spursgirls
SC Supporter
- Aug 13, 2008
- 19,325
- 40,041
I hope he is! It seems crazy if we don't get the money to spend on players etc.
New Stadium Details And Discussions
- Thread starter fozzi44
- Start date
Lilbaz
Just call me Baz
- Apr 1, 2005
- 41,363
- 74,893
Yep woodward earns £4m.
Wine Gum
Well-Known Member
- May 14, 2007
- 593
- 2,118
A Section 106 Agreement has been put up on the Harringey Goods Yard Site Planning Portal http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=326265
@davidmatzdorf is this an indication that the Planning Appeal is likely to succeed?
@davidmatzdorf is this an indication that the Planning Appeal is likely to succeed?
davidmatzdorf
Front Page Gadfly
- Jun 7, 2004
- 18,106
- 45,030
I checked to see if the uploaded document was a draft or a signed and executed s.106. if it had been a draft, then the scheme might still have been under negotiation.
It's not: it's fully signed-off, including by the council, and dated a week ago. Normally, that would mean it has already been approved, within the recent past. The council's legal officers would not have been authorised to sign this until the committee had already resolved to approve the scheme.
But this is a Planning Appeal against a refusal of consent. I think what has happened here is that the parties have signed off the S.106 so, if the Inspector decides to allow the appeal and approve the scheme, the council has secured the legal obligations it wants. I haven't read through the document - there may be a clause that cancels the obligations if the appeal is dismissed.
Final rebuttals are uploaded and are dated April, so I think we must be waiting for the Inspector's formal decision.
carmeldevil
Well-Known Member
- May 15, 2018
- 7,667
- 45,873
so there'll be new buildings or ?
Wine Gum
Well-Known Member
- May 14, 2007
- 593
- 2,118
It's the Construction Compound site and part of the wider High Road West Regeneration Area. The club submitted a planning application but Harringey failed to decide the Application in the period allowed. The club submitted an Appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. The case was heard last month and a decision is pending.
https://www.goodsyardtottenham.co.uk/
- Oct 17, 2006
- 10,701
- 25,259
In English please!
davidmatzdorf
Front Page Gadfly
- Jun 7, 2004
- 18,106
- 45,030
Not seeing any problem there. There's not a lot of jargon in that post. What bit do you not understand?
[I have amplified- see below]
davidmatzdorf
Front Page Gadfly
- Jun 7, 2004
- 18,106
- 45,030
How's this?
I checked to see if the uploaded document was an uncompleted draft or a finalised, signed and formally executed S.106. if it had been a draft, then the scheme might still have been under negotiation.
It's not: it's fully signed-off, including by the council, and dated a week ago. Normally, that would mean the scheme had already been approved by the council, within the recent past. The council's legal officers would not have been authorised to sign this until the committee had already resolved to approve the scheme.
But this is a Planning Appeal against a refusal of planning consent [actually, it appears that it is an appeal against the council not making a decision within the required time]. I think what has happened here is that the parties have both signed off the S.106 so, if the Planning Inspector [who handles the appeal] decides to allow the appeal and approve the scheme, the council has secured the legal obligations it wants and doesn't get stuck with nothing. I haven't read through the document - there may be a clause that cancels the S.106 obligations if the appeal is dismissed, so they can sign it without prejudicing the result of the appeal.
Final rebuttals [the last submissions to the appeal] have been uploaded and are dated April, so I think we must be waiting for the Inspector's formal decision.
I checked to see if the uploaded document was an uncompleted draft or a finalised, signed and formally executed S.106. if it had been a draft, then the scheme might still have been under negotiation.
It's not: it's fully signed-off, including by the council, and dated a week ago. Normally, that would mean the scheme had already been approved by the council, within the recent past. The council's legal officers would not have been authorised to sign this until the committee had already resolved to approve the scheme.
But this is a Planning Appeal against a refusal of planning consent [actually, it appears that it is an appeal against the council not making a decision within the required time]. I think what has happened here is that the parties have both signed off the S.106 so, if the Planning Inspector [who handles the appeal] decides to allow the appeal and approve the scheme, the council has secured the legal obligations it wants and doesn't get stuck with nothing. I haven't read through the document - there may be a clause that cancels the S.106 obligations if the appeal is dismissed, so they can sign it without prejudicing the result of the appeal.
Final rebuttals [the last submissions to the appeal] have been uploaded and are dated April, so I think we must be waiting for the Inspector's formal decision.
carmeldevil
Well-Known Member
- May 15, 2018
- 7,667
- 45,873
I was simply asking for what project? More residential buildings or the hotel or ? Wasn't sure but Wine Gum kindly answered my question.
- Oct 17, 2006
- 10,701
- 25,259
There was nothing wrong with what you were saying its just that it was over my head, I didn't understand any of it. But...if I didn't know what you were saying, how do I know there was nothing wrong with it?
slartibartfast
Grunge baby forever
- Oct 21, 2012
- 18,320
- 33,955
He's making it up isn't he! Its just nonsense.There was nothing wrong with what you were saying its just that it was over my head, I didn't understand any of it. But...if I didn't know what you were saying, how do I know there was nothing wrong with it?
Only joking David
davidmatzdorf
Front Page Gadfly
- Jun 7, 2004
- 18,106
- 45,030
Was the extended version clearer?There was nothing wrong with what you were saying its just that it was over my head, I didn't understand any of it. But...if I didn't know what you were saying, how do I know there was nothing wrong with it?
Here's some more background.
A S.106 Agreement is a binding deed between the council and the developer for the developer to fulfil certain planning obligations in exchange for planning consent. It can be payments to the council to cover the additional load on local infrastructure that the development will create, or the provision of affordable housing, or ineligibility of occupiers for residents' car parking permits, or providing sustainable transport (e.g., car club membership), or green energy generation, or any number of things.
If the S.106 for this development has already been signed and sealed, that would normally indicate that planning consent has been agreed. But this development was refused and has gone to appeal. I think the council and the developer have signed the S.106 to make sure everything is agreed in advance, if the Inspector allows (approves) the appeal.
Lighty64
I believe
- Aug 24, 2010
- 10,400
- 12,476
he received a massive bonus payment a few seasons back, and was made out by the media as the highest paid chairmen
Phischy
The Spursy One
- Feb 29, 2004
- 1,000
- 1,152
Not only that, a lot of it was backdated earnings he was entitled to from previous seasons.
fridgemagnet
Well-Known Member
- Jan 18, 2009
- 2,416
- 2,867
Why let the truth get in the way of a good Lynch mob/click baiting/panty bunching!
Lighty64
I believe
- Aug 24, 2010
- 10,400
- 12,476
you forgot 1 category on that because I believe @yankspurs is 1 of a kind, and those descriptions don't do him justice
NickHSpurs
Well-Known Member
- Mar 14, 2004
- 13,636
- 11,912
5.30pm kick off for the opening game, Levy just blew his load.
