2 Arena. There is no evidence provided to show that these distributions are valid for Croydon. The overstatement of capacity available for Arena patrons arriving by tram and train indicated in para 1.1 above indicates that the proportion arriving by car is likely to be understated.

Should evening events at the Arena cause mass transport to overload or the road network to gridlock, the prosperity of the town centre will be jeopardised together with the attractiveness of the town as a residential location.

The developer assumes that parking restrictions will be enforced (against fierce local opposition) on surrounding roads and that patrons arriving by car will park in designated car parks as this will prove cheaper. The car parks mentioned are all privately owned and the Council has no control over the pricing. The Council only controls four very small car parks in Central Croydon.

The Fairfield car park is as close as the Allders and Whitgift car parks, with better pedestrian links (i.e. avoiding subways) and more readily accessible by vehicles from the A232. There is nothing more quickly guaranteed to kill Fairfield than to deprive the car borne audience space in the underground car park which is both (relatively) safe and convenient; why should the existing audience be shunted off to somewhere else? The reverse policy should apply (i.e. very high parking charges unless one is a Fairfield/Ashcroft patron).

1.5 The responsibility for procuring an adequate train service lies with the Department of Transport. The Southern Railway does not have grounds to object as their franchise expires in 2009 which is before the Arena can open (para 18.7.27).

1.6 As the tram stops are outside the station, patrons leaving Arena events may well choose to access them along Dingwall Road. There would need to be crowd management on Dingwall Road, as non-Arena bus passengers for routes which stop in Dingwall Road would then prefer to use Dingwall Road stops rather than East Croydon Interchange stops to reduce the risk of being left behind.

2. Crowd Management Strategy

2.1 The Crowd Management Strategy only defines responsibilities. It does not give any indication of the controls needed to facilitate the free movement of buses and trams along Dingwall Road and over East Croydon bridge when patrons leave an event at the Arena.

2.2 The author of the Croydon Management Strategy does not appear to be familiar with East Croydon Station and its surroundings. All three island platforms can be, and are, served by both northbound and southbound trains so segregation of patrons into northbound and southbound is not practical.

2.3 The tram stops are outside the station which means that people wishing to reach them would use Dingwall Road.

2.4 There are normally queues for buses and taxis at East Croydon Station in the late evening even when bus and train services are running well. Further crowding is liable to occur when services are disrupted.

2.5 In 6.1.1 a pedestrian travel time of approximately 3.5 minutes indicates too short a time for any significant crowd dispersal of thousands of pedestrians. Only a much longer walk than this would work.

2.6 There is no mention of how the co-ordination is to take place of the control of customers into the Station using the exit ramp from the Plaza with those using the main entrance into East Croydon Station.

2.7 There is no mention of crowd control for those congregating to await coaches at the end of an event.

2.8 The developer does not consider pedestrian noise (with or without ‘binge drinking’) outside the immediate site. No account is taken of people returning to their cars in residential streets late at night.

2.9 Showsec state that the Police will be responsible for the crowd outside the Arena site. Has anyone asked the Police if they have sufficient resources to do this? Who will meet the cost?

Finally we note that many of the developer’s submissions of material for the Planning Inquiry have been late and have had to be revised when challenged.

Yours sincerely

Anne Bridge
Secretary, Canning and 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

D Day

A decision on Croydon's Gateway site will be made by the summer, the planning inspectorate has announced.

The secretary of state will decide on, or before July 30, as to which developer (Arrowcroft or Stanhope) gets to build on the land already owned by Stanhope (which also has planning permission).

Congratulations to Croydon council for dragging this sorry farce on for so long, and for allowing the blight that the citizens of Croydon have had to suffer to continue.

The Gateway site, but for the council, would have been developed years ago.

Arrogance

It seems that Arrowcroft may be guilty of displaying a degree of arrogance over their chances of winning the CPO inquiry.

Go to their site, click on "Planning Application" then on "Timetable". There you will see:

Mid 2008 – Anticipated start on site

Early 2010 – Arena up and running in time for the 2012 Olympic Games

Counting your chickens a bit aren't you guys?

Truck Off!

The inquiry into the CPO is now over, aside from the final submissions due on the 19th of November.

The final week threw up a few amusing nuggets, showing that Arrowcroft have not thought through their last minute revisions to their plans particularly well.

Moving one of the walls a little bit to accommodate the extra platform space that Network Rail wanted would result in the substation being reduced in size, the Warehouse Theatre being reduced by a further 10%, and put some lifts out of alignment on different floors.

Also, in the proof of evidence, this came to light:

"From: "Andrew Roberts"
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 17:17:07
To:"Christopher O'Reilly" ,
Subject: 70401 - Arena Servicing

Chris/Murray,

I understand that in evidence Murray, you suggest up to 14 service vehicles arriving
at 0800-1030am, which conflicts with the advice previously given regarding 8 - 10
trucks loading over a 3 hour period.

If 14 vehicles are likely to service the arena in a 2.5hour period, how do we avoid
bunching, bearing in mind the advice regarding inefficiencies if too many things are
being unloaded at once. Also, what method do you anticipate employing to avoid all
vehicles turning up at once, which is critical bearing in mind how tight the
manoeuvring space is.

Finally, none of the advice I have seen relates to any specific provision for
'artistes' trucks to stay during an event.

Is this a weakness of the scheme?

