Stadium plans passed subject to earlier payment phasing...

[Always a Shrimper]

Poker player Ron will have to show his hand, if as is hoped the Southend-on-Sea Developement Committee agree with the amended staged payments required.

He will then have to build or be shown as a busted flush.

This is more important, long term, then any Wembley trip.

I am hopeful as Sainsburys signed the joint letter to the Council outlining the circumstances of changed times. If they turn the proposal down, there will be no new football ground, Roots Hall and the rough area around it will not change and the London Road site will not be redeveloped.

I await in hope!

 

[BrettieAngell]

If they turn the proposal down we will go bust.

 

[bluebrian]

I could be wrong but even if it gets approval doesn't it have to go back to the government to get further approval?

 

[sealion]

I personally think it will be turned down, short changing the high street sweetener, a joke 3-sided ground that will never see the 4th side built (in my opinion)
After that, things will get desperate !!!

 

[Jam_Man]

I personally think it will be turned down, short changing the high street sweetener, a joke 3-sided ground that will never see the 4th side built (in my opinion)
After that, things will get desperate !!!

Never is a long time, but its hard to see exactly how it will be. We have no money at all, Ron Martin has no money at all. His plan as I see it is to get a hotel to build it for him, and withthe obvious lack of interest I dont see how its going to happen.

 

[C C Csiders]

From where I sat at Wembley on Saturday - overlooking the Royal Box - RM had the look of a very pre-occupied man, lavish hair, but pre-occupied.

 

[Smiffy]

All I want is security for my football club.

We need that 4th side built. Without it we have no more income streams than we currently have at RH. Less in fact. We will not survive without it.

I know in the covenant it states the 4th side must be built within 5 years of the commencement of stadium works. But what happens if it is not?.....are the council going to stop us using the stadium?....unlikely. So what exactly is the point in this particular covenant?

To me it seems Ron is doing the absolute minimum required time wise and money wise to get us off the RH site. With no clear path for future survival of our club. Where is the clarity?....

Will we pay rent?
What percentage (if any) of the various income streams will be filtered into the club accounts?
Will the stadium be owned by Ron or will it be passed over to a management company or the club itself?
What is the business plan to keep the club afloat, with less income streams than we have now, whilst we wait for this supposed 4th side?
Are there any interested parties willing to subsidise the cost of the 4th side?
Are there any interested parties signed up to take on a retail unit?
Is there still enough Sainsbury money to fully complete the 3 sides in the timescale advised?
What securities do the council have that they will receive the offered £3.5m?

So many unanswered questions and that is what bothers me. It is all well and good getting a new stadium. But at the moment where is the proof we will actually be more financially secure because of it?...because I for one cannot see it at present. With perhaps the exception of increased gate money. But even that is not guaranteed.

We simply need that 4th (main stand) or we die anyway. But how on earth can we survive up to 5 years without one?.....Ron does not have the money to finance it, that is clear. And with the current climate, are companies going to be queuing up to take on a £20m+ project with a bloke with a zero credit rating and zero trust rating?

And looking at it from the councils point of view. Yes, they need a football club in the town. They know that. But at the same time they need to protect the town itself. A proposed £3.5m is nice. But that is linked to a retail project which there is no call for to build at the moment. The High Street is on its knees. Retail is dying in the form of actual shops. Online is taking over. So where is the guarantee that 1) the Council will get the full £3.5m?.....2) Where is the guarantee that it will even be built? and 3) If it is built where is the guarantee it just wont be a nice looking retail area, with mostly empty units, just like many other High Streets and retail parks across the town and the UK?

The Council have a tough decision to make. It shouldn't of been this complicated. But because Ron has no money of his own it has ended up being one of the most complicated stadium projects in the UK I suspect. We should of been on-site a long time ago. The credit crunch excuse will not wash with me anymore. Many new stadiums have sprung up since.

The fact is we are stuck with a guy who cannot bankroll the project, cannot keep the club going and cannot afford to walk away. It is a **** situation for our club.

 

[teabee1]

Seems from the numerous posts on on this subject from our informed and ill informed colleagues - that either round way (approved or rejected) WE ARE DOOMED!

 

[sealion]

All I want is security for my football club.

We need that 4th side built. Without it we have no more income streams than we currently have at RH. Less in fact. We will not survive without it.

