New Stadium Details And Discussions

[Rupstoh]

Can't the SS for DCLG overrule planning applications? I seem to remember Prescott having an awful lot of power in the area of planning when he was Deputy PM but I was like 12 and had more important things to do

There you go. You were 12 years of age (10 years ago) when Prescott was DPM. lol.

Just to help you out - Read up on Erick Pickles.

 

[Rupstoh]

Wait, you are supporting Archway OVER us building a new stadium???

Does this deserve an answer?

 

[Rupstoh]

Why do you admire him ? Do you know what his actual position is ? I don't know whether he's just trying to make as much money as he can from the situation and his demands are unreasonable or disproportionate, trying to just receive a fair compensation package or just being a stubborn **** because he's that way inclined.

I'd like to know before I decide.

I've had a look at their abbreviated accounts which lists their net assets at about 1m I think. They are a business that can be easily relocated within the area, maybe to a site that's even more practical ? As long as THFC compensate them for this relocation I don't see what their major gripe is. They don't depend on passing trade etc.

PS - I admire his desire to challenge. TO DARE IS TO DO.

 

[THFCSPURS19]

Does this deserve an answer?

Yes.

 

[Skye Sauces]

Can anyone enlighten me as to why Peter | Archway® uses a pic of a brick wall with the street sign White Hart Lane N17 when the business is in Paxton Road?

or why the Archway logo claims '50 years of quality craftmanship' when I can find nothing about them prior to 10 June 1980?

 

[SandroClegane]

Yes. It is my home. Have some of that. It is all the same. If you want to give up yours, go ahead, Mr levy or whoever loves you will pay 20.00p per yard for a CPO against 100.00p yard which is the going rate lol

If I owned Archway and someone offered me 5-10mil to leave, I'd close up shop and retire. You're set for life with that much money, and can easily open another shop, especially when we offered them land.

 

[THFCSPURS19]

Can anyone enlighten me as to why Peter | Archway® uses a pic of a brick wall with the street sign White Hart Lane N17 when the business is in Paxton Road?

or why the Archway logo claims '50 years of quality craftmanship' when I can find nothing about them prior to 10 June 1980?

I Don't know.

 

[absolute bobbins]

There you go. You were 12 years of age (10 years ago) when Prescott was DPM. lol.

Just to help you out - Read up on Erick Pickles.

Sigh, yeah I've got no idea who that is.

Oh and last time I checked, John got his Jags in '97 and not 2004

 

[davidmatzdorf]

But they can reject a CPO if they deem it not in the publics interest. They could be putting pressure on Spurs to pay for the S106's so that it will then be deemed in the publics interest, no?

It's theoretically possible that Pickles is informally/unofficially using the CPO as blackmail to get planning concessions out of THFC, but it would have no basis in law and it wouldn't be a proper use of his powers. I'm more persuaded that he wouldn't do that by what I know of his political viewpoint, which is right-wing-Tory and thus not sympathetic to the whole principle of planning gain, which (when you boil it down) is basically a local tax on development.

I also chatted briefly with the senior planning officer about the merits of the CPO and he tacitly agreed with me that it really ought to be an open-and-shut case, where a huge regeneration scheme is plainly in the public interest, compared with the claims of a medium-sized industrial enterprise whose business could reasonably be carried on elsewhere.

There is a possibility that the CPO is being delayed because of inefficiency and incompetence at the DCLG, as opposed to machinations. Never underestimate the cock-up theory of history.

 

[absolute bobbins]

Can anyone enlighten me as to why Peter | Archway® uses a pic of a brick wall with the street sign White Hart Lane N17 when the business is in Paxton Road?

or why the Archway logo claims '50 years of quality craftmanship' when I can find nothing about them prior to 10 June 1980?

I thought that too, it's an incredibly crude attempt at PR that Spurs should have been able to swat away but it's an area that the club skimp on.
Should Spurs put 132 years in Tottenham on everything?

 

[Rupstoh]

Here you go: Archway 'holding up' the new stadium?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-27040976

State funded CPO which is why Pickles is dragging his feet.

 

[spursfan77]

From COYS. The delay has to be something to do with this, surely?

Edmonton, on 09 Jul 2014 - 10:04 PM, said:

If you go back in this forum you will see the s106 was dropped as part of the post riots, post stratford public support for the new stadium. Pickles doesn't like it being dropped and wants to reinstate some of the same obligations. There are a few other twists but I'll leave it at that.

 

[Lilbaz]

It's theoretically possible that Pickles is informally/unofficially using the CPO as blackmail to get planning concessions out of THFC, but it would have no basis in law and it wouldn't be a proper use of his powers. I'm more persuaded that he wouldn't do that by what I know of his political viewpoint, which is right-wing-Tory and thus not sympathetic to the whole principle of planning gain, which (when you boil it down) is basically a local tax on development.

