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!

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?

A Response - Sort Of!

It is now three months to the day since I first wrote to the Secretary of State, Hazel Blears.

Having sent several reminders, and having cajoled Boris Johnson into prodding Ms Blears to answer, I finally have been sent an apology for the delay and a response (not from Ms Blears of course).

Here is the apology:

"Dear Mr Frost,

Please find attached a reply to your letter of 28 February to the Secretary of State. Please accept my apologies for this late acknowledgement. At the time you wrote, this case was being dealt with on behalf of the Secretary of State by the Planning Inspectorate and your letter was accordingly forwarded to them."

However, the astute amongst you will notice that the response (see below) does not answer any of the questions that I raised in my letter of February.

I suppose I should be grateful for at least receiving a response!

"Dear Mr Frost

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 – Section 77

Land adjoining East Croydon Station, George Street, Dingwall Road, Lansdowne Road, Croydon – Application by Arrowcroft Ltd

I am writing to confirm receipt of your letter to the Secretary of State, dated 28 February 2008, about the above planning application.

The Inspector's report and recommendations are currently being considered by the Secretary of State before she proceeds to issue her decision on this case. The contents of your letter have been noted and will be taken into consideration.

Yours sincerely,

XXX

Case Officer"

Thanks Boris

My thanks to Boris Johnson for stepping in to give Hazel Blears a nudge re her non reply to my letter of the 28th February:

"The Rt Hon Hazel Blears MP
Secretary of State
Dept. for Communities & Local Government
Eland House, Bressenden Place
London SW1E 5DU 18th April, 2008


Dear Hazel,

Ken Frost
****

Ken Frost has asked me to point out that he has had no reply to his letter to you dated 28th February, 2008, a copy of which I enclose. Could I ask, in the absence of his own MP, that you reply to him directly at ***.

Yours sincerely,

BORIS JOHNSON"

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"

Snafu

Further to my earlier article about the letter from Berwin Leighton Paisner (Arrowcroft's lawyers), informing me that the Secretary of State had extended the deadline for making representations in respect of Arrowcroft's further environmental submission from 15 February to 17 March.

It seems that Berwin Leighton Paisner have made a "snafu" in their letter. They refer to the revised deadline (17 March) twice. However, in the final paragraph in bold print they state:

"If you wish to make any representations on the further environmental information you should do so in writing to the Planning Inspectorate...before 15 February 2008..."

The 15th of February is of course the original deadline for submissions, and ten days before the date of the letter sent out by Berwin Leighton Paisner.

It seems that Berwin Leighton Paisner are prone to making errors and mistakes.

The question is, have they made any other errors and mistakes?

Letter To Hazel Blears

Submitted to Hazel Blears today:

"Right Honourable Hazel Blears MP
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Planning Division
Government Office for London
9th Floor, Riverwalk House
157-161 Millbank
LondonSW1P 4RR

28 February 2008

Dear Ms Blears,

Subject London Borough of Croydon (Gateway Site) Compulsory Purchase Order 2007

I have received a letter (dated 25 February 2008) from Berwin Leighton Paisner, solicitors for Arrowcroft Ltd, in respect of Arrowcroft’s further environmental information submitted to you on 24 January 2008. They state that the deadline for submitting objections to Arrowcroft’s revised/new data has been extended to 17 March 2008.

I wish to formally object that, despite the fact that the public inquiry into the CPO has officially ended, Arrowcroft are still being allowed to submit revised/altered information:

· This is outwith the time limit of the inquiry

· It is my, and indeed many other residents’, understanding that once the inquiry ended no further information could/should be submitted

· Berwin Leighton Paisner, Arrowcroft’s solicitors, are seemingly setting the timetable and deadlines for objections

· Berwin Leighton Paisner, and by definition Arrowcroft, appear to be acting on your behalf

· The additional information being submitted after the end of the inquiry, and onus to object to it, is confusing to the residents of Croydon (myself included) who are negatively impacted by Arrowcroft’s plans. We have no specific legal expertise, and trust you to act impartially.

I have the following questions:

1. Who is running this inquiry, you or Arrowcroft?

2. Given the ongoing bombardment of information and changes by Arrowcroft, how can lay people possibly keep track or indeed understand what is happening?

3. Given the ongoing changes of information and revised deadlines for objections, how can we possibly keep track of the process that is being followed by you in trying to come to a decision wrt the CPO?

4. Has the application been altered?

5. Why is Arrowcroft being allowed to set the deadlines?

In my opinion the independence and impartiality of the inquiry is being severely, and openly, compromised by Arrowcroft’s and Berwin Leighton Paisner’s actions.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Thank you in advance.

Yours sincerely,

Ken Frost MA FCA FIPFM

Croydon Against The Arena

www.catarena.org

cc Deborah Tobin – Planning Inspectorate
Andrew Pelling MP"

Closing Arguments

Croydon Gateway Limited Partnership (CGLP), a joint venture between developer Stanhope and Schroders, presented its closing arguments to the public inquiry into the arena development on Monday.

Keith Lindblom QC, for CGLP, said:

"CGLP's proposals are so distinctly superior in numerous respects to the Arrowcroft scheme that there is plainly a compelling case in the public interest to reject the CPO, thus preventing the possibility of Arrowcroft's scheme replacing a development of world class quality and function, or at best causing it still further unnecessary delay."

CGLP also questioned Arrowcroft's ability to fund the scheme, adding that the Arrowcroft designs were inferior to the CGLP office scheme, and that the arena was not financially or commercially viable.

The decision now rests with Hazel Blears, the Secretary of State, and is not expected to be announced for some months.

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