I know in the covenant it states the 4th side must be built within 5 years of the commencement of stadium works. But what happens if it is not?.....are the council going to stop us using the stadium?....unlikely. So what exactly is the point in this particular covenant?

To me it seems Ron is doing the absolute minimum required time wise and money wise to get us off the RH site. With no clear path for future survival of our club. Where is the clarity?....

Will we pay rent?
What percentage (if any) of the various income streams will be filtered into the club accounts?
Will the stadium be owned by Ron or will it be passed over to a management company or the club itself?
What is the business plan to keep the club afloat, with less income streams than we have now, whilst we wait for this supposed 4th side?
Are there any interested parties willing to subsidise the cost of the 4th side?
Are there any interested parties signed up to take on a retail unit?
Is there still enough Sainsbury money to fully complete the 3 sides in the timescale advised?
What securities do the council have that they will receive the offered £3.5m?

So many unanswered questions and that is what bothers me. It is all well and good getting a new stadium. But at the moment where is the proof we will actually be more financially secure because of it?...because I for one cannot see it at present. With perhaps the exception of increased gate money. But even that is not guaranteed.

We simply need that 4th (main stand) or we die anyway. But how on earth can we survive up to 5 years without one?.....Ron does not have the money to finance it, that is clear. And with the current climate, are companies going to be queuing up to take on a £20m+ project with a bloke with a zero credit rating and zero trust rating?

And looking at it from the councils point of view. Yes, they need a football club in the town. They know that. But at the same time they need to protect the town itself. A proposed £3.5m is nice. But that is linked to a retail project which there is no call for to build at the moment. The High Street is on its knees. Retail is dying in the form of actual shops. Online is taking over. So where is the guarantee that 1) the Council will get the full £3.5m?.....2) Where is the guarantee that it will even be built? and 3) If it is built where is the guarantee it just wont be a nice looking retail area, with mostly empty units, just like many other High Streets and retail parks across the town and the UK?

^^^^^^^^^^
In a nutshell

 

[TJC]

Only a foolish council would turn down this proposal. Money for nothing and possible regeneration of their town.
A few quid in the bank (£500k) before a turf is cut. If it doesn't happen for what ever reason, at least they have 500k. If they turn it down, they have a failing football club and a site that no-one else will develop in the current climate. Might as well have the 500k and possibly another £3m when complete.
Agree with the questions raised by Smithy though. However, how would we have less revenue than now? Only have the market as alternative revenue currently don't we? Perhaps the site of the 4th stand could me a market site :omg:

 

[Smiffy]

Only a foolish council would turn down this proposal. Money for nothing and possible regeneration of their town.
A few quid in the bank (£500k) before a turf is cut. If it doesn't happen for what ever reason, at least they have 500k. If they turn it down, they have a failing football club and a site that no-one else will develop in the current climate. Might as well have the 500k and possibly another £3m when complete.
Agree with the questions raised by Smithy though. However, how would we have less revenue than now? Only have the market as alternative revenue currently don't we? Perhaps the site of the 4th stand could me a market site :omg:

Fair question.

Taking RH for example. Yes it is falling down and it is a crap hole. But we do have a small amount of revenue generators like Exec Boxes and the Restaurant/Blues Lounge etc. I am sure that brings in a fair bit over the course of a season.

We wont have that at FF until the 4th side is built. Which could be up to 5 years, or never!

Yes we may have increased crowds, but will that be enough to keep us afloat whilst we wait for the 4th side and the extra income generators to be built?

That is what concerns me. This period between the 3 sides going up and the 4th side arriving. Will a 3 sided stadium without its main income artery be able to survive 5 years?...I have my doubts. That is why I want the Council to 110% make sure our club is covered for all eventualities. I mean christ, how many other new stadiums have you seen constructed in this manner, without it's main stand?...It is fricking ludicrous and a huge huge gamble for our club.

And I say again. The covenant states the 4th side is to be built within 5 years. Well what the frig happens if it is not?.....are the Council going to slap Rons hand?...the retail arm and Sainsbury store can be constructed before this is even built. Where is the security?...there is none. It is just a promise. The whole deal has been perfectly structured to suit Ron's lack of time and money. With no clear detailed benefits or security for our football club.

Of course it would be fantastic to have a new 22,000 seat venue for our club. I want that. We all want that. We need that. But, we also need to know our club will survive this move. Without that security, we may as well give up and turn off the life support machine now.