I also chatted briefly with the senior planning officer about the merits of the CPO and he tacitly agreed with me that it really ought to be an open-and-shut case, where a huge regeneration scheme is plainly in the public interest, compared with the claims of a medium-sized industrial enterprise whose business could reasonably be carried on elsewhere.

There is a possibility that the CPO is being delayed because of inefficiency and incompetence at the DCLG, as opposed to machinations. Never underestimate the cock-up theory of history.

Not suggesting Pickles is blackmailing the club. It's just that Arsenal's CPO's were taken to the High Court by the local businesses arguing that building the Emirates was not in the public interest. This may well be Pickles trying to avoid that.

 

[Skye Sauces]

I thought that too, it's an incredibly crude attempt at PR that Spurs should have been able to swat away but it's an area that the club skimp on.
Should Spurs put 132 years in Tottenham on everything?

Possibly an example of how Archway use THFCs association with White Hart Lane to their own advantage.

You can make up your own minds about a business that claims to have 50 years experience when they have just over 34!

Maybe Archway like to add an additional third to everything?

Spurs have been on-site since 1899 so by Archway standards we'll be celebrating 175 years at WHL in 3 years time.

 

[Rupstoh]

From COYS. The delay has to be something to do with this, surely?

Edmonton, on 09 Jul 2014 - 10:04 PM, said:

If you go back in this forum you will see the s106 was dropped as part of the post riots, post stratford public support for the new stadium. Pickles doesn't like it being dropped and wants to reinstate some of the same obligations. There are a few other twists but I'll leave it at that.

Once the S106 is signed it stays for a maximum of 5 years, unless an appeal takes place and the Indy Inspectorate from Bristol gets involved again, with the Sec of State, which could take a year, hence the recent decision to consider a move for home games away from WHL.

 

[davidmatzdorf]

Once the S106 is signed it stays for a maximum of 5 years, unless an appeal takes place and the Indy Inspectorate from Bristol gets involved again, with the Sec of State, which could take a year, hence the recent decision to consider a move for home games away from WHL.

That's not right. A planning consent used to be valid for 5 years, but has been reduced to 3 years as an incentive to get things built more efficiently and as an incentive for developers not to hoard land.

Once the planning consent has been 'implemented', which means that material building works have been started, the planning consent is permanent.

As I wrote above, a planning consent can only be challenged and overturned by applying for a judicial review during a short window after it has been granted.

In contrast, a S.106 Agreement is binding in perpetuity. It's a legal agreement that 'runs with the land' - it doesn't matter if the land is sold, the S.106 remains binding.

 

[Rupstoh]

That's not right. A planning consent used to be valid for 5 years, but has been reduced to 3 years as an incentive to get things built more efficiently and as an incentive for developers not to hoard land.

Once the planning consent has been 'implemented', which means that material building works have been started, the planning consent is permanent.

As I wrote above, a planning consent can only be challenged and overturned by applying for a judicial review during a short window after it has been granted.

In contrast, a S.106 Agreement is binding in perpetuity. It's a legal agreement that 'runs with the land' - it doesn't matter if the land is sold, the S.106 remains binding.

not with a CPOin session

 

[davidmatzdorf]

not with a CPOin session

That doesn't make any sense. What are you trying to say? What is a 'CPO in session'?

A planning consent, a S.106 Agreement and a CPO are entirely separate things. The one with a 5 year or 3 year expiry period is the planning consent.

S.106 Agreements are effective in perpetuity and run with the land. I have personally negotiated about 30 or 40 of them. Just this afternoon I was suggesting specific clauses to include in one. A S.106 does not expire after 5 years. Take my word for it.

 

[only1waddle]

So the only argument put forward by Archway is they want to expand their business, using their own money and original grubby buildings, the alternative is THFC buy the land with a big wedge of cash helping find new land and a sparkly new and much bigger and better building, without spending a penny of their own cash, makes no sense.

Is the Archway owner a gooner?

semi serious question.

 

[spursfan77]

That doesn't make any sense. What are you trying to say? What is a 'CPO in session'?

A planning consent, a S.106 Agreement and a CPO are entirely separate things. The one with a 5 year or 3 year expiry period is the planning consent.

S.106 Agreements are effective in perpetuity and run with the land. I have personally negotiated about 30 or 40 of them. Just this afternoon I was suggesting specific clauses to include in one. A S.106 does not expire after 5 years. Take my word for it.

Doesn't matter anyway. Edmonton is saying the s106 costs were waived by Boris. I seem to remember this happening around the same time we were given money post riots.