New Stadium Details And Discussions

[Spursidol]

The problem with that idea is that the design team isn't just sitting about waiting for the money to roll in, they'll also be cranking out hundreds of working drawings, detailed designs, engineering calculations and specification decisions. Getting a project like this from planning approval to starting on site is a huge undertaking. Any meaningful changes to the main structure of the building would require a significant amount of that work to be trashed and redone, including items right at the beginning of the programme, such as foundations. By contrast, re-planning the internal fittings and seating arrangements might be feasible, provided it doesn't have knock-on effects on (for instance) the escape arrangements.

There will have to be further multiple submissions to the planning authority, but they will relate to approval of conditions and reserved matters on the original planning consent. Some of them are likely to throw up issues that require detailed changes to the scheme, but that's not the same thing as starting again with a revised design for the main structure of the building.

I'd suggest that, if we were to see any major revisions at this stage, it wouldn't be because someone fancies enhancing the capacity, it would be because someone has discovered that the original scheme cannot be built or is financially a non-starter. There are just too many knock-on effects, to much disruption to the programme, to do that voluntarily now.

Completely understand and agree with the first 2 paras. But if the building is not starting until Christmas there is quite a lot of time to start churning out all the detailed engineering designs etc (starting with sections of the stadium which are definitely not changing).

The piece which still intrigues me is the Whiehall Road/'Wembley Way' which suddently appeared from nowhere in the last year - I woukld suggest that the building of the new ticket hall, likely knocking down a couple of buildings at the end of Whitehall Road closest to the new stadium to widen the approach (and re-hoiusing occupants in the Cannon Rubber development), re-landscaping the length of Whitehall Road will in aggrgate cost a few million pounds. Now Levy as we know is a business man so its probably not just because it will make a nicer approach that the Wembley Way has come about, there will be an economic payback.

The two economic paybacks I can think of are :
a) If the better access to the stadium means that a higher capacity in the stadium will be allowed (the stadium capacity has previously been limited by the access) or
b) Having an easier access (ie come out of WHL station and as you come out you can see the stadium at the end of the walkway') makes the stadium more marketable for non Spurs events (eg concerts, international football matches).

The increased capacity in the stadium (ie option (a)) say 4,000 extra bums on seats would give a decent payback on the cost of the new Wembley Way, whereas option (b) would give a much slower payback.

So its trying to understand the economic of the late addition of the 'Wembley Way' is why I was wanting to revisit whether there was still a way to increase capacity. But maybe Levy has gone with something with no economic payback for once - or have I just defined an oxymoron ?!

 

[Spursidol]

Yes. It's called planning enforcement action. Every local authority has a planning enforcement team and they can and do force developers to knock down or alter non-compliant buildings. Even if knocking it down proved to be a step too far, the court cases, fines, penalties and loss of reputation would be disastrous.

Even outside the area of planning: the health and safety authorities could refuse to permit the stadium to open at all, if the emergency escape provisions and public transport arrangements haven't been executed according to the approval. Adding a few thousand spectators to the capacity would invalidate both of those approvals.

We had one of those close to where I live. Someone had bought an Edwardian built large house and allowed the house to go to rack and ruin over 10+ years, knocked it down and put in a plannning application for a block of flats.

Council was not amused - and required the developer to rebuild the same facade (there were 2 houses built on oposite sides of a wide junction of which the developer had knocked doiwn one) of a house. Needless to say the developer could not put as many flats inside the facade of the 4 story Edwardian buildinmg as ha had hoped to squeeze into the block of flats (plus having spent loads of money on legal fees trying unsuccessfully to fight the council planners), so whilst waitng to sell off the flats (being sold at very high prices trying to recover his costs) in the rebuilt Edwardian house.......he went bancrupt !

Apparantly he had been cutting corners for year, so council planners were happy to make an example of him.

But going back tio the stadium, I cannot see anyone deviating materially from the stadium plans which wre approved by the Council Planning Department. In fact the financing doicuments will almost certainly not allow drawdown of money to be spoent on somethjng which is not approved - in other words the bank would stop making payments once the breach of planning was discovered leaving the stadium part built.

 

[SpurSince57]

Completely understand and agree with the first 2 paras. But if the building is not starting until Christmas there is quite a lot of time to start churning out all the detailed engineering designs etc (starting with sections of the stadium which are definitely not changing).