 

[sealion]

If a ground is going to be built that is difficult to get to but handy for Waitrose, then it could at least have 4 sides.
Easy access to Waitrose prawn sandwiches tho'

 

[CC51DAS]

Smiffy,

Do the Council have the option of deferring the decision ?

 

[Smiffy]

Smiffy,

Do the Council have the option of deferring the decision ?

Of course. They may want to change a few things in the S106 or may want further clarification on the proposed £3.5m payments.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are further delays.

On another note Cricko highlighted a news article in the Leigh Times to me earlier, which stated the best part of 1 in 5 High Street stores are now empty. Up from 1 in 8 a year or so ago. That must play on their minds a bit. Especially when their payments are linked to the retail development at FF.

 

[SUFCFANS]

I spoke to Steve Kavanagh after the game, he rightly wouldn't be drawn on any stadium talk, poiniting out 'that's Rons area'.. He did say the Councilors were in attandence at Wembley, but had bought their own tickets.. Hopefully the sight of 31k Shrimpers may have been enough for the to make a good desicion..

 

[Shrimperforlife]

I spoke to Steve Kavanagh after the game, he rightly wouldn't be drawn on any stadium talk, poiniting out 'that's Rons area'.. He did say the Councilors were in attandence at Wembley, but had bought their own tickets.. Hopefully the sight of 31k Shrimpers may have been enough for the to make a good desicion..

Lets hope ......

 

[Smiffy]

An interesting read below. After reading the lot I think the decision really could go either way. In fact I think reading it from a residents POV rather than a fan, there appears to be more questions and points against, than for the project now?....I am expecting another deferral...

http://minutes.southend.gov.uk/akssouthend/images/att22514.pdf

Development Control Committee Main Plans Report: DETE 13/035 Page 4 of 186 10/04/2013

Recommendation: That Members consider the additional information submitted by the applicant

Development Control Committee Main Plans Report: DETE 13/035 Page 5 of 186 10/04/2013

1 Background to the application

1.1 This application was deferred from a Special Development Control Committee on

20th December 2012.

1.2 Deferral was agreed to enable:

(a) all late representations to be considered;

(b) the Council's consultants to undertake a further assessment of the retail

impacts of the scheme on the Town Centre; and,

(c) further discussions with the applicant about the level of a Town Centre

Contribution (TCC) and the phasing of payment.

1.3 It should also be noted that representations received from the Town Centre

Partnership on 19th December 2012 raised the issue of a possible judicial in the

event that the application was approved.

1.4 The December 2012 Committee report and supplementary agenda as attached

as Appendix 1 to this report, and set out the full details of the case. These

reports should be read in tandem. This report will deals with matters which have

changed since the December 2012 Committee.

2.0 Retail Position

2.1 The applicant has provided additional information from his consultant Savills to

support their case regarding the impact of the development on the Town Centre.

This is set out in full at Appendix 2 to this report.

2.2 In response the Council’s retail consultant (GL Hearn) reviewed the additional

information and undertook additional work to assess the impact of the proposed

development on the town centre. (The paragraphs are numbered as in their

report), The report in full is included as Appendix 3 to this report. GL Hearn

reached the following conclusions:

“44. The proposals will divert a substantial amount of turnover away from the

town (circa £35m) and will have a significant trading impact upon the town

centre. Furthermore, having reviewed the existing health of the town centre it is

apparent that the town centre is in decline and whilst not a failing centre, there is

a need for caution and a greater potential susceptibility to impacts than was the

case when the appeal was granted. Past and recent retail investment in the

town centre has been relatively modest and looking forward planned retail

investment within the town centre is also limited albeit that the policy priority and

site allocations seek to deliver more retail in the town centre.”

“45. Against this context and taking a balanced view of the effects the retail

element of Fossett’s Farm will have upon trading and turnover; the vitality and

viability and public; and private sector in the town centre we consider that the

proposals cause a significant level of impact but do not give rise to significant

Development Control Committee Main Plans Report: DETE 13/035 Page 6 of 186 10/04/2013

adverse impacts.”

“46. It must be acknowledged that the wider benefits and outcomes of the

overall Fossett’s Farm development which the Inspector and Secretary of State

carefully assessed and balanced were found to outweigh the retail harm the

proposals were forecast to cause at the time the appeal was decided. An

important part of those deliberations and the overall planning balance were the

S106 monies that were to be contributed toward town centre regeneration

projects.”

