New Stadium Details And Discussions

[davidmatzdorf]

Right then- when do the heritage groups get their chance to fuck things up? Do you know @davidmatzdorf ?

A judicial review has to be demanded within 6 weeks of a planning approval being issued. That doesn't mean within 6 weeks of the council's planning committee meeting, it refers to the written decision being issued, which I assume has been delayed waiting for the Mayor to announce today's approval.

This is from advice and guidance on judicial reviews published by a firm of solicitors I used to work with a lot:

A Judicial Review claim can be brought up to six weeks from the date that the grounds for the claim first arose. In the case of planning, that’s six weeks from the date on the permission not six weeks from the committee meeting. Although the committee resolve to grant planning, planning isn’t actually granted by the planning authority until the printed planning permission is issued. That is often weeks, if not months, after the planning committee met – particularly if a s106 (Planning) Agreement is being negotiated.

http://www.lewissilkin.com/Knowledge/2013/October/~/media/Knowledge PDFs/RED/A little bit of law Judicial Review and Planning.ashx

 

[Deeyal]

A judicial review has to be demanded within 6 weeks of a planning approval being issued. That doesn't mean within 6 weeks of the council's planning committee meeting, it refers to the written decision being issued, which I assume has been delayed waiting for the Mayor to announce today's approval.

This is from advice and guidance on judicial reviews published by a firm of solicitors I used to work with a lot:



http://www.lewissilkin.com/Knowledge/2013/October/~/media/Knowledge PDFs/RED/A little bit of law Judicial Review and Planning.ashx

So I'm reading that as 6 weeks from the date that is printed on the approval, which can take some time to be issued, possibly months! Of course, I could have completely misinterpreted that though.

 

[spursfan77]

Get in. Great news

 

[thebenjamin]

Good lad Boris. I guess he does want us to be in Europe after all... ho ho ho

 

[Lighty64]

typical SSN have broke the news, to then show pictures of the old design

 

[L.A. Yiddo]

Nicked from SSC

 

[Lighty64]

just in case your disagree wasn't an error @The boy hoddle

https://twitter.com/SkySportsNewsHQ/status/702906850862309376

 

[Garyldn]

Is there a technical reason why they have laid concrete in that area? As from the arial shot seems random. Maybe to appease the webcam as its bang in front of it, me being cynical I'm sure.

 

[Lighty64]

Nicked from SSC

going really well, but could do with a bit of a sweeping up, dirt everywhere

 

[Spursidol]

Great news. Anyone know what other hoops they still have to jump through now?

@Hoops ?

 

[Spursidol]

A judicial review has to be demanded within 6 weeks of a planning approval being issued. That doesn't mean within 6 weeks of the council's planning committee meeting, it refers to the written decision being issued, which I assume has been delayed waiting for the Mayor to announce today's approval.

This is from advice and guidance on judicial reviews published by a firm of solicitors I used to work with a lot:



http://www.lewissilkin.com/Knowledge/2013/October/~/media/Knowledge PDFs/RED/A little bit of law Judicial Review and Planning.ashx

FYI the Harringey January 2016 Planning meeting minutes recorded the fact that the December 16 Planning Meeting had approved all the NDP planning proposals presented at that meeting SUBJECT to the signing of a s 106 agreement and the Mayoral decision.

So because the decision is conditional, no actual firm decision happened in December.

I'd hope to see in March that there were minutes which said that these 2 conditions had ben met - and given the time lapse all other necessary documentation to complete planning agreement would be published (I would guess dated the same day as the Mayoral decision assuming the s106 agreement had been signed on that date too) .

 

[davidmatzdorf]

FYI the Harringey January 2016 Planning meeting minutes recorded the fact that the December 16 Planning Meeting had approved all the NDP planning proposals presented at that meeting SUBJECT to the signing of a s 106 agreement and the Mayoral decision.

So because the decision is conditional, no actual firm decision happened in December.

I'd hope to see in March that there were minutes which said that these 2 conditions had ben met - and given the time lapse all other necessary documentation to complete planning agreement would be published (I would guess dated the same day as the Mayoral decision assuming the s106 agreement had been signed on that date too) .

Yes, the point in that legal advice is that the planning consent isn't binding until the S.106 has been signed and the decision notice has been issued. That's normal practice now. When you see development land being marketed for sale during the intervening period, which can be many months, often the agent will use the phrase "resolution to grant planning consent" instead of "with planning consent" to cover themselves.

