BBC Article - takeover completion still seems 2 months away

[londonblue]

The council has the final say on the Agreement for Lease, because that is a commercial contract between them and the Martins. That's the main thing to be concerned about at the moment because once that is signed, the consortium's purchase of the club can be finalised.

Obviously, the movement of the Fossetts plans onto the planning stage is another matter. I don't know what stage the drawing-up of the plans is at and yes, of course, there could be delays with objections and what not. I think it will ultimately get approved because the housing is needed and the council will do well out of it financially. Decision will rest with their planning committee though, and there are never any guarantees that they'll grant permission. Central government won't become involved unless the plans get called in, though, which is also a probability and would cause more delays.

I believe the consortium has some potential alternative plans to raise some funds in the event of delays or rejection of the Fossetts plans, and the failure of the £20m to appear. Not sure what they are though.

It'd be very naive of them to not have a contingency.

 

[Mad Cyril]

Yes, and from tomorrow, courtesy of our lovely friends at Cadent (company motto "Why dig up a road once when you can dig it up multiple times?") actually getting out of the town may well be another of them.

I have taken 2 weeks off

 

[getintoem]

I have no idea whether or not the suggestion of additional residential units at FF, in lieu of a new stadium on the site, have any credibility or whether it has a bearing on the takeover of SUFC by the consortium. From reading Medway Blue’s posts on this thread, it would appear it should not affect the takeover and I am very pleased if that is so. In case there are any remaining connections though I have two observations as follows:

1. The National Planning Policy Framework, upon which all local planning policies are based, takes a stance against development in the green belt unless exceptional circumstances can be justified. The same applies to adjustment of the green belt boundaries. The NPPF is very clear on its protection of the green belt, it states:

• When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

It goes on to cite certain exceptions which may be considered acceptable in the green belt, one of which is the provision of facilities for outdoor sport and/or outdoor recreation, so long as the facilities preserve the openness of the green belt. I suspect this exception was how permission for the new stadium was secured. Although, in respect of the approved scheme, preserving openness would be a stretch of the imagination in my opinion.

In the light of the above, I cannot see how planning consent could possibly be given for additional housing on the site without recourse to the secretary of state via the planning inspectorate. It would be flying in the face of the NPPF and set a precedent for the development of other green belt within the district and possibly beyond, unless exceptional circumstances I am failing to see can be revealed.

2. Central government’s directive for local authorities to each provide a set number of new housing units within their local plan was eased in December last year. The targets for the number of new dwellings set by central government had been considered mandatory because there were unfavourable consequences for planning authorities that failed to submit a local plan that complied with them. After a year of deliberation, in December last year the government back peddled on the issue and announced the targets were not mandatory but advisory. This reduces the onus on local authorities to meet the previously assessed target numbers and in turn weakens any argument Southend City Council may have had to support additional residential units at FF.

To summarise, I hope the Martins are not holding out on handing over the football club to the consortium on the basis of hoping to recoup the loss of RH development by getting permission for additional residential units at FF. I doubt this is the case because both the Martins and the consortium must have advisors imparting the above information to them. So, hopefully within the next few weeks we will hear that the consortium have complete control.

 

[Cricko]

I have no idea whether or not the suggestion of additional residential units at FF, in lieu of a new stadium on the site, have any credibility or whether it has a bearing on the takeover of SUFC by the consortium. From reading Medway Blue’s posts on this thread, it would appear it should not affect the takeover and I am very pleased if that is so. In case there are any remaining connections though I have two observations as follows:

1. The National Planning Policy Framework, upon which all local planning policies are based, takes a stance against development in the green belt unless exceptional circumstances can be justified. The same applies to adjustment of the green belt boundaries. The NPPF is very clear on its protection of the green belt, it states:

• When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

It goes on to cite certain exceptions which may be considered acceptable in the green belt, one of which is the provision of facilities for outdoor sport and/or outdoor recreation, so long as the facilities preserve the openness of the green belt. I suspect this exception was how permission for the new stadium was secured. Although, in respect of the approved scheme, preserving openness would be a stretch of the imagination in my opinion.

In the light of the above, I cannot see how planning consent could possibly be given for additional housing on the site without recourse to the secretary of state via the planning inspectorate. It would be flying in the face of the NPPF and set a precedent for the development of other green belt within the district and possibly beyond, unless exceptional circumstances I am failing to see can be revealed.

2. Central government’s directive for local authorities to each provide a set number of new housing units within their local plan was eased in December last year. The targets for the number of new dwellings set by central government had been considered mandatory because there were unfavourable consequences for planning authorities that failed to submit a local plan that complied with them. After a year of deliberation, in December last year the government back peddled on the issue and announced the targets were not mandatory but advisory. This reduces the onus on local authorities to meet the previously assessed target numbers and in turn weakens any argument Southend City Council may have had to support additional residential units at FF.

To summarise, I hope the Martins are not holding out on handing over the football club to the consortium on the basis of hoping to recoup the loss of RH development by getting permission for additional residential units at FF. I doubt this is the case because both the Martins and the consortium must have advisors imparting the above information to them. So, hopefully within the next few weeks we will hear that the consortium have complete control.

