What's new

New Stadium Details And Discussions

Led's Zeppelin

Can't Re Member
May 28, 2013
7,333
20,178
A single planning application was what they did initially, several years ago. Now one phase has been built, the second phase is being amended and the third phase has to be submitted separately because it only had outline consent last time.

It's still an overall master-plan, more so now that the NDP is olinked into the overall regeneration scheme.

I reckon that aspects of the revised stadium can only be delivered if the extra housing can be built (££ from sales), if the pedestrian movements issue can be resolved and if the retractable pitch is acceptable (££ from NFL).

David, thanks again for illuminating this for us.

Do you mean the entire thing (new design) could turn on EH's attitude to three buildings that in all honesty make little impact on anyone's lives and never will?

You'd hope that their preference is simply one of the many interests to be considered in the total decision process.

But maybe it doesn't work like that.
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Apr 1, 2005
41,363
74,893
Could we move the buildings? Is it just their architectual merits or does their location hold significance?
 

tottenmal

Well-Known Member
Aug 22, 2013
801
2,082
I'm most probably wrong about this, but my understanding was that the three houses in question were all locally listed. Where as Warmington House is the only nationally listed building, and the one that would have to go through English Heritage. But the others can be decided by the council.
 
D

Deleted member 25918

Could we move the buildings? Is it just their architectual merits or does their location hold significance?

On moving the buildings, I said something similar a week or so back... Perhaps to a model village or film set where they can be used and enjoyed in context. There's a great place in Stockholm called Skansen where the Swedes rescue old buildings and put them up in a kind of historical recreation. Had the fright of my life when I visited there. I went into a little house to have a look around, what I thought was a mannequin in a rocking chair turned out to be a person, dressed up in period costume and asleep!

I was gazing out of a window, when she woke up and said hello in Swedish. Scared the crap out of me and the missus! We had a laugh about it...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

davidmatzdorf

Front Page Gadfly
Jun 7, 2004
18,106
45,030
I'm most probably wrong about this, but my understanding was that the three houses in question were all locally listed. Where as Warmington House is the only nationally listed building, and the one that would have to go through English Heritage. But the others can be decided by the council.

Strictly speaking, that's also my understanding. But it's got a whole pile of politics on top of that. EH will have views and, even if they are not binding in the same way as they would be in the case of Warmington House, it's going to take a great deal of wrangling before the council can politically justify removing three buildings that were deemed (by EH) as meriting retention a few years ago.

Thart's why I've been hedging whenever people ask me for a firm opinion on this. It's the opposite of straightforward and it's going to be a multi-party bun-fight in a succession of council meetings and then possibly through a succession of appeals.
 

Booney

Well-Known Member
Dec 2, 2004
2,837
3,481
it's a shame that we can't just issue a cheeky CPO. I'm told that the process is incredibly quick and straightforward.
 

Spursidol

Well-Known Member
Sep 15, 2007
12,636
15,834
Could we move the buildings? Is it just their architectual merits or does their location hold significance?

This point was raised last night at the Planning Meeting by a councillor - response from Spurs representatives was that English Heritage were not in favour
 

Spursidol

Well-Known Member
Sep 15, 2007
12,636
15,834
I'm most probably wrong about this, but my understanding was that the three houses in question were all locally listed. Where as Warmington House is the only nationally listed building, and the one that would have to go through English Heritage. But the others can be decided by the council.

One of the councillors last night at the meeting was concerned at the thought of losing the 3 buildings. Subsequent question from her suggested she wanted to know of all possible ways to save them (eg suspending a bus lane so as to open up more road for pedestrians). IMO the questioning suggested the councillor could concede on this point - but in a negotiation it usually means for each point or two won, the other side needs to concede something. So depends how important we think these 3 buildings are versus other points of debate (eg 40% 'affordable housing')
 

Spursidol

Well-Known Member
Sep 15, 2007
12,636
15,834
David, thanks again for illuminating this for us.

Do you mean the entire thing (new design) could turn on EH's attitude to three buildings that in all honesty make little impact on anyone's lives and never will?

You'd hope that their preference is simply one of the many interests to be considered in the total decision process.

But maybe it doesn't work like that.

