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.

Hypocrites

I see that Labour, which foisted the unwanted arena project on Croydon in the first place, has now had a change of heart.

Pathetic hypocrites!

"Tony Newman, leader of the Labour party, said: 'I think if we are going to have an arena, a series of questions need to be asked.

Things have changed since we first considered this 10 years ago.

We have now got the O2 arena and in the current economic crisis is there still the money to build one?

Any development must incorporate the modernisation of East Croydon station'."

Source Croydon Guardian

D Day

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!

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"

Stanhope and Schroders Win Croydon Appeal

Croydon Council said today it would not contest an appeal lodged by Stanhope and Schroders over non-determination of its planning application to redevelop part of the controversial Croydon Gateway site.

In December 2006 Stanhope and Schroders’ Croydon Gateway Limited Partnership submitted an application for a residential-led scheme to the north of Lansdowne Road.

The Council said it had not had time to determine the planning application as there were some unresolved matters but it was ‘not in the public interest’ to contest the non-determination appeal lodged in February.

A spokesman for Stanhope and Schroders said the decision meant that its planning permission for the entire site was in place "We are very happy with this decision and we hope that what this will mean is that we can engage with Croydon Council on a site that can be delivered."

Source Property Week.

This of course means that if Arrowcroft and the Council were to win the CPO, the price that they would have to pay for the site with planning permission would most as likely be out of their reach.

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"

Ken Blasts Arena Plans

Ken Livingstone spoke at the Croydon Business/BID Candidate hustings, and included a section on the Arena.

He said that the Arena was a wasted opportunity for Croydon, and a waste of a fantastic site for jobs and homes without all the transport problems.

Ken then went on to blame Croydon council, both the current administration and the previous one, for its obsession with this unwanted development.

I couldn't agree with him more!

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"

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"

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.

Call In vs CPO

Here is the text of an email I received from Tim Pollard today:

"Dear Mr Frost

Apologies for the delay in replying to your email – it is a rather busy time of year…..

The £180,000 costs referred to in the Croydon Guardian report related to the costs that the Council incurred in relation to the Call-in Inquiry. It has long been public knowledge that the Council had to meet its own costs in relation to the Call-in Inquiry to maintain its independence and impartiality as Local Planning Authority.

The letter from Phillip Goodwin to Andrew Pelling MP was part of a chain of correspondence which related to the costs of the CPO Inquiry and the position in relation to those costs is as stated in that letter and the latest Council question dealing with the issue to which the Croydon Guardian advert is referring, i.e. the costs of the CPO Inquiry are being met by CCRLLP.

For your information, I attach a copy of that Council Question and the Answer given to it.

Regards

Cllr Tim Pollard"

Here is the text of the attachment that Tim sent:

"CQ504-07

from Councillor Avril Slipper

RE Could the Cabinet Member please tell me if he is aware of the cost of the Gateway Enquiry, and who is paying the bill?

Reply

The final cost to the Council of the Gateway public inquiry is likely to be in the region of £180,000, although I am unable to provide an exact cost at present because all invoices in relation to the inquiry have not yet been provided.

However, the majority of the cost of the inquiry is being met by Central Croydon Regeneration Limited Liability Partnership (CCRLLP), the partnership between Arrowcroft and Frogmore. CCRLLP is meeting the cost of presenting their case at the Call-in inquiry and is also meeting the total cost of the Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) inquiry, as under the terms of the Development Agreement the Council has with CCRLLP, the latter is obliged to pay all the Council’s CPO costs.

The Council needed its own QC, legal advice and consultants to present the Council’s case at the Call-in inquiry, which makes up the £180,000 figure referred to above."

I then asked Tim what the difference is between the "call in inquiry" and the "CPO inquiry". Here is his answer:

"Ken

The Inspector heard three separate Inquiries, back to back. One was the call in of the Planning Permission, one was for the CPO itself, and the last was for the stopping up of part of Lansdowne Road. At the call in, the evidence heard related to the technical planning aspects of the scheme and it is broadly similar to any other planning permission inquiry, albeit on a grander scale. It's outcome is the granting (or refusal) of Planning Permission.

The CPO Inquiry tests whether the Council is correct in its desire to CPO the land and evaluates the suggested public good against the requirements of the Circular which outlines the conditions required for a successful CPO. It's outcome is the confirmation (or not) of a CPO.

Although it was the same Inspector and many of the key witnesses and Counsel are the same, the two Inquiries are quite separate, hearing different evidence and were separated by a recess of one week. They could have been held months apart, but it suited all parties to conjoin them.

Cllr Tim Pollard"

So there we are, Croydon council have not incurred any costs re the CPO for the arena and the council is determined to maintain its independence and impartiality as a Local Planning Authority.