 

[worcestersauce]

So is it likely that the s106 was waiting for Boris decision to be signed or Boris was waiting for the S106 to be agreed for signing or signed or would the two are unrelated?

 

[davidmatzdorf]

So is it likely that the s106 was waiting for Boris decision to be signed or Boris was waiting for the S106 to be agreed for signing or signed or would the two are unrelated?

There's no point in spending time (and money on legal fees) negotiating a S.106 Agreement if the Mayor is going to chuck out the application. Or even if he's going to demand changes, such as the inclusion of on-site affordable housing (not that Boris is going to do that) that would change the contents of the S.106.

The obligations in a S.106 are defined in conditions written into the planning decision notice, so the committee resolution comes first, then the draft decision notice, then the completed S.106, then the formal decision notice.

The draft decision notice is usually included in the S.106 as an appendix, as an obligation for the local authority: the developer is agreeing to provide this, that and the other and the local authority is agreeing to issue the formal consent.

 

[Dharmabum]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...t-back-down-to-Earth-by-new-stadium-saga.html

Will soaring Tottenham Hotspur be brought back down to Earth by new stadium saga?
The Premier League title contenders remain confident that their newly approved stadium plans will not derail their burgeoning success

By Sam Wallace, Chief Football Correspondent

5:36PM GMT 27 Feb 2016

8 Comments


At White Hart Lane they are letting the old stadium gently go to seed, from the unreliable lights in the scoreboards to the West stand tinted glass frontage that must have looked a vision of modernity when it opened in February 1982 – predating the Falklands War, the formation of The Smiths and Tottenham Hotspur’s second FA Cup triumph of the decade.

You might say that modern football and all its demands have grown too big for Spurs’ 117-year-old home. At the start of this season, when the club saw the new capacity requirements for post-match television tunnel interviews, they had no option but to cut into one of the few remaining untouched areas in the vicinity. The away dressing room is now considerably smaller.


Spurs have spent 10 years planning for the moment that every aspirational modern club must face: build a bigger stadium or contemplate slow death by financial fair play. Their £500 million new complex, with a 61,000-capacity stadium at the centre, is to be completed in the summer of 2018, and is a long way from the days when they were threatening a move to the proposed 43,000-capacity Picketts Lock athletics stadium, that was eventually never built.


It just so happens that one season before the old White Hart Lane closes altogether – and the club move to temporary premises for one year – Spurs, at home to Swansea City today, find themselves in a title race. To put that in perspective, the last time Spurs were champions, in 1961, the club got their first floodlight pylons the same year.

In Spurs’ promising new age, the question remains as to what effect the financing of a stadium project will have on the team who play in it.

The price that Arsenal paid in terms of selling players to build the Emirates split the board at the time, and that was Arsenal, who already had three Premier League titles before they started making economies.

The Spurs chairman, Daniel Levy, told a supporters’ trust last month that the club are still waiting for a final costing from their construction contractor before they complete the financing of the project. The word in football is that Spurs are confident the borrowing is already in place to construct the stadium itself, and the various housing and infrastructure projects around it, some of which have already been built, for anything up to £750 million.

Why such a sunny outlook? This is a different economic climate in football to the one in which Arsenal financed the Emirates in the early part of the last decade. The Premier League is on the brink of its £8 billion television deal. Spurs are regarded as a well-run club with no debt. The first phase of the project, Lilywhite House, which encompasses club offices, a technical college and a Sainsbury’s supermarket was completed on time and in budget.


Nevertheless, Spurs are currently still spinning a lot of plates. The club will announce before the end of the season where they will play for their one year away, in 2017-2018, and it is by no means certain yet that they will be able to share Wembley with Chelsea. On the issue of naming rights, another key part of the financing, the club are putting the finishing touches to the bespoke packs to be sent to the targeted major institutions they hope will be interested.

At the heart of it all is the attempt to build and maintain their squad under manager Mauricio Pochettino in order to establish themselves in the Champions League places. It is why the club built their new £70m million training ground in Enfield first, before embarking in earnest on the stadium.

Big infrastructure projects truly are the most stressful events for an ambitious football club. Spurs’ plans approved by the Mayor of London last week are a new version, updated during the hiatus in the compulsory purchase order saga last year, and aim to build a destination in north London that will not just be used on match days.