“47. Given that the impacts are now more significant than when assessed

previously by the Planning Inspector and Secretary of State, we consider

that as the Town Centre Regeneration Contribution was a factor weighed in

the balance to come to the conclusion to approve the development in the

face of adverse retail impacts, it must be the case given the greater level of

impact forecasted now that the appropriateness of the S106 payment to

support town centre regeneration remains a valid requirement and indeed

the case for it is stronger now.”

2.3 Therefore, the starting point for members must be that :

·
The Fossetts Farm development would have a significant impact on the

Town Centre and, that

·
The impact on the Town Centre will be greater that at the time when the

Inspector considered that initial (06/01300/FUL) application.

2.4 The applicant has stated in a letter of 21
st March 2013:

“The Club and Sainsbury are still fully committed, but the developments must

make financial sense. At present viability is on a knife edge. To be deliverable,

the whole package must be financially viable. The scheme was conceived in an

entirely different world when the offer of £6m was made in 2007 and we, along

with many others, could not have foreseen the financial landscape of today.”

2.5 The viability of a scheme is a material consideration, for example paragraph 173

of the NPPF states in particular:

“Pursuing sustainable development requires careful attention to viability and

costs in plan-making and decision-taking. Plans should be deliverable.

Therefore, the sites and the scale of development identified in the plan should

not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability

to be developed viably is threatened. To ensure viability, the costs of any

requirements likely to be applied to development, such as requirements for

affordable housing, standards, infrastructure contributions or other requirements

should, when taking account of the normal cost of development and mitigation,

provide competitive returns to a willing land owner and willing developer to

enable the development to be deliverable.”

Development Control Committee Main Plans Report: DETE 13/035 Page 7 of 186 10/04/2013

2.6 What Members must consider as the decision makers in this case is whether

they have sufficient information before them to take a view about the viability of

the scheme. The information in respect of this matter is set out in the joint letter

dated 21st March from SUFC and Sainsbury (which is attached as Appendix 4).

There is also information relating to the commercial viability in the wider sense in

respect of the retail in Savills’ report (attached as Appendix 2). Members also

have before them a retail report prepared by GL Hearn on the retail aspects of

the scheme. The Committee considered this application at it’s meeting on 20th

December 2012, as a consequence of the discussion and views expressed by

Members on that occasion the applicant has provided the letter dated 21st March

2013 and revised it’s proposals for the TCC discussed out in the subsequent

paragraphs.

3.0
The Applicant’s Position

3.1 Following publication of GL Hearn’s report officers met with representatives of

both Southend United and Sainsbury. Following this meeting the applicant has

put forward a revised Town Centre Contribution offer. The full details of the offer

and the applicant’s case for making this officer are set out in their letter of 21
st

March 2013 which is appended as Appendix 4 to this report. In summary the

applicant has made an offer of a total of
£3.5m comprising phased payment as

follows:

·
£0.5m on material commencement of the retail park development

·
£0.5m on the opening for trade of the first unit

·
£0.5m on the opening for trade of the 6/7 unit

·
£1.0m on the opening for trade of the final unit

·
£1.0m on the opening for trade of the Hotel and the development

comprising the West Stand development.

·

3.2 The applicants have stated that:
“there is no longer £6m available to put towards

the regeneration of the town centre…the payment of £6m will make the scheme

unviable”.

3.3 It should be noted that officers recognise that economic circumstances are very

different to when the original application was granted planning permission, and

have some sympathy with the applicant’s position. Officers have invited the

applicant to provide a viability appraisal of the development in order to

demonstrate that the development is not viable as he has identified above, and

at what point it becomes unviable, so that the issue of the TCC can be

considered in that context. However, the applicant has failed to do so, stating

verbally that this would not be possible in the time available.

3.4 The applicant has reasserted the view “we did not at the time, or since, consider

that a £6m payment was necessary to mitigate the impact of the stadium and

retail park at Fossetts Farm”.

Development Control Committee Main Plans Report: DETE 13/035 Page 8 of 186 10/04/2013

3.5 Members should refer to the December 2012 Committee report (paras 4.148

onwards) which sets out advice from the Council’s legal adviser that the payment

was entirely lawful. The Legal opinion concludes that:

“
I do not share Mr Lockhart-Mummery’s [SUFC’s Counsel] view that seeking to

require payment of the Sum would of itself be “unlawful” in the context of the CIL

Regs, subject to proper justification. There may be an issue on what the

appropriate level of that payment may be having regard to changes in

circumstances since the inquiry in 2007. But so long as the Sum is calculated

with due regard to material factors, that would not render imposition of the

requirement unlawful.”