The piece which still intrigues me is the Whiehall Road/'Wembley Way' which suddently appeared from nowhere in the last year - I woukld suggest that the building of the new ticket hall, likely knocking down a couple of buildings at the end of Whitehall Road closest to the new stadium to widen the approach (and re-hoiusing occupants in the Cannon Rubber development), re-landscaping the length of Whitehall Road will in aggrgate cost a few million pounds. Now Levy as we know is a business man so its probably not just because it will make a nicer approach that the Wembley Way has come about, there will be an economic payback.

The two economic paybacks I can think of are :
a) If the better access to the stadium means that a higher capacity in the stadium will be allowed (the stadium capacity has previously been limited by the access) or
b) Having an easier access (ie come out of WHL station and as you come out you can see the stadium at the end of the walkway') makes the stadium more marketable for non Spurs events (eg concerts, international football matches).

The increased capacity in the stadium (ie option (a)) say 4,000 extra bums on seats would give a decent payback on the cost of the new Wembley Way, whereas option (b) would give a much slower payback.

So its trying to understand the economic of the late addition of the 'Wembley Way' is why I was wanting to revisit whether there was still a way to increase capacity. But maybe Levy has gone with something with no economic payback for once - or have I just defined an oxymoron ?!

I referred to this a page or two back. I've heard that not only the two buildings at the High Road end of Whitehall are for the chop, but the three blocks of flats off Love Lane. I'm treating this with a bit of a pinch of salt, but I had it from a bloke I've known for years, who's a long-standing member of the Tottenham Chamber of Commerce. I also can't see how the 'Wembley Way' can work unless something this radical happens.

 

[Spur-of-the-moment]

The piece which still intrigues me is the Whitehall Road/'Wembley Way' which suddenly appeared from nowhere in the last year - I would suggest that the building of the new ticket hall, likely knocking down a couple of buildings at the end of Whitehall Road closest to the new stadium to widen the approach (and re-housing occupants in the Cannon Rubber development), re-landscaping the length of Whitehall Road will in aggregate cost a few million pounds. Now Levy as we know is a business man so its probably not just because it will make a nicer approach that the Wembley Way has come about, there will be an economic payback.

The two economic paybacks I can think of are :
a) If the better access to the stadium means that a higher capacity in the stadium will be allowed (the stadium capacity has previously been limited by the access) or
b) Having an easier access (ie come out of WHL station and as you come out you can see the stadium at the end of the walkway') makes the stadium more marketable for non Spurs events (eg concerts, international football matches).

The increased capacity in the stadium (i.e. option (a)) say 4,000 extra bums on seats would give a decent payback on the cost of the new Wembley Way, whereas option (b) would give a much slower payback.

So its trying to understand the economic of the late addition of the 'Wembley Way' is why I was wanting to revisit whether there was still a way to increase capacity. But maybe Levy has gone with something with no economic payback for once - or have I just defined an oxymoron ?!

The stadium approach -- if it goes ahead -- will be paid for out of public funds, mostly from the Mayor's fund allocated to the area after the riots. The scheme seems to be based on a widening of Whitehall Street but a bigger space could be created from knocking down the Love Lane flats, various garages in the vicinity, etc. The opening of Whitehall Street to the High Road would be enlarged by the loss of High Road buildings either side. The reconfigured WHL station, with its ticket hall and entrance at the south end of Love Lane would link directly with the stadium approach. The British Queen would therefore be demolished.

Land between Love Lane and the railway arches is ripe for development and it is possible that the whole scheme could involve shops, bars, cafes, etc., a place to hang out. The idea is to turn the stadium public areas and stadium approach into a leisure space hosting a range of other events, making the area a 364 days-a-year 'leisure destination'. There was talk that the entire space between Moselle Street and Whitehall Street could be cleared and developed but this would have meant the loss of a 60-flat tower block as well as the Love Lane flats and High Road frontage. The Brook House development will make about 30 low-rent flats available to those displaced from the stadium approach scheme, so it seems the stadium approach would stop short of the big clearance.

It appears the club are in talks with the railway people in the hope they will pay for the stadium reconfiguration. If the railway folks won't pay for it, then this will mean the allocation of some of the funds earmarked for the stadium approach and therefore a more modest scheme.

The club would like the station renamed and would also like to change the name of White Hart Lane itself, at least from the station to the High Road. No doubt this is important to the value of a naming rights deal. The stadium approach is good for the stadium itself but the associated development will be important for the economy of the wider area, the market value of flats and the value of commercial spaces in the Southern Development. There is no necessary connection between an increased stadium capacity, which would in any case be modest.
.
.
.