Regards
Andy
Andrew Roberts
Associate Director"

Source Persona

It seems that precious little thought has been given to the consequences of artistes trucks (coaches,vehicles etc for touring companies like ice-shows, ballet, opera and orchestras etc) servicing the arena.

Hardly inspired planning, is it?

Arrowcroft To Make an Offer

According to Property Week, Arrowcroft and Croydon Council are about to make an offer to Stanhope Schroders for the Croydon Gateway site.

Paul White of Frogmore (the company that is providing finance for the arena) is quoted by Property Week as saying:

"Notwithstanding the fact that we have now been told there is an overage* provision, that won't get in the way of negotiations on our acquiring Stanhope and Schroders' interest in the site."

*Overage provision is a condition attached to the sale of land, where anyone buying the site would pay more if or when planning permission for the site is granted.

However, don't worry, it should be noted that there is a £47M to £55M discrepancy between the two sides over how much they think the site is worth.

The fact that the council and Arrowcroft are looking to make an offer, before the end of the inquiry, indicates that they don't believe that they are going to win.

Sign the petition against the arena via this link on the Number 10 website: Petition

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

The Place of Turmoil

Architectural expert Professor Robert Tavernor has told the inquiry into the CPO that the Arrowcroft development has no architectural merit, and stated that the site would end up as a "place of turmoil."

Quote:

"Far too much is being asked of the scheme and the site for the development to function properly."

Source Croydon Advertiser

Sign the petition against the arena via this link on the Number 10 website: Petition

The Elephant in The Room II

On the 13th of September I asked:

"If the Arena is such a good commercially viable project, as Arrowcroft and Croydon Council would have us believe, why is that no one has yet been found to take it on and run it (in the event that it is built)?"

I am pleased to see that the inquiry into the flawed, and misguided, plans of Croydon Council to build and arena on the Gateway site have now been told that Arrowcroft has been unable to sign up an anchor sports team for the arena. This of course knocks a major hole in their financial projections, and their claim that the project is commercially viable.

This is the point that many people have been making for years.

Sign the petition against the arena via this link on the Number 10 website: Petition

Albert Dock Not Yet Profitable

One of Arrowcroft's other ventures, the Albert Dock in Liverpool has a long way to go before it will become profitable.

That at least is the view of its new director, Joe Edge.

Albert Dock is owned by Arrowcroft, and shows losses in excess of £1M and debts of £24M in the company accounts.

Given the financial difficulties of another Arrowcroft "prestige project", why are Croydon Council so sure that the Arrowcroft plans for the Gateway are financially viable?

Arrowcroft and Croydon Council's Special Relationship

In understand that under the terms of the contract that Arrowcroft signed with Croydon Council, they were obliged to provide Croydon Council with a Viability Assessment Report and Five Year Plan.

Guess what?

Yes, that's right, Croydon Council have waived the need for Arrowcroft to provide such a report.

How very convenient!

To my simple mind, this surely means that the contract between Croydon Council and Arrowcroft is now void.

Arrowcroft's Dead Parrot

Arrowcroft would have people believe that their newly revised plans for the arena, that now include a building for the Warehouse Theatre, show that they are listening to public concerns and that the arena project is alive and well.

The reality is somewhat different.

The Croydon Guardian quote Ted Craig, artistic director and chief executive of the Warehouse, who said that Arrowcroft had not contacted them about the new plans.

Quote:

"The site they have given us is not a prominent location like they have claimed, it is stuck in a corner behind the huge arena.

We have had no consultation at all with Arrowcroft and this is shown in what they have designed. They have given us a 245-seat theatre but have made no provision for dressing rooms or rehearsal rooms.

Our biggest problem is that as far as we know this work will take at the very least three years to build if ever and in that time we will have to be pulled down while the new theatre is being built. That is of course our absolute vital concern.

As it stands at the moment we are in the advanced stages of designing a new Warehouse Theatre with Stanhope and we have had a good deal of involvement in designing a theatre that we are very excited about."

Does this sound like Arrowcroft have really listened to the citizens of Croydon, or the management of the Warehouse Theatre?

Does this sound like Arrowcroft really care about the views of the people of Croydon?

I think not!

Arrowcroft's last minute PR bid resembles Michael Palin's character's pleas, in the Monty Python "Dead Parrot" sketch.

They are desperately trying to convince everyone that the arena is a living breathing project.

The reality is that it has long since passed away.

Time to put this nonsense out of our misery once and for all, and get on with developing the site.

Spot The Difference

Here's a little game of "Spot The Difference", for the council and Arrowcroft to play to this weekend.

The first link takes you to a satellite photo of the Hamburg arena, the second link takes you to a satellite photo of the site where Arrowcroft and the council want to build their unwanted arena

-Hamburg Arena

-Croydon arena site

I wonder if anyone from the council or Arrowcroft can spot the differences?

Here's a few clues:

• In Hamburg there is ample space for cars to park, and for coaches containing performers and their entourages to offload etc.



• The Hamburg arena is surrounded by forest, and a good way away from residential and commercial areas.



• The Hamburg arena road routes are designated for specific forms of traffic. The west/east road on the southern side is for taxis only on the left side, and only for buses, and shuttle buses for Stellinger station on the right.

Now we come to the site for the Croydon arena.

Do I really need to point out the differences?

-Located in the middle of an urban sprawl
-Located near to residential and commercial areas
-No dedicated roads
-No space for parking or coaches etc

Seriously, who are the council and Arrowcroft trying to kid when they say the two schemes are comparable?

How stupid do they think we are?