To summarise, I hope the Martins are not holding out on handing over the football club to the consortium on the basis of hoping to recoup the loss of RH development by getting permission for additional residential units at FF. I doubt this is the case because both the Martins and the consortium must have advisors imparting the above information to them. So, hopefully within the next few weeks we will hear that the consortium have complete control.


I think that is exactly the case.

 

[Holy Joe]

Didn't we establish FF isn't green belt

 

[getintoem]

Didn't we establish FF isn't green belt

If that is the case ignore everything in my post above. I was always under the impression that most of the proposed development site is green belt. Indeed, apart from two thirds of the B&L site, the Southend local plan map has it hatched green indicating it is green belt.

 

[Holy Joe]

If that is the case ignore everything in my post above. I was always under the impression that most of the proposed development site is green belt. Indeed, apart from two thirds of the B&L site, the Southend local plan map has it hatched green indicating it is green belt.

A brief Google search seems that there was an attempt to make it green belt in the 90's but this was overturned by the government. I think the training ground is green belt, but that is in Rochford and unaffected by this anyway

 

[sufc4life21]

This needs sorting out sooner rather than later! I find it ridiculous it's dragged on this long but then again the council aren't exactly the most proactive and are more interested in there premier league sides than actually getting the city actual football club out of the mire, our demise is mainly down to the rat but this so called council haven't helped and now the potential new owners are footing the bill they probably think its acceptable to put our ownership issue to the back burner..... I do wonder how long the consortium will keep putting in despite not owning the club, must be testing there patience now. If by August this situation isn't resolved then we are probably in for another ****e season of uncertainty.

 

[Holy Joe]

A brief Google search seems that there was an attempt to make it green belt in the 90's but this was overturned by the government. I think the training ground is green belt, but that is in Rochford and unaffected by this anyway

Ive run out of time to look at this in more detail - TBH I'm confused, I've seen web pages that say it's green belt and others that say it's allocated for development! Will check the original planning application documents when I get the time as I suspect that will give a definitive view

 

[getintoem]

Ive run out of time to look at this in more detail - TBH I'm confused, I've seen web pages that say it's green belt and others that say it's allocated for development! Will check the original planning application documents when I get the time as I suspect that will give a definitive view

You are right, this is a bit confusing. However, I am now certain you were correct in stating it is no longer green belt.

I found online an informal development brief, produced by Southend Council, relating to the site immediately to the east of the FF site we have all been interested in. The development brief is undated but I think it was produced in 2016. In the Planning Policy Context section of the document it shows an extract of the 1994 Local Development Plan map, including Martin's land and it is all indicated as green belt. Then, in March 1999, a 'Second Alteration Plan' was adopted which removed the land from green belt but designated it as 'Safeguarded Land' subject to a new planning policy G1a. Although it was removed from green belt, the intention was to not allow any development on it until after 2001. The planning inspector appointed to oversee the Second Alteration recommended that the whole FF site could be suitable for a number of possible future uses but that no development should be permitted that would prejudice or limit options for comprehensive redevelopment. Accordingly, policy G1a was couched in those terms.

The Core Strategy was adopted in December 2007 and in a diagram that shows key growth and regeneration areas, FF was indicated as an Industrial/Employment area. Policy KP1 of the Core Strategy designated FF as a Priority Urban Area and expressed support for the relocation of Southend United to the area. The brief document then shows an extract of the adopted version of the policies map dated June 2015 and as far as I can tell, the land still has its 'Safeguarded' status and it clearly states that policy G1a remained in place at that time pending the Local Plan review.

The latest Local Plan map I have found shows no specific designation for FF, so I guess providing any revised proposal that excludes the football stadium shows a comprehensive development and meets other planning criteria it will be met with a favourable response from the Council. If you wish to view the document referred to above just put Fossetts Farm Development Brief into Google and it should link you to it.

 

[rlb999]

It bothers me that this deal isn’t done, and seemingly won’t be for some weeks yet.

 

[tommy tucker]

It bothers me that this deal isn’t done, and seemingly won’t be for some weeks yet.

very good thing for the club is worth waiting for Getting Martin out of office may take a little longer .But get rid of him is a must for the good of Southend united .Before pre season .

 

[Medway Blue]

You are right, this is a bit confusing. However, I am now certain you were correct in stating it is no longer green belt.

I found online an informal development brief, produced by Southend Council, relating to the site immediately to the east of the FF site we have all been interested in. The development brief is undated but I think it was produced in 2016. In the Planning Policy Context section of the document it shows an extract of the 1994 Local Development Plan map, including Martin's land and it is all indicated as green belt. Then, in March 1999, a 'Second Alteration Plan' was adopted which removed the land from green belt but designated it as 'Safeguarded Land' subject to a new planning policy G1a. Although it was removed from green belt, the intention was to not allow any development on it until after 2001. The planning inspector appointed to oversee the Second Alteration recommended that the whole FF site could be suitable for a number of possible future uses but that no development should be permitted that would prejudice or limit options for comprehensive redevelopment. Accordingly, policy G1a was couched in those terms.