I would like to venture one very modest observation; had the council not backed the arena there would be no "call in inquiry", and hence the council would not have needed to spend £180K of our money on it.

How Very Curious

Now here is a very curious thing.

The Croydon Guardian reports that Croydon Council have incurred legal costs of £180K:

"After an eight-week inquiry into the Gateway scheme Croydon Council has been left with a bill of around £180,000.

This is just the costs the council has to cover, which pays for its legal advice."

Looks like we're going to need a few payday loans!

Why is it then that Phillip Goodwin, Croydon Council's Director of Planning and Transportation, wrote to Andrew Pelling on 30 January 2007 and told him:

"Almost all of the Gateway CPO costs will be 'direct' and therefore the responsibility of Arrowcroft...

The only costs the Council has to meet are ongoing internal staffing costs..."

How very curious!

Why would he say that then?

I have emailed Councillor Tim Pollard, cabinet member for finance, asking him to explain why Croydon council said that there would be no costs of this nature.

Copy of Goodwin's letter:

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

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?

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.

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 II

In today's Croydon Guardian:

"The fact Arrowcroft is looking to make an offer, days before the end of the inquiry, could indicate that it doesn't believe it is going to succeed in acquiring the site."

Exactly!

However, this "offer" has as much chance of succeeding as hell freezing over:

1 The difference in valuations £50M is far too large

2 Why did Arrowcroft not buy the land when it was available?

3 Why did they not make an offer before the CPO?

4 Albert Dock in Liverpool 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?

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

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

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

Warehouse Proof of Evidence

My thanks to the Warehouse Theatre for sending me their proof of evidence against the proposed arena development.

They will be presenting this at the public inquiry into the compulsory purchase order this coming week.

As you can see form the extract below, Arrowcroft and Frogmore have had no meaningful dialogue with the Warehouse; despite their, and the council's claims, that they have now included a genuine proposal for a replacement theatre in their plans for the arena development.

How can you design a replacement Warehouse theatre if you have not spoken to the people who own and run the Warehouse?

1. In February 2004 we made our position in relation to both developers crystal clear on our web site. That statement was designed to ensure that everyone knew what our intention was:

"We seek a replacement for our current building, as we not only out-grew it some time ago, but it also does not comply with disability regulations nor does it have enough seats to continue to be commercially viable for the longer term.

We welcomed the offer by Stanhope/Schroders for a replacement theatre in their proposals. This had not been offered by the other potential developer. We believe that the provision of a new theatre for us on the Gateway site adds enormous value and diversity to this development.

Our responsibility is to ensure that we have a venue in Croydon to undertake our core activities - as a producing theatre for new writing and providing entertainment & education for the benefit of the Croydon community.

Accordingly, the company will continue to seek to have dialogue with developers, officers and members of Croydon Council, the Mayor of London, government ministers etc. to pursue our goal for a new theatre and our future in the development."

2. We continue to pursue the above policy and have made strenuous efforts to do so.
We have had several 'off the record' meetings with Arrowcroft since 2004 which have
led nowhere. In 2007 we also wrote to their new funding partner 'Frogmore' who referred us back to Arrowcroft.

3. The Warehouse Theatre therefore proceeded with our objections to the planning application and the CPO because a new theatre has not been included in Arrowcroft's
plans.

4. It was only on 5th June 2007 that we received a letter from Arrowcroft identifying
how a replacement theatre 'could' be included in their scheme and how this would be
achieved through a section 106 agreement. A plan (PL050) was included showing its proposed location. However, we then understood that this plan does not form part of
the planning application. We have had no meaningful dialogue with either the acquiring authority or Arrowcroft about this proposal either before, or indeed
subsequently.

5. The Theatre is of the view that this is not a viable way forward. A comprehensive
plan has to be in place to achieve the continuity of our business from our current site to a new building if our objections are to be removed. The Arrowcroft proposal does not achieve this.

The document goes on to note that the scheme "is we understand under financial stress without an end funder in place".

In other words, do Arrowcroft actually have the money to follow through on their plans for an arena development?

The complete Proof of Evidence document can be downloaded via this link: Warehouse Proof of Evidence.

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

Arrowcroft Architect Abhores Arena

It would seem that all is not well between Arrowcroft and their architect.

The architect of the Arrowcroft scheme, Mr Michael Aukett is unhappy with the design of the arena that Arrowcroft and Croydon Council are so keen to impose on the citizens of Croydon.

Mr Aukett stated at the inquiry into Croydon Council's CPO that he did not like the design of the actual arena, nor the positioning of its entrances.

Given that the architect of the arena has taken such a dislike to the plans that Arrowcroft are putting forward; why the hell should the people of Croydon be expected to endorse it, and why are Croydon Council still trying to ram their unwanted and unloved scheme down our throats?

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