The stadium itself includes a 17,000-capacity single-tier south stand and overall will be the biggest club ground in London. There is a property development of 579 flats and a hotel, and unusual add-ons such as the world’s highest indoor climbing wall and a “sky walk” over the stadium. Who knows? These kinds of things could feature in every new stadium for the next 100 years. Or they could one day look as redundant as the old greyhound track at Wembley eventually did.

What Spurs are doing is giving themselves as many options as possible to diversify successfully. The NFL facilities – separate enlarged changing rooms, a retractable pitch – for a minimum of two NFL games per season over the next 10 years is expected to earn some extra income and draw in a different crowd. But the NFL factor is more for prestige, in the hope that it will lead to hosting other big events.

Levy said in April 2014 that the waiting list for Spurs season tickets stood at more than 47,000 and the club believe that figure has now climbed to more than 50,000. They believe the demand is there, the question is whether, over time, their confidence that the financing will not materially affect the team is borne out.

Arsenal built a new stadium to consolidate their position at the turn of the millennium as one of English football’s big two, and it was unquestionably the right move. Yet almost as soon as building started, a new kind of rich owner moved in at Chelsea, then another at Manchester City five years after that, and the game changed forever.

The belief at Spurs is that their project comes at a more stable time in football, when the bigger picture has, for all the inequalities of wealth, settled somewhat. Besides, like Arsenal before them, Spurs can only control their future, not the plans of others. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Mr-T]

New February aerial pics up on the official site. http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/new-scheme/stadium-tv/

 

[Krafty]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...t-back-down-to-Earth-by-new-stadium-saga.html

Will soaring Tottenham Hotspur be brought back down to Earth by new stadium saga?
The Premier League title contenders remain confident that their newly approved stadium plans will not derail their burgeoning success

By Sam Wallace, Chief Football Correspondent

5:36PM GMT 27 Feb 2016

8 Comments


At White Hart Lane they are letting the old stadium gently go to seed, from the unreliable lights in the scoreboards to the West stand tinted glass frontage that must have looked a vision of modernity when it opened in February 1982 – predating the Falklands War, the formation of The Smiths and Tottenham Hotspur’s second FA Cup triumph of the decade.

You might say that modern football and all its demands have grown too big for Spurs’ 117-year-old home. At the start of this season, when the club saw the new capacity requirements for post-match television tunnel interviews, they had no option but to cut into one of the few remaining untouched areas in the vicinity. The away dressing room is now considerably smaller.


Spurs have spent 10 years planning for the moment that every aspirational modern club must face: build a bigger stadium or contemplate slow death by financial fair play. Their £500 million new complex, with a 61,000-capacity stadium at the centre, is to be completed in the summer of 2018, and is a long way from the days when they were threatening a move to the proposed 43,000-capacity Picketts Lock athletics stadium, that was eventually never built.


It just so happens that one season before the old White Hart Lane closes altogether – and the club move to temporary premises for one year – Spurs, at home to Swansea City today, find themselves in a title race. To put that in perspective, the last time Spurs were champions, in 1961, the club got their first floodlight pylons the same year.

In Spurs’ promising new age, the question remains as to what effect the financing of a stadium project will have on the team who play in it.

The price that Arsenal paid in terms of selling players to build the Emirates split the board at the time, and that was Arsenal, who already had three Premier League titles before they started making economies.

The Spurs chairman, Daniel Levy, told a supporters’ trust last month that the club are still waiting for a final costing from their construction contractor before they complete the financing of the project. The word in football is that Spurs are confident the borrowing is already in place to construct the stadium itself, and the various housing and infrastructure projects around it, some of which have already been built, for anything up to £750 million.

Why such a sunny outlook? This is a different economic climate in football to the one in which Arsenal financed the Emirates in the early part of the last decade. The Premier League is on the brink of its £8 billion television deal. Spurs are regarded as a well-run club with no debt. The first phase of the project, Lilywhite House, which encompasses club offices, a technical college and a Sainsbury’s supermarket was completed on time and in budget.


Nevertheless, Spurs are currently still spinning a lot of plates. The club will announce before the end of the season where they will play for their one year away, in 2017-2018, and it is by no means certain yet that they will be able to share Wembley with Chelsea. On the issue of naming rights, another key part of the financing, the club are putting the finishing touches to the bespoke packs to be sent to the targeted major institutions they hope will be interested.