The Core Strategy was adopted in December 2007 and in a diagram that shows key growth and regeneration areas, FF was indicated as an Industrial/Employment area. Policy KP1 of the Core Strategy designated FF as a Priority Urban Area and expressed support for the relocation of Southend United to the area. The brief document then shows an extract of the adopted version of the policies map dated June 2015 and as far as I can tell, the land still has its 'Safeguarded' status and it clearly states that policy G1a remained in place at that time pending the Local Plan review.

The latest Local Plan map I have found shows no specific designation for FF, so I guess providing any revised proposal that excludes the football stadium shows a comprehensive development and meets other planning criteria it will be met with a favourable response from the Council. If you wish to view the document referred to above just put Fossetts Farm Development Brief into Google and it should link you to it.

Excellent, well found!

I posted along these lines a couple of months ago, and @cockles43 has been banging the drum for ages too, but I've never found the time to go digging for the document again.

I'm pretty sure FF wasn't designated as green belt land in the last local plan. I think it's now for light industrial/residential/recreational use. So no exception needed anymore.

 

[Shrimper]

very good thing for the club is worth waiting for Getting Martin out of office may take a little longer .But get rid of him is a must for the good of Southend united .Before pre season .

There's a real risk I fear it won't be done before pre-season

 

[fbm]

To summarise, I hope the Martins are not holding out on handing over the football club to the consortium on the basis of hoping to recoup the loss of RH development by getting permission for additional residential units at FF.

If, as it may now seem, that FF isn't green belt then my fears are slightly allayed in one direction. However, I think the above is exactly the situation. Thanks for finding out @Holy Joe and it does now make sense as to why the consortium took such a leap of faith and started funding the club when there was a huge issue to overcome (which now seems to be a non issue).

However, playing Devil's Advocate, RM is currently in a position whereby if he completes on the deal BEFORE he gets the permission on FF, he may lose everything. Why on earth would anyone in their right mind do that? He currently owns (or stands to benefit from) two huge pieces of land which could be developed (in the worst case scenario of the club going under, say.).

As far as I'm aware, a council cannot bind a future council and we are due a government change within the next few months. The country is currently treading water and there is no certainty with anything. I get that everyone may want the same thing, but whether it will happen is another matter.

So, hopefully, the council will agree the leasing issue, RM will put the plans in, they will be approved and then the deal will complete. This could take some time however.

But, if the new FF plans aren't approved, I am struggling to come up with a reason why the Martin family will complete on the deal, as that would mean them giving up tens of millions of pounds and ending up with potentially nothing.

And I doubt any of us would do that, to be honest.

 

[CaptainSmudger]

When I put my vote in I was surprised to see 76% of zoners live outside Southend.

 

[davewebbsbrain]

That's the Council for you.Two bob politicians !

I've checked the current councillors for Southend. There is a Tony, a Richard, Lydia amongst others but no bob

 

[Holy Joe]

If, as it may now seem, that FF isn't green belt then my fears are slightly allayed in one direction. However, I think the above is exactly the situation. Thanks for finding out @Holy Joe and it does now make sense as to why the consortium took such a leap of faith and started funding the club when there was a huge issue to overcome (which now seems to be a non issue).

However, playing Devil's Advocate, RM is currently in a position whereby if he completes on the deal BEFORE he gets the permission on FF, he may lose everything. Why on earth would anyone in their right mind do that? He currently owns (or stands to benefit from) two huge pieces of land which could be developed (in the worst case scenario of the club going under, say.).

As far as I'm aware, a council cannot bind a future council and we are due a government change within the next few months. The country is currently treading water and there is no certainty with anything. I get that everyone may want the same thing, but whether it will happen is another matter.

So, hopefully, the council will agree the leasing issue, RM will put the plans in, they will be approved and then the deal will complete. This could take some time however.

But, if the new FF plans aren't approved, I am struggling to come up with a reason why the Martin family will complete on the deal, as that would mean them giving up tens of millions of pounds and ending up with potentially nothing.

And I doubt any of us would do that, to be honest.

Everything the council, Ron and the consortium have said is that deal to sell club completes after the financing/leasing agreement is signed between council and Ron - no need to wait for planning permission to be granted.

I wonder what conditions are in that financing/leasing agreement if PP is not granted - that may give answers on why Ron is prepared to complete at that stage.

 

[WickfordShrimper]

When I put my vote in I was surprised to see 76% of zoners live outside Southend.

Always been the case

Most of our support comes from outside the borough.

People of Southend have the seafront etc

In the 1980s Uncle Vic Jobson idea of moving the club to Basildon was not a foolish as some thought at the time.

 

[fbm]

Everything the council, Ron and the consortium have said is that deal to sell club completes after the financing/leasing agreement is signed between council and Ron - no need to wait for planning permission to be granted.

I wonder what conditions are in that financing/leasing agreement if PP is not granted - that may give answers on why Ron is prepared to complete at that stage.

I haven't heard that, but have no reason to doubt you. I had hoped I'd missed something so you seem to have put me right, so thank you.