 

[Roynie]

Would this 'Wembley Way' approach enable the club to re-submit the plans in order to gain extra seating? And would this delay the commencement of the building? Sorry if this has been asked before, but I really don't have the time to go back and read it all.

Thanks.

 

[SpurSince57]

The stadium approach -- if it goes ahead -- will be paid for out of public funds, mostly from the Mayor's fund allocated to the area after the riots. The scheme seems to be based on a widening of Whitehall Street but a bigger space could be created from knocking down the Love Lane flats, various garages in the vicinity, etc. The opening of Whitehall Street to the High Road would be enlarged by the loss of High Road buildings either side. The reconfigured WHL station, with its ticket hall and entrance at the south end of Love Lane would link directly with the stadium approach. The British Queen would therefore be demolished.

Land between Love Lane and the railway arches is ripe for development and it is possible that the whole scheme could involve shops, bars, cafes, etc., a place to hang out. The idea is to turn the stadium public areas and stadium approach into a leisure space hosting a range of other events, making the area a 364 days-a-year 'leisure destination'. There was talk that the entire space between Moselle Street and Whitehall Street could be cleared and developed but this would have meant the loss of a 60-flat tower block as well as the Love Lane flats and High Road frontage. The Brook House development will make about 30 low-rent flats available to those displaced from the stadium approach scheme, so it seems the stadium approach would stop short of the big clearance.

It appears the club are in talks with the railway people in the hope they will pay for the stadium reconfiguration. If the railway folks won't pay for it, then this will mean the allocation of some of the funds earmarked for the stadium approach and therefore a more modest scheme.

The club would like the station renamed and would also like to change the name of White Hart Lane itself, at least from the station to the High Road. No doubt this is important to the value of a naming rights deal. The stadium approach is good for the stadium itself but the associated development will be important for the economy of the wider area, the market value of flats and the value of commercial spaces in the Southern Development. There is no necessary connection between an increased stadium capacity, which would in any case be modest..

That all figures with what I've heard. Again, I don't see how the 'triumphal way' can go ahead without a very radical 'remodelling' (to put it mildly) of the area between the station and the stadium. I've heard there are plans for a 20-storey residential block on the Brook House site.

Yes, Tottenham will be R'n'R Central!

Bollocks to the name change.

 

[Spursidol]

That all figures with what I've heard. Again, I don't see how the 'triumphal way' can go ahead without a very radical 'remodelling' (to put it mildly) of the area between the station and the stadium. I've heard there are plans for a 20-storey residential block on the Brook House site.

Yes, Tottenham will be R'n'R Central!

Bollocks to the name change.

If you look back a page or two, I've posted links to the Cannon Rubber redevelopment plan, which includes a tower block. But the interesting only part is that 30 flats are toi be made available to the ccouncil to rehouse other council tenants - which I conjecture (no proof whatsover) could be from the Whitehall Road redevelopment, so any knocking down I would suggest willl be on a relatively minor scale - maybe just the buildings at the Stadium end of Whitehall Road : if it were on a bigger scvale more of the Cannon Rubber development would have been earmarked for council tenant re-housing

Somewhere in the council minutes (or elsewhere on this thread) there is mention of a letter having going out to all affected residents in the last couple of weeks.

 

[Spursidol]

Would this 'Wembley Way' approach enable the club to re-submit the plans in order to gain extra seating? And would this delay the commencement of the building? Sorry if this has been asked before, but I really don't have the time to go back and read it all.

Thanks.

Nobody knows exactky.

The story has been capacity has been restricted by access issues. The theory I have put forward in the last couple of pages is that maybe the access issues are reduced by the 'Wembley Way', and therefore the club might :

a) Submit plans foir Wembley Way
b) Submit plans fior increased capacity once the better access planning permision was granted (which in turn gives an economic payback for the costs of making the 'Wembley Way'.


Spur-of-the-moment's post above suggests that the economic paytback for the costr of Wembley Way could come about by creating a cafe/shopping area and therefore a stadium capacity change is notr required to make 'iWembley Way' economic.

 

[Roynie]

We, being ever the optimist, let's hope eh!

 

[SpurSince57]

If you look back a page or two, I've posted links to the Cannon Rubber redevelopment plan, which includes a tower block. But the interesting only part is that 30 flats are toi be made available to the ccouncil to rehouse other council tenants - which I conjecture (no proof whatsover) could be from the Whitehall Road redevelopment, so any knocking down I would suggest willl be on a relatively minor scale - maybe just the buildings at the Stadium end of Whitehall Road : if it were on a bigger scvale more of the Cannon Rubber development would have been earmarked for council tenant re-housing

Somewhere in the council minutes (or elsewhere on this thread) there is mention of a letter having going out to all affected residents in the last couple of weeks.

