New Stadium Details And Discussions

[nidge]

The S.106 has been signed on behalf of Canvax by one Emma Barry, Director. I add that in case anyone knows the name and can confirm that she works for the club.

Emma Barry on linkedin is an EA at Tottenham Hotspur PLC.

http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/emma-barry/25/629/b5

 

[Lancaster Spur]

I found a planning decision document for the Brook house development, its fairly standard but one part that does stand out is that there is no 100% private housing in the scheme (only shared and social housing). It notes that this goes against the London planning policy for mixed use which calls for a mix of property types. It alludes to the possibility of the stadium development not having any social housing and this scheme could offset that deficiency in the overall development of the area.

Perhaps the club getting in on this development in some way an answer to some of the possible objections about the possible lack of social housing.



http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/defa...sions-former_cannon_rubber_factory_report.pdf

 

[miamispur]

The way I see it:

Archway, just (were) holding out for a big payday, which I think we all would have done in their situation but the way they went about it IMO was wrong. They were also going up against Levy, who has a degree in Land management/development and as we all know negotiation is not something he shirks from. Their business can be relocated anywhere and is not directly linked to THFC or game day revenue to stay in business. If the Stadium is not built their business is not affected.

Other remaining business owners, either have the same reasoning as Archway (big payday) or are looking forward to having an addition 20, 000 visitors every other week that will impact their pockets significantly. If they move they are thinking that re-leasing or buying a property after the Stadium build will cost significantly more. the difference between Archway and them is that if the Stadium is not built they will (possibly) lose their business anyway as THFC will probably look to move elsewhere.

Local tenants, THFC is the only lifeline that Tottenham have. It is dire and as David pointed out there is no Government money to inject into the area to regenerate.

The new stadium will be a catalyst to the area and will attract other businesses/money to what is now a very unattractive area.


Maybe my sight is off by the rose-tinted glasses or the fact that it is a little blurry being 4437 miles (7140 km) away

 

[L.A. Yiddo]

The way I see it:

Archway, just (were) holding out for a big payday, which I think we all would have done in their situation but the way they went about it IMO was wrong. They were also going up against Levy, who has a degree in Land management/development and as we all know negotiation is not something he shirks from. Their business can be relocated anywhere and is not directly linked to THFC or game day revenue to stay in business. If the Stadium is not built their business is not affected.

Other remaining business owners, either have the same reasoning as Archway (big payday) or are looking forward to having an addition 20, 000 visitors every other week that will impact their pockets significantly. If they move they are thinking that re-leasing or buying a property after the Stadium build will cost significantly more. the difference between Archway and them is that if the Stadium is not built they will (possibly) lose their business anyway as THFC will probably look to move elsewhere.

Local tenants, THFC is the only lifeline that Tottenham have. It is dire and as David pointed out there is no Government money to inject into the area to regenerate.

The new stadium will be a catalyst to the area and will attract other businesses/money to what is now a very unattractive area.


Maybe my sight is off by the rose-tinted glasses or the fact that it is a little blurry being 4437 miles (7140 km) away

 

[Spursidol]

I found a planning decision document for the Brook house development, its fairly standard but one part that does stand out is that there is no 100% private housing in the scheme (only shared and social housing). It notes that this goes against the London planning policy for mixed use which calls for a mix of property types. It alludes to the possibility of the stadium development not having any social housing and this scheme could offset that deficiency in the overall development of the area.

Perhaps the club getting in on this development in some way an answer to some of the possible objections about the possible lack of social housing.



http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/defa...sions-former_cannon_rubber_factory_report.pdf

Good find :

'It is recognised that by not providing any private housing, the scheme in isolation would fail to meet London Plan policy 3.9 (Mixed and balanced communities). However, if assessed in the wider context, where for example Tottenham Hotspur’s approved proposals do not provide any affordable housing, a mix of tenures would be achieved across this part of Tottenham'

This is the largest (by some way) of several housing developments that Spurs and Newlon have 'partnered' (whatever thr nature of the partnership is),. IMO this has been a deliberate strategy by Spurs to provide non private housing in Tottenham, albeit not necessarily on the stadium site - and its the fact that its remote from the stadium which presumeably is the reason why the Inspector has not refered to it in the bits of the report that we have seen, but Harringay will of course have been fully aware of.

By the way, the report refers to the owners of the Cannon Rubber Site as being CANVEX Ltd, but I cannot find there has been such a company at Companies house, but I can find CANVAX Ltd which has an address familar to us all. http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk//compdetails. So I'd suggest that we now have proof that Spurs contributed (in some way) the land for the development as I was postulating with @davidmatzdorf

 

[AmericanSpur]

The S.106 Agreement for the Cannon Rubber site is here:

http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/AttachmentShowServlet?ImageName=619174

It is dated 7 Feb 2013. The parties to the agreement are Newlon Housing Trust, LB Haringey and 'Canvax Ltd'. Canvax's registered address is shown as Bill Nicholson Way, 748 High Rd, which is the stadium, so I think it must be a Special Purpose Vehicle set up by THFC for this development.

