Nyt Stadion

310 indlæg / 0 new
Seneste indlæg
Ethievants billede
Offline

http://issuu.com/haringeycouncil/docs/140912-hrw_masterplan_report_final_/0

 

 

ccs billede
Offline

http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/news/new-stadium-update-150115/

Suk Sad ... højesteretshøringen er udsat en måned .....

spursfcs billede
Offline

Fra Spurs-list:

Planning Meeting - Note 1

 I watched all 5 1/2 hrs of the Planning Sub- Committee meeting and will break my notes down into a series of posts. Meeting started on time at 7pm, was due to finish at 10pm but didn't finish until 00:28 when the final vote was taken. After the first few agenda items were completed, apologies, introductions etc a spanner was thrown into the works.  Spurs had come up with a last minute submission which needed discussion with the planning officers in a separate room.  Meeting was adjourned for 30mins. Turns out this was about the viability of affordable housing.  Spurs had only received the KPMG report the day before, and this concerned a viability review towards affordable housing re date and percentage trigger points. There was some Argy Bargy about Spurs late submission when the subject came up in the meeting.  Council nit happy with Spurs, Spurs not happy with Council etc. By it for tat exchanges. In essence, KPMG agreed that currently there is no residual value in the southern development and so affordable housing  isn't possible.  However, it was agreed by them, as suggested by Spurs, that once the stadium is built land values may increase and so there may be scope for affordable housing then.  KPMG recommended a trigger point of 20% increase in land value as a trigger point for which anything above that would be split 50/50 between Spurs and Council for the provision of affordable housing.  This amount being estimated at £48.4mil on current valuation.  They also recommended  the review date for this is when the building of the stadium is complete. I.e. Not when it is first used. Spurs response was a trigger point of 25% but they wanted a date of 31 Dec 18 or when the stadium is first opened, which ever is the earlier.  They wanted this date for their protection.  Their argument was that it isn't a matter of not wanting the viability review but a question of funding.  The housing/flats are to act as an enabler towards the funding of the stadium build and in a planned phased project they needed to be able to protect their funding stream as the project progressed. Don't ask me the ins and outs of this, it is very complicated and the Councillors weren't able to follow it all either.  I'm not sure that Spurs agreed to the 20% figure or not during the discussion.  In the end it was voted on to put the KPMG recommendation into the S106 agreement.   Planning permission is granted of course subject to both parties signing the section 106 agreement.  A date of 18 Mar 16 was set for this.  If not signed by then, permission is rescinded and they have to come back to the committee.  This is usual. Other quick points of note :- Stadium capacity. 61,080 A figure of £600mil for the project was mentioned. Spurs already using 400 White Hart Lane as a compound without planning permission, and asked to explain themselves.  Confessed, bang to rights, planning officers knew but had to submit formal planning application at same time as the stadium application.  Laughed it off. Vote was 8-2 in favour

eastupperblocks billede
Online

spursfc skrev:

Fra Spurs-list:

Planning Meeting - Note 1

 I watched all 5 1/2 hrs of the Planning Sub- Committee meeting and will break my notes down into a series of posts. Meeting started on time at 7pm, was due to finish at 10pm but didn't finish until 00:28 when the final vote was taken. After the first few agenda items were completed, apologies, introductions etc a spanner was thrown into the works.  Spurs had come up with a last minute submission which needed discussion with the planning officers in a separate room.  Meeting was adjourned for 30mins. Turns out this was about the viability of affordable housing.  Spurs had only received the KPMG report the day before, and this concerned a viability review towards affordable housing re date and percentage trigger points. There was some Argy Bargy about Spurs late submission when the subject came up in the meeting.  Council nit happy with Spurs, Spurs not happy with Council etc. By it for tat exchanges. In essence, KPMG agreed that currently there is no residual value in the southern development and so affordable housing  isn't possible.  However, it was agreed by them, as suggested by Spurs, that once the stadium is built land values may increase and so there may be scope for affordable housing then.  KPMG recommended a trigger point of 20% increase in land value as a trigger point for which anything above that would be split 50/50 between Spurs and Council for the provision of affordable housing.  This amount being estimated at £48.4mil on current valuation.  They also recommended  the review date for this is when the building of the stadium is complete. I.e. Not when it is first used. Spurs response was a trigger point of 25% but they wanted a date of 31 Dec 18 or when the stadium is first opened, which ever is the earlier.  They wanted this date for their protection.  Their argument was that it isn't a matter of not wanting the viability review but a question of funding.  The housing/flats are to act as an enabler towards the funding of the stadium build and in a planned phased project they needed to be able to protect their funding stream as the project progressed. Don't ask me the ins and outs of this, it is very complicated and the Councillors weren't able to follow it all either.  I'm not sure that Spurs agreed to the 20% figure or not during the discussion.  In the end it was voted on to put the KPMG recommendation into the S106 agreement.   Planning permission is granted of course subject to both parties signing the section 106 agreement.  A date of 18 Mar 16 was set for this.  If not signed by then, permission is rescinded and they have to come back to the committee.  This is usual. Other quick points of note :- Stadium capacity. 61,080 A figure of £600mil for the project was mentioned. Spurs already using 400 White Hart Lane as a compound without planning permission, and asked to explain themselves.  Confessed, bang to rights, planning officers knew but had to submit formal planning application at same time as the stadium application.  Laughed it off. Vote was 8-2 in favour

Press Enter... Press Enter.... Press Enter Smile

31 kampe med Tottenham: 19 sejre, 4 uafgjorte, 7 nederlag (1 afbrudt kamp  - gæt selv hvilken)

spursfcs billede
Offline

 Det er Copy/Paste East..