The stadium plans are being presented as one - including the removal of the 3 buildings - and there was a brief debate last night as to why their removal was key and why it differed from the 2010 planning consent where it was agreed the 3 buildings had to stay.

Answer (from the Spurs traffic expert) is nothing to do with increasing capacity from 56.250 to 61,000 but all to do with a better dynamic (as opposed to static - used in the 2010 planning application) pedestrian traffic modelling which showed that there was insufficient space for pedestrians to pass (so in other words the 2010 planning was a bit of a fudge) plus police/security new insistence on having bollards on the pavement to stop people going into the road at that point.

Think we are setting up a 'Health & safety for Pedestrians v English Heritage debate with this.

Spurs were asked by a councillor to consider all possible alternatives to the removal of the buildings - including 'blue sky' ones such as pricing tickets to encourage early arrival at the ground (nb. rubbish suggestion as there maybe more crowds on exit - but emphasises the council want to see every possibility explored).

This was a pre-submission meeting so its clear that when Spurs go back with the actual planning documents to get permission that all the questions need to be answered - and there have been several meetings including yesterday between council officials and Spurs on 'traffic' already
 

THFCSPURS19

The Speaker of the Transfer Rumours Forum
Jan 6, 2013
37,886
130,485
I find it pretty ironic that one of the concerns from locals was that the listed buildings had connections to the club- e.g. Bill Nicholson's old Office. If you truly loved the club that much, you'd see that the scheme was far more important.
 

silentownage001

Well-Known Member
Jun 4, 2011
416
250
On moving the buildings, I said something similar a week or so back... Perhaps to a model village or film set where they can be used and enjoyed in context. There's a great place in Stockholm called Skansen where the Swedes rescue old buildings and put them up in a kind of historical recreation. Had the fright of my life when I visited there. I went into a little house to have a look around, what I thought was a mannequin in a rocking chair turned out to be a person, dressed up in period costume and asleep!

I was gazing out of a window, when she woke up and said hello in Swedish. Scared the crap out of me and the missus! We had a laugh about it...

There's place here in NJ that I've been to a couple times that has historically significant buildings. I think that would be a much better idea. Move the buildings to a place where they can be properly looked after and perhaps make it a tourist attraction.
 

davidmatzdorf

Front Page Gadfly
Jun 7, 2004
18,106
45,030
All of the suggestions here about moving the listed buildings are presupposing that they would be moved away from the stadium development, to a different neighbourhood entirely.

If it is feasible to move them (and it ought to be, technically), then it's much more likely that they would just be moved a few metres, to get them out of the way of the pedestrian traffic. That way we would avoid being drawn into arguments about historical context and local heritage.
 
D

Deleted member 25918

We could put the dispensary across the entrance to the Emirates... Would look lovely if you used it to block out the NAL of Arsenal.
 

beats1

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2010
30,006
29,551
All of the suggestions here about moving the listed buildings are presupposing that they would be moved away from the stadium development, to a different neighbourhood entirely.

If it is feasible to move them (and it ought to be, technically), then it's much more likely that they would just be moved a few metres, to get them out of the way of the pedestrian traffic. That way we would avoid being drawn into arguments about historical context and local heritage.
Well there was a fire the other day near WHL, so they may be a new opening for a new building to be placed there. There is nothing a good fire cant solve :whistle:
 

beats1

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2010
30,006
29,551
not sure it would be worth the time effort and mostly cost to move them.
I could be argued that moving them, preserves the buildings and history whilst getting rid of them on the site of the stadium development allows our overall scheme to look better and give us more space to deliver a better development that would benefit fans and the local community
I find it pretty ironic that one of the concerns from locals was that the listed buildings had connections to the club- e.g. Bill Nicholson's old Office. If you truly loved the club that much, you'd see that the scheme was far more important.
Not really no one is saying that the future of the development rest on a building, they just don't want to lose more of our history as we make our next move
 

hillbilly

Active Member
Dec 18, 2013
119
187
Moving the buildings to another area will be pointless. They are, after all, nothing special but they fit in as part of the local area. They would be worthless placed in a sort of 'graveyard for listed buildings'.

In spite of all the brownie points THFC should get for the extra social housing and better use of Warmington House, I foresee resistance to the removal of the three buildings from people with influence.
 
Top