This is why I have difficulty visualising the scheme—or rather, why I have difficulty visualising it with the flats still there.

 

[Spursidol]

A post by Cockspur (SpursOd) below. Not sure its anything significant that we do not know, but its a good comprehenive summary, and explaining why the process is beneficiak.


'The 12th February Haringey Council Report for Cabinet is interesting: maybe we know most of it already but it nonetheless makes clear the planning processes that are required before any financing of the stadium is possible.

The first step is the acquisition of the entire stadium and Southern Development site by the club. There is a block of land called the ‘Wingate Land’ (off Worcester Avenue) owned by the council: this will be sold to THFC. There are two other blocks of land on the north side of Paxton Road in the middle (Archway Sheet Metal) and to the west (Kingdom Hall, I think). The former is subject to compulsory purchase and it seems the latter will be bought by THFC. Paxton Road itself will be subject to compulsory purchase by the Council and then transferred to the club. Bill Nicholson Way will just revert to the ownership of the club.

In this first step the compulsory purchase of third-party owned land is likely to take the longest time. I can’t remember but it could take as long as 12 months from the granting of the order last July.

Once all the land is assembled under the ownership of THFC it will be transferred to the council who will hand the land back to the club on a 999 years lease. Why?

There’s a number of properties whose right to light could be damaged, not just those along Worcester Avenue (by the stadium) but also along Park Lane (by the high rises of the Southern Development). We don’t know the actual properties involved because they are not included in the public documentation.

A court case in 2010 has changed the way in which developers approach this problem. Formerly they would seek to come to an arrangement with the property owners but, if the latter hold out, there are now risks they could halt the development by court injunctions. So the best course is for the Council to use its powers under Section 237 of the Town and Country Planning Act to acquire the land; they will then lease it back out out to THFC on a 999 year term. It means that the Council can use its ownership status to give negotiated compensation to those with rights to light, the money repaid by THFC. In fact the club will deal with the owners (and leaseholders) direct on behalf of the council. It looks like this process will not delay the development. It’s lower-cost and quicker.

There are other rights than the right to light. On this land they mention ‘private rights of way, restrictive covenants restricting the sale of alcohol, restrictive covenants restricting the sale and display of pornographic material

, rights of drainage and unknown rights.’ The Section 237 acquisition will also deal with these rights because they, too, could be the subject of injunction.

But there’s something else here. The document makes it clear that, as well as other rights, any outstanding uncompensated rights to light present such a risk after the 2010 case that it would put an obstacle in the way of financing the stadium (and Southern Development). Since the 2010 case, banks and other potential financiers won’t touch the NDP until these matters are resolved.

So this process of land assembly, compulsory purchase and use of S.237 powers is not just clearing a planning path to the new stadium but removing any (or most) remaining impediments to the organisation of development finance'.

 

[Spursidol]

This is why I have difficulty visualising the scheme—or rather, why I have difficulty visualising it with the flats still there.

FYI, this document - admittedly from April 2012 so things may have moved on - from the Mayor's office gives a good overview of what he thinks he is funding. and the number of househollds is similar to the 30 households identified in the Cannoin Rubber development.

it also talks of acquiring 1,700 sq metres of land along Whitehall Street - so a relatively small broadening of the road probably 10 or 15 yards along the length of the street. This again suggests a relativeley small scale development of Whitehall stret into the 'Stadium approach'

http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/09c-MRF-Stage-2-North-Tottenham-Project-Appraisal RTF.rtf
Stadium Approach
This project will secure a change in the quality of the public realm on the west side of Tottenham High Road to start to match that proposed in the THFC redevelopment scheme. Please refer to Appendix 4 for a site plan.

The project as currently envisaged consists of two elements:

1. Investment in White Hart Lane station to construct a new southern ticket hall entrance to White Hart Lane station, providing a better link to the new Stadium

2. Improvement to the pedestrian approach from White Hart Lane station to the new Stadium, including the compulsory purchase of key sites and provision of improved and new public space.


The current budget for this project is based on MRF investment funding the land acquisition and public realm works, and there is currently no provision for the new ticket hall either from LBH or GLA. Discussions are taking place with the Dept. for Transport, Network Rail and the train operating company (Abellio) with the aim of securing investment in a new ticket hall at the southern end of the platforms at White Hart Lane Station by 2016. The favoured mechanism for this is to include it as an obligation in the re-tender of the rail line franchise to commence from 2014.