The agreement notes that Canvax owns part of the property and 'is a party to this agreement to consent to its terms'.

There is a mention of Canvax that requires both Canvax and Newlon to permit rights of way to be created across their land in connection with the overall regeneration scheme and not to make a charge for this.

I've skimmed the whole document and I cannot see any reference to Canvax or THFC paying any money or subsidising the affordable housing (there are also private housing units) in any way. Indeed, all of the financial contributions are shown as being due from Newlon.

I'd conclude that the 'partnership' exists because the club owned some of the land that was needed for the development and therefore had to be a party to the S.106 - it is always the case that all landowners of a development site and any of their lenders who have a charge on the land all have to be parties to the S.106.

The S.106 has been signed on behalf of Canvax by one Emma Barry, Director. I add that in case anyone knows the name and can confirm that she works for the club.

That still doesn't tell us what the Jan 2014 Unilateral Undertaking (which is basically a S.106 Agreement, except with only the developer signing) was about.

I've read in a few places that Canvax, Lmtd. Is owned by Spurs Property and Enic. It appears to be one of the realty holding companies the club uses.

 

[Spursidol]

The S.106 Agreement for the Cannon Rubber site is here:

http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/AttachmentShowServlet?ImageName=619174

It is dated 7 Feb 2013. The parties to the agreement are Newlon Housing Trust, LB Haringey and 'Canvax Ltd'. Canvax's registered address is shown as Bill Nicholson Way, 748 High Rd, which is the stadium, so I think it must be a Special Purpose Vehicle set up by THFC for this development.

The agreement notes that Canvax owns part of the property and 'is a party to this agreement to consent to its terms'.

There is a mention of Canvax that requires both Canvax and Newlon to permit rights of way to be created across their land in connection with the overall regeneration scheme and not to make a charge for this.

I've skimmed the whole document and I cannot see any reference to Canvax or THFC paying any money or subsidising the affordable housing (there are also private housing units) in any way. Indeed, all of the financial contributions are shown as being due from Newlon.

I'd conclude that the 'partnership' exists because the club owned some of the land that was needed for the development and therefore had to be a party to the S.106 - it is always the case that all landowners of a development site and any of their lenders who have a charge on the land all have to be parties to the S.106.

The S.106 has been signed on behalf of Canvax by one Emma Barry, Director. I add that in case anyone knows the name and can confirm that she works for the club.

That still doesn't tell us what the Jan 2014 Unilateral Undertaking (which is basically a S.106 Agreement, except with only the developer signing) was about.

Thanks for this - my post above was written before I saw this one - so apologies for that.

The agreement shows that there are 3 freehold titles for the site of which Newlon owns 2 and Canvax Ltd (a Spurs company) holds the 3rd title, so I guess Can vax contributed that part of the site which it owns in some way as its entry into the 'partnership'

 

[SpurSince57]

Thanks for this - my post on the next page was written before I saw this one - so apologies for that.

The agreement shows that there are 3 freehold titles for the site of which Newlon owns 2 and Canvax Ltd (a Spurs company) holds the 3rd title, so I guess Can vax contributed that part of the site which it owns in some way as its entry into the 'partnership'

You do wonder just how many property pies the club has its fingers in. I wouldn't be entirely surprised if we had a stake in the big development that's going on just over the border in Upper Edmonton.

 

[Wick3d]

You do wonder just how many property pies the club has its fingers in. I wouldn't be entirely surprised if we had a stake in the big development that's going on just over the border in Upper Edmonton.

Probably not seeing as it lies in Enfield. Wouldn't want Haringey to find out we like to play with both sides. What is happening to the old Sainsbury's? It has a few shops there, but it is basically used for car parking these days.

 

[Spursidol]

You do wonder just how many property pies the club has its fingers in. I wouldn't be entirely surprised if we had a stake in the big development that's going on just over the border in Upper Edmonton.

Levy (and his former Board colleague even more so) are propwerty men so I imagine thee are several propertyy plays being carried out by both Spurs and ENIC.

 

[SpurSince57]

Probably not seeing as it lies in Enfield. Wouldn't want Haringey to find out we like to play with both sides. What is happening to the old Sainsbury's? It has a few shops there, but it is basically used for car parking these days.

I assume that once the Cannon development is complete work on some more flats will start there. I use the chemist there, and the staff have no idea what's going to happen. Sainsbury's is actually built on the site of the original Brook House, a rather splendid old pile which was demolished in the 50s.