Therefore, Officers remain satisfied that the TCC is lawful and is in accordance

with the CIL Regulations.

3.6 With regard to the offer of phased payment, the applicant is under the

misapprehension that a consent exists which includes a phased payment of the

TCC. This is not the case. Although the issue of phased payments has been

discussed and accepted in principle by Members, no revised S.106 agreement

has ever been completed and therefore, currently permission exists only as set

out in the consent for 06/01300/FUL, that is:

“Prior to any part of the Development being brought into use the Owners shall

pay the Town Centre Regeneration Sum to the Council which shall be utilised by

the Council in accordance with the Third Schedule”

3.7 Thus Members also need to consider whether phasing of the TCC payment as

proposed is acceptable to them.

3.8 Given that the payment is made so as to mitigate against the impact of the

development on the Town Centre it is not unreasonable to consider a phasing

arrangement. It is reasonable to expect some payment to be made prior to the

opening of the retail park in order to offset the impact of the development.

3.9 If Members accept the Phasing arrangement as suggested by the applicant, they

should be aware that there is currently no absolute requirement for the applicant

to complete the West Stand, and that there is also an opportunity for the

applicant to avoid opening the last unit in the retail park to avoid paying the sum

due at that juncture. Thus they run the real risk that the actual total payment

could be significantly less than it appears (at £1.5 rather than £3.5m).

3.10 It should be noted that the recommendation at December 20
th DCC included the

recommendation that a phased payment be accepted as follows:

“
Town centre regeneration sum (£2.25m). £1.45m to be paid on commencement

of development and £800k to be paid on commencement Phase 2 (retail).”

Development Control Committee Main Plans Report: DETE 13/035 Page 9 of 186 10/04/2013

4.0 Conclusion

4.1 The judgement that members must make on this matter is whether the phased

contribution offered by the applicant, although less than that envisaged by

officers, is sufficient when weighted in the balance with other factors such as the

prospect of a new stadium being constructed and available in the timescale

proposed by the applicant (a matter that was given some weight by the Inspector

when considering the appeal) and any other benefits arising from the proposal.

This judgement needs to be made in the context of other measures and

safeguards in the S.106 Agreement to deal with matters such as phasing.

4.2 The original Town Centre Contribution that was offered by the applicant was

£6m. In December 2013, the applicant offered a phased contribution of £2.25m.

The applicant is currently offering to make a phased payment of £3.5m. The

judgement for Members is whether this sum, when weighed in the balance with

all the other consequences, is acceptable.

4.3 It Members accept the payment of £3.5m, they also need to consider whether

the phasing arrangement put forward by the applicant is acceptable.

5.0 Representations

Essex County Fire and Rescue –
additional fire hydrants will be require for the

development

Public Consultation

Neighbours have been reconsulted regarding the additional information.

One further letter of objection has been submitted since December DCC relating

to the following issues:

Development out of scale with the surrounding area

·
The development will cause major traffic congestion and gridlock

·
Noise

·
Disruption

·
The development is unnecessary [Officer comment: This is an

application for renewal of planning permission]

·
Will be detrimental to High Street trade

·
It is a large commercial development with a football pitch tagged onto it.

[Officer comment: The report at appendix 1 deals with the detailed issues

identified in this representation]

6.0 Recommendation

That Members consider that additional information submitted by the applicant.

 

[Pubey]

In a nutshell...

 

[Cricko]

I think it points out that the staged payments idea will not be accepted as it stands if the council take their lead from that. IMO it should not be either, as Smiffy has pointed out they/we need some guarantee that we will get a 4th stand at least.

 

[Smiffy]

Point 3.9 is exactly what I and others have been banging on about and is the most significant point for me:

3.9

If Members accept the Phasing arrangement as suggested by the applicant, they

should be aware that there is currently no absolute requirement for the applicant

to complete the West Stand, and that there is also an opportunity for the

applicant to avoid opening the last unit in the retail park to avoid paying the sum

due at that juncture. Thus they run the real risk that the actual total payment

could be significantly less than it appears (at £1.5m rather than £3.5m).