At the heart of it all is the attempt to build and maintain their squad under manager Mauricio Pochettino in order to establish themselves in the Champions League places. It is why the club built their new £70m million training ground in Enfield first, before embarking in earnest on the stadium.

Big infrastructure projects truly are the most stressful events for an ambitious football club. Spurs’ plans approved by the Mayor of London last week are a new version, updated during the hiatus in the compulsory purchase order saga last year, and aim to build a destination in north London that will not just be used on match days.

The stadium itself includes a 17,000-capacity single-tier south stand and overall will be the biggest club ground in London. There is a property development of 579 flats and a hotel, and unusual add-ons such as the world’s highest indoor climbing wall and a “sky walk” over the stadium. Who knows? These kinds of things could feature in every new stadium for the next 100 years. Or they could one day look as redundant as the old greyhound track at Wembley eventually did.

What Spurs are doing is giving themselves as many options as possible to diversify successfully. The NFL facilities – separate enlarged changing rooms, a retractable pitch – for a minimum of two NFL games per season over the next 10 years is expected to earn some extra income and draw in a different crowd. But the NFL factor is more for prestige, in the hope that it will lead to hosting other big events.

Levy said in April 2014 that the waiting list for Spurs season tickets stood at more than 47,000 and the club believe that figure has now climbed to more than 50,000. They believe the demand is there, the question is whether, over time, their confidence that the financing will not materially affect the team is borne out.

Arsenal built a new stadium to consolidate their position at the turn of the millennium as one of English football’s big two, and it was unquestionably the right move. Yet almost as soon as building started, a new kind of rich owner moved in at Chelsea, then another at Manchester City five years after that, and the game changed forever.

The belief at Spurs is that their project comes at a more stable time in football, when the bigger picture has, for all the inequalities of wealth, settled somewhat. Besides, like Arsenal before them, Spurs can only control their future, not the plans of others. What could possibly go wrong?

Normally enjoy Mr Wallace, but this just seems like a space filler. If you are going to pose a question in the headline, you can't end on one!

 

[Booney]

Boris's decision complete with detailed response to concerns raised by Historic England.

http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/AttachmentShowServlet?ImageName=798138

A lot of it is incomprehensible legal gobbledygook but think he's essentially looked again at the issues they have raised but nobody has been able to come up with an alternative to demolishing them and the buildings themselves aren't worth jeopardising the whole development and the benefits that it will bring.

I'm sure that cleverer minds than mine will chew over some of the finer details but looks fairly water-tight from my untrained eye and hopefully doesn't give Historic England much scope for slowing down the process

 

[davidmatzdorf]

Boris's decision complete with detailed response to concerns raised by Historic England.

http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/AttachmentShowServlet?ImageName=798138

A lot of it is incomprehensible legal gobbledygook but think he's essentially looked again at the issues they have raised but nobody has been able to come up with an alternative to demolishing them and the buildings themselves aren't worth jeopardising the whole development and the benefits that it will bring.

I'm sure that cleverer minds than mine will chew over some of the finer details but looks fairly water-tight from my untrained eye and hopefully doesn't give Historic England much scope for slowing down the process

Thanks, that's a helpful link. Some semi-random observations.

We see from paragraph 2 on page 2 ("Context") that the Mayor was initially opposed to the demolition of the historic buildings last October.

The report's key paragraphs dealing with the historic buildings are nos. 26, 27 & 29 on pages 7 & 8.

What the "Affordable Housing" section on pages 5-6 basically says is that there will be a financial contribution, in lieu of affordable housing on site, of £48.4m (index-linked), but that this will be reviewed once the actual sales receipts from the private-sector housing are known. If the residential part of the scheme makes a larger/smaller profit than anticipated, the affordable housing contribution will be increased/reduced, according to formula they have negotiated. This is a common arrangement, especially when the delivery of the housing is going to be a few years in the future.

I see from paragraph 36 that the targets for non-car-borne attendance are 77% for football matches, 85% for NFL matches and 90% for concerts. As I have posted on numerous occasions, the whole drift of modern planning policy is to make it difficult for people to drive to these kinds of events and difficult to park locally. But to achieve that, THFC had to demonstrate that improved public transport provision will be able to cope. Paragraphs 38-40 deal with this.

 

[THFCSPURS19]

Indeed, was a good account - shame the guy has closed it.

He's back.