It's a good place to park for games at the moment, with the proviso that you'll need to get out early or be prepared to hang around. The exit is traffic-light controlled, and four-five cars at most can get out in one phase.

 

[Skye Sauces]

"The report from a public inquiry led by planning inspector David Nicholson last March - handed to Mr Pickles but never published - argues the local community won’t benefit enough from Spurs’ £450million redevelopment of the site to justify forcing family business Archway Sheet Metal Works off its land."

There's just something about this paragraph which is so utterly ridiculous and hilarious.

Equally hilarious is this -

'The club has been locked in negotiations to buy the premises in Paxton Way for more than a decade. It is the last obstacle standing between Spurs and its proposed 58,000-capacity stadium, the only firm of more than 70 to have failed to reach a relocation agreement.'

Paxton Way ????? Locked in negotiations for over a decade !!!!!

The only interesting thing in this article is that Josif/Archway SM had nothing to say.

 

[Wick3d]

I assume that once the Cannon development is complete work on some more flats will start there. I use the chemist there, and the staff have no idea what's going to happen. Sainsbury's is actually built on the site of the original Brook House, a rather splendid old pile which was demolished in the 50s.

It's a good place to park for games at the moment, with the proviso that you'll need to get out early or be prepared to hang around. The exit is traffic-light controlled, and four-five cars at most can get out in one phase.

Odd, you'd think they would know more seeing as that car park is priceless land in an urban area where more housing is required to meet demand. Hopefully the area picks up as a result, I really do hate getting up at 6am and heading to my car only to enquired about "business," which just pisses me off.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

I notice in the annual report (shareholder and stadium update), it is stated that, in relation to the stadium development costs, TH Ltd has borrowed £40m GBP from a bahamian company (Macon Ltd). This is an unsecured, interest free loan (which can later be converted into Preference shares).

I would assume this has come from uncle Joe. I wonder if this was the money the american ITK (Atlanta ?) was talking about last summer - only he was saying it was for our big spend up on players etc. which none of us bought for a second.

 

[Wick3d]

I notice in the annual report (shareholder and stadium update), it is stated that, in relation to the stadium development costs, TH Ltd has borrowed £40m GBP from a bahamian company (Macon Ltd). This is an unsecured, interest free loan (which can later be converted into Preference shares).

I would assume this has come from uncle Joe. I wonder if this was the money the american ITK (Atlanta ?) was talking about last summer - only he was saying it was for our big spend up on players etc. which none of us bought for a second.

He could of just been told we are getting a forty million pound cash injection, so he could of just assumed it was for transfers and jumped the boat really.

 

[Lilbaz]

I notice in the annual report (shareholder and stadium update), it is stated that, in relation to the stadium development costs, TH Ltd has borrowed £40m GBP from a bahamian company (Macon Ltd). This is an unsecured, interest free loan (which can later be converted into Preference shares).

I would assume this has come from uncle Joe. I wonder if this was the money the american ITK (Atlanta ?) was talking about last summer - only he was saying it was for our big spend up on players etc. which none of us bought for a second.

It is, I already apologised for not believing him.

 

[SpurSince57]

Odd, you'd think they would know more seeing as that car park is priceless land in an urban area where more housing is required to meet demand. Hopefully the area picks up as a result, I really do hate getting up at 6am and heading to my car only to enquired about "business," which just pisses me off.

No real reason they should. It's part of a chain, and the first the staff will know is when head office tells them they're shutting the branch down.

 

[Spursidol]

No real reason they should. It's part of a chain, and the first the staff will know is when head office tells them they're shutting the branch down.

I understand Head office are looking for a volunteer - are you passing by the chemist in the nexrt couple of days !?

 

[Wine Gum]

Levy (and his former Board colleague even more so) are propwerty men so I imagine thee are several propertyy plays being carried out by both Spurs and ENIC.

The club did own a number of properties in the High Road West area but sold them to another ENIC Group Company [TH Ltd] for £27.5M last year (source: annual accounts). This was covered in the press at the time as TH Ltd are based in the Bahamas and there were accusations made that this would avoid tax being paid. The proceeds went towards the ongoing costs of the NPD project along with the loan from Macon Ltd.

 

[absolute bobbins]

The club did own a number of properties in the High Road West area but sold them to another ENIC Group Company [TH Ltd] for £27.5M last year (source: annual accounts). This was covered in the press at the time as TH Ltd are based in the Bahamas and there were accusations made that this would avoid tax being paid. The proceeds went towards the ongoing costs of the NPD project along with the loan from Macon Ltd.

Was David Conn at the Guardian i believe. They do seem to have a habit of reporting on perfectly legal stuff (that GMG do themselves) as outrageous and reprehensible