Stadium spectators exiting from the new ticket hall will have a direct ‘Stadium Approach’ route to the new THFC Stadium (to open in 2016) with high quality paving, landscaping and street furniture. This new route will be important in helping to start to change the perception of Tottenham for visitors. Assembling the land for this new public space also could create the opportunity for new residential and commercial development dependent on the exact boundary finally selected for this early phase of transformation.

As stated above in the District Energy Network section, in April the GLA is commissioning consultants to prepare a North Tottenham Investment Framework. A key part of this work will be to detail, following extensive local consultation, the boundary for the ‘Stadium Approach’ scheme identifying the exact area of land required with the need to relocate some existing residents (between 16 and 95 households) and up to 14 businesses. Any relocation of residents (up to 72 Council tenants and up to 23 leaseholders in Council owned blocks) will be handled in such a way that they will have the option to remain in the area in planned new development, eg. on the ‘Cannon Rubber’ site to the north of White Hart Lane.

The procurement of the public realm works (a contract for up to approx. £2m.) together with any new development proposed will secure an appropriate number of apprenticeship places targeted to local residents.

In the event that it is not possible to secure DfT, Network Rail or Train Operating Company (TOC) funding for the new southern ticket hall at White Hart Lane Station by the end of 2012, it may be desirable to review the allocation of the MRF investment and negotiate a contribution from that towards the new ticket hall to seek to leverage TOC investment. This is then likely to mean that fewer commercial properties on the High Road are acquired from this MRF investment and the design of the public realm adjusted accordingly. A financial viability assessment will be done at an early stage as part of the North Tottenham Investment Framework to judge the potential for new development to contribute land value towards acquisition costs.

Outputs

Outcomes
New ticket hall at White Hart Lane station

Reduced ccongestion on event days (to handle a doubling of pedestrian nos. (to 12,000) using White Hart Lane Station on Stadium event days)
Up to 1,700 sq m land acquired

Time savings and improved enviraonment
2,000sqm public relam improved and 1,750 sqm of new public realm

Improved sense of place and catalytic effect for new investment in wider area.

Incidentally we are already past the timescales envisaged in the dcument for various public consultations etc, so I would imagine that there will be more news from the council and/or local sources shortly.

 

[Spursidol]

This is why I have difficulty visualising the scheme—or rather, why I have difficulty visualising it with the flats still there.

These ones ? A poster on 'Skyscraper' suggests that this is the most likely block of flats which would be demolished to help make way for Wembley Way. Its a block of 16 flats so would fit neatly into my previous posts 'between 16 anf 95 households'' smd the Cannon Rubber redevelopment 'up to 30 rehoused council tenants'

Photos © Copyright Christine Johnstone and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence

 

[SpurSince57]

These ones ? A poster on 'Skyscraper' suggests that this is the most likely block of flats which would be demolished to help make way for Wembley Way. Its a block of 16 flats so would fit neatly into my previous posts 'between 16 anf 95 households'' smd the Cannon Rubber redevelopment 'up to 30 rehoused council tenants'

Those are the ones. I thought they were larger than that, but it's quite a while since I've been up there (it's hardly the sort of place you want to hang around). Looking at the satellite view again, I reckon that if you built an elevated walkway from where the British Queen is now you'd probably only have to demolish the building on the north side of Whitehall where it meets the High Road.

 

[ryantegan]

What a brilliant thread this is. we clearly have some of the brightest fans in football

i want to hug you all

 

[RichSpur58]

A taster of what we can expect. Looks quite similar....

 

[Wick3d]

A taster of what we can expect. Looks quite similar....

Or you know, just show everyone a picture of the emirates.

 

[tototoner]

http://www.whathouse.co.uk/news/New-homes-to-be-built-as-part-of-Spurs-new-stadium-project-905

 

[Spursidol]

http://www.whathouse.co.uk/news/New-homes-to-be-built-as-part-of-Spurs-new-stadium-project-905

Reallly poor article.

Berland Court - 30+ homes completed in partnership with Newlon (with almost no publicity)
Cannon Rubber site - over 200 homes to be built in partnership with Newlon
Northumberland Development - over 200 hiomes to be built as part of scheme (phase 3 ?)

Journo desperate to fill space niot doing much research I would suggest

Would they pay me a few £'s for a decent article do you think ?

 

[RichieS]

A taster of what we can expect. Looks quite similar....

Possibly, different architects though. I see what you mean with the wavy lines though. If only we had the option of a railway station attached to the stadium like they have there!