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.

Site Untouched

I am very sad to see that the site remains untouched, thanks to the funding problems brought about by the delaying tactics of the council.

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.

Wasting Our Money

I recommend that you read the Croydon Guardian story about how Croydon Council have wasted our money on their unloved arena plan.

"The council reached an agreement with Arrowcroft in May 2006 that it would cover the costs of a compulsory purchase order for the Croydon Gateway site and then claim the money back from the company at a later date.

A Croydon Guardian investigation can reveal that the council has issued Arrowcroft with six invoices from September 2007 to July 2008, totalling £168,727.30 in legal fees and advice from its own chartered surveyors. £78,000 remains unpaid.

Under the agreement, Arrowcroft promised to pay the council 'all CPO costs incurred by the Council. . . within 20 working days of receiving a fully itemised invoice'.

Despite this, Arrowcroft took 305 and 171 days respectively to pay two of the bills.

Croydon Council does not appear to have charged the company any interest for the late payments."

The council state:

"In line with other local authorities, the council does not charge interest on sundry debtors."

Why do they not charge interest on late debts?

That is normal commercial practice, given that the council is verging on bankruptcy it needs every penny it can make.

Why are the terms of credit so lax?

Is the relationship between the council and Arrowcroft a little too close for comfort?

Guardian News

Read this week's Croydon Guardian, there is going to be a very interesting story about this subject.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

A Question of Money

Here is an extract of a press release made by Arrowcroft (the company pushing for the arena) on 9th December 2003:

"PRESS RELEASE

Date of issue: 9th December 2003

Croydon Arena to be UK 'centre of excellence' for Paralympic sport
On Monday 8th December, StadiVarios Croydon Limited, the British Paralympic Association (BPA) and Arrowcroft Group Plc signed a symbolic Memorandum of Understanding, through which the proposed Croydon Arena will be established as the prime UK venue for regional, national and international Paralympic events.

StadiVarios Croydon Limited has an agreement with Arrowcroft to build, own and operate the 12,500 state-of-the-art multi-use sport and entertainment arena, the centrepiece of the £400 million redevelopment proposed by Arrowcroft, the developer appointed by the London Borough of Croydon, for the strategically important Croydon Gateway site adjoining East Croydon railway station......

Patrick Nally, of StadiVarios Croydon Limited, said:

'The Croydon Arena will be designed to the highest specification with full provision within the architectural designs for disabled access to all public areas. We hope the BPA’s association with the Croydon Arena will be a long and fruitful one.'."

Now here is an extract of article in The Independent (18th March 2001) about Patrick Nally:

"The man behind a much-hyped new musical about Manchester United football club left a trail of debts from his previous theatrical production, the Independent on Sunday has discovered.

A media and TV production company controlled by Patrick Nally, a smooth-talking sports promoter turned theatre producer, is being pursued through the courts for hundreds of thousands of pounds in unpaid bills."

Are the council really so sure that the arena, were it ever to be built is financially viable?

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'."

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 II

Ken Livingstone asked:

"Who needs an arena which will often be empty. Does anyone seriously believe that the Rolling Stones will come and perform in an arena that small?"

Source Croydon Guardian.

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!

Terror Threat Ignored

The Croydon Advertiser reports that Chief Inspector Phil Willis, in charge of Croydon town centre policing, has warned that neither Croydon council nor Arrowcroft are taking the terror threat arising from their misguided plans for the construction of an arena seriously.

Chief Insp Willis wrote to the planning inspector:

"This venue may be vulnerable to terrorist attack.

Croydon Police reiterate the need to work closely with the counter terrorist security advisor to ensure that this issue is fully addressed as the development progresses."

Arrowcroft seemingly is not obliged to liaise with the Met's security advisor, and no contact has been made with them.

Chief Insp Willis added:

"I was disappointed that most of the points made in previous submissions have not been included as conditions for the developers, or obligations under the planning scheme, or covered in response from the developers."

This provides further evidence, as if it were needed, that the arena scheme has not been properly thought through; it will fail.

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.