Planning Meeting - Note 2

 After the early shenanigans the lead Planning officer made his presentation.He stressed that the application is properly presented and meets in principle the conditions set out in The Haringey Plan, The London Plan, Communal Plans, and is appropriate and in line with policy for a growth area, as is High Rd West and Northumberland Park. The area is a dedicated growth area and been nominated for sport led  regeneration and stadium area by the Council. He stressed there was nowhere else in the area where a sport stadium of equivalent size could be built. Next up the Chair Lady went through the application subject by subject as listed in the Planners report 400+ pages, not line by line f course. Various graphics and charts were used but not seen from the static camera position.  This took some while to complete.
However, as their Viability expert had to leave early (as meeting had been postponed for a week), this subject was raised out of turn at the beginning and opened to question from the council.  I explained as best I could this subject in Note 1 last night.  What I didn't mention is that developers would normally seek a return on profit of about 15% to 20% certainly no less than 10%  for a scheme to be considered viable.  Rothchilds (Spurs experts) and KPMG (Council's independent experts) both came to the same conclusion that Spurs Return to profit would only be approx 1.5% on value.  Hence the lack of affordable housing.  Lots of discussion took place mainly how this was all so very terrible  and sought detailed reasons.  Some said why didn't they have less expenditure on the stadium infrastructure and fittings  so affordable housing could be included.  They kept having to be reminded that the central reason for the project is the stadium, not housing, which is to act as an enabler for the stadium.  The stadium needed to be iconic and just more than football to attract use for 365 days a year etc to act as catalyst for wider regeneration.  An ordinary stadium just wouldn't do that.  It needed to be first class in all respects.  Which this design is. 
Although Spurs (like everyone ) would seek a greater return, their object here is to build and operate a world class stadium that can also act for the greater good of the community.  This stadium and project does that.
They then went through the review mechanism as reported earlier.

 

 

 

spursfcs billede
Offline

 Planning Meeting - Note 3

 Scheme Viability  I have managed to source form Internet part of the KPMG report on the funding of the stadium scheme.  Unfortunately I couldn't cut and paste and so enclose copies of 4 screen shots below. The salient points are: Rest of the project phase 2 and 3 is from 2016 to 2020. The over all cost is expected to be between £675mil and £700mil.  This includes over £100mil already spent including current preparation works.  So, the £600 mil mentioned in Note 1 was about the spend yet to come over and above that already spent. After all funding mechanisms have been considered the over all debt package is expected to be  circa £350mil, to be paid Down. The incremental increase uplift is expected to be £70mil pa off-set by increased payments of £40mil pa (I suspect this includes debt repayments)  generating an overall increased income of £30mil pa for 15yrs. Football match day ticket income is expected to generate a profit of £5mil per season, based on a 90% uptake of 53k general admission.  Plus, the 8000 premium seats and executive boxes  will bring in circa £36mil pa, an increase of £13mil pa over current income.  They don't say if this is again at 90% take-up or based on full 100% attendance. This will only total £18mil increased income pa, so that leaves another £52mil that must be accounted for in NFL, concerts, corporate & conferences, Shop sales, food & beverage ear, sky walk etc I don't know if income from extreme sports & hotel is in this as well or if separate. Note:  this wasn't discussed in depth by committee but mentioned in passing as being included in the KPMG independent report, just thought this may be of interest to some Listees.

spursfcs billede
Offline

 Planning meeting - Note 4

 After that discussion the Chair lady continued with the Design: Two Quality Review Panels have given their approval to the scheme as a whole and the stadium in particular.  There's recommended that the reserve matters in the design of the hotel, Extreme Sports, and flats should be included in this application and not left til later.  The Planning Officers stated there was very tight conditions tied into the reserved matters and it is usual for this to happen in phased projects.  New technologies, materials, etc can come up that developer and council may wish to make use of and so is best left for now. Crowd Safety This mainly revolved around the footpath width between the listed buildings and the road, and the reason behind the demolition of the said buildings.  CCTV and on-site survey haves stated there is a health and safety concern with a 61k stadium and road safety.  They have declared it as inherently unsafe. The club via their consultants had come up with a 12 scenario matrix including under passes, sky walkways etc but in the end the best and only outcome is to demolish the said building widening the walkway from 1.8m to 27m (I noted) but I think they may have misheard 27ft.  The Council hired an independent consultant who agreed and also said their retention was dangerous to the health and safety of crowd safety.  One Councillor would not let this be, dog with a bone. Suggesting a bollard here, an exit sign there, and the like. Time and time again. He was very frustrating.  In the end, the plainly exasperated Head Planning Officer interjected.  He said that, although it may be difficult for the laymen here in the council to understand, but the man they hired has a Masters Degree In this subject, is the top man in the country if not the world. He listed a number of high profile projects he has been consulted on world wide, and that they should give due weight to his credentials and his expertise in coming to his conclusion.  (In other words, wind your neck in).  It may have been at this point, or when he brought up his objection again at the Clubs submission, that Donna Cullen said, this is the only option in the table.  They now can't go back to the consented scheme as the retention of the buildings would give a declared unacceptable health and safety crowd safety risk.  They would not be able to accept the liability (nor could the Council?!)Planners stated that this out weighs any damage caused to the heritage by the demolition of the listed building.  The questioning Councillor was one of the two Councillors who voted against the scheme /planning application. Next up - Heritage (Saga!)

spursfcs billede
Offline

Stadionplaner:

http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/AttachmentSh...

 

Billeder fra det nye stadion samt træningsanlægget:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/4k2nfoz64lxz0y9/AADDdQJx5BaQEjhEC8A7PJYxa?dl=0

Ardiless billede
Offline

 Hvilken en af disse løsninger køber fanklubben? ;) 

"Tunnel Club" passer lige til os, så man kan stå og kigge på spillerne mens de står i spillertunnellen Wink

http://thpreview.wpengine.com/