Kop Faithful update on the stadium issue and Anfield Regeneration

[The Acolyte]

What needs to happen is for LLC to prove they are not trying to be throwing obstacles at Liverpool FC all the time and actually sit down with the club and work out a course of action which ultimately will not only benefit the club but the area as well.

 

 

Exactly. They claimed regeneration of the Anfield area and North Liverpool was the priority at the centre of any Stanley Park plans but now they are trying to force the club to pull out of the area altogether leaving it to rot. Instead of being the catalyst for urban regeneration (saving them a job) they now intend using the club as the centrepiece of the Liverpool Waters redevelpment scheme to attract business (saving them a job).

 

The supposed obstacles to redevelopment are surmountable but the council want to make them insurmountable since it suits their agenda.

 

What is this Liverpool Waters redevelopment scheme? If (and its slowly becoming a when if this Liverpool waters thing is true) LFC leaves the Anfield area then that place will be at the end of its live. The match day revenue from both home and away visitors is whats keeping it alive. Do you think the attendance from that shower across the road will keep things ticking over? Think again.

[WaltonRed]

The councils whole belief seems to be instead of doing up exsisting areas they let then sink in to the abyss, knock it down and build something brand new.

 

Wouldnt suprise me if they wanted us to go to Liverpool Waters to let it happen.

[LFC64]

The councils whole belief seems to be instead of doing up exsisting areas they let then sink in to the abyss, knock it down and build something brand new.

 

Wouldnt suprise me if they wanted us to go to Liverpool Waters to let it happen.

 

Just received below respectful and informaive reply from Mr Arrogant himself...

 

Dear Mr Sharp

What utter nonsense you spout, do not believe everything you read. I have no intention of either encouraging or forcing

LFC into doing anything. As a commercial venture it is their choice not mine to take the decisions they need to make.

This Council are putting no obstacles I repeat for you NO OBSTACLES in the way, those obstacles that exist are national

policy issues on planning and nothing to do with this Local Authority, indeed LFC have praised my attempts to work with

them and they are on record saying as such. For the record and to set the record straight and to stop you talking tripe

I have no knowledge that Peel have ever been interested in LFC,EFC or jointly wanting them to relocate to the Central docks

on the contrary Peel are not interested in this, could I ask that before you send me future e-mails you at least check your facts.

 

Best wishes

 

 

Councillor Joe Anderson

[The Acolyte]

The councils whole belief seems to be instead of doing up exsisting areas they let then sink in to the abyss, knock it down and build something brand new.

 

Wouldnt suprise me if they wanted us to go to Liverpool Waters to let it happen.

 

Thinking about it, it makes perfect sense, easier to skim some cash for yourself. When u build something from scratch you have to all that consulting lark and all that other building stuff, lot of money changing hands. Won't get that much if its just a regeneration.

[Code]

This Council are putting no obstacles I repeat for you NO OBSTACLES in the way, those obstacles that exist are national

policy issues on planning and nothing to do with this Local Authority, indeed LFC have praised my attempts to work with

them and they are on record saying as such.

 

And this is my point.

 

When there are rules and regulations that stop us from redeveloping Anfield, why waste time on it?

 

I doubt these rules will be changed to suit the club just because the current owners see this as the cheapest way to extend our capacity.

 

Can you imagine the lawsuits across the country from those who had to fit their plans into current rules and regulations, even if it gave them extra costs and not the optimal solutions?

[Dan Vito Corleone]

Small time, smug response from Anderson. But I'd expect nothing else. I don't believe a word he says.

[Graham Smith]

He'll have to backtrack on this presumably when the Peel evidence is produced.

[Wor Horse]

That Anderson is a typical blueshite prick.

[redasever]

...those obstacles that exist are national policy issues on planning...

 

 

?

 

.

[redasever]

...those obstacles that exist are national

policy issues on planning ...

 

Well I've had a good look for those national policies and I can't find them. So I asked some people who ought to know and they can't find them.

 

So I think this is where we are.

 

.

[Guest alantkayll]

Obstacles are still in the way, Anderson is fighting for ground share and will not let it go. Horrible twat. A piece in the Echo tonight by Andy Burnham basically says the council will do all they can for ground share.

 

Lets see what fat chops says tomorrow. Everton cunt!!!

[Vivaldo]

Just received below respectful and informaive reply from Mr Arrogant himself...

 

Dear Mr Sharp

What utter nonsense you spout, do not believe everything you read. I have no intention of either encouraging or forcing

LFC into doing anything. As a commercial venture it is their choice not mine to take the decisions they need to make.

This Council are putting no obstacles I repeat for you NO OBSTACLES in the way, those obstacles that exist are national

policy issues on planning and nothing to do with this Local Authority, indeed LFC have praised my attempts to work with

them and they are on record saying as such. For the record and to set the record straight and to stop you talking tripe

I have no knowledge that Peel have ever been interested in LFC,EFC or jointly wanting them to relocate to the Central docks

on the contrary Peel are not interested in this, could I ask that before you send me future e-mails you at least check your facts.

 

Best wishes

 

 

Councillor Joe Anderson

 

How the hell did this CUNT get elected absolutely no diplomacy what so ever but you clearly hit a nerve. Excellent!

[RoboRiise]

Just received below respectful and informaive reply from Mr Arrogant himself...

 

Dear Mr Sharp

What utter nonsense you spout, do not believe everything you read. I have no intention of either encouraging or forcing

LFC into doing anything. As a commercial venture it is their choice not mine to take the decisions they need to make.

This Council are putting no obstacles I repeat for you NO OBSTACLES in the way, those obstacles that exist are national

policy issues on planning and nothing to do with this Local Authority, indeed LFC have praised my attempts to work with

them and they are on record saying as such. For the record and to set the record straight and to stop you talking tripe

I have no knowledge that Peel have ever been interested in LFC,EFC or jointly wanting them to relocate to the Central docks

on the contrary Peel are not interested in this, could I ask that before you send me future e-mails you at least check your facts.

 

Best wishes

 

 

Councillor Joe Anderson

 

 

 

Astonishing response from someone holding public office. Absolutely astonishing.

[xerxes]

Well I've had a good look for those national policies and I can't find them. So I asked some people who ought to know and they can't find them.

There is no evidence of any obstacles placed by the Council.

 

In order to expand the club needs land it does not own - not the Council's fault.

 

The massing and elevation of a new stand , on a restricted site, is subject to planning law - not the Council's fault.

 

CPO's have to be legitimately obtained and are subject to appeal if opponents feel that they are being illegally sought - not the Council's fault.

 

Any Council land sold to the Cub has to be sold subject to best value which could include the ransom value - that is their legal obligation.

 

If the Club feels that the Council is not co-operating it should say what the problem is. If the Club wants to defer a decision on the move/redevelopment it should say so, and not use the Council as a human shield.

 

Anderson's reply was unprofessional - but he probably does get pissed off by the uninformed brickbats from some, no excuse, but understandable. When the Council has offered POS to redevelop, granted a windfall planning consent on Anfield which will prove valuable for the future and granted planning and some STILL complain he probably asks himself what more the Council can do.

[Guest alantkayll]

There is no evidence of any obstacles placed by the Council.

 

In order to expand the club needs land it does not own - not the Council's fault.

 

The massing and elevation of a new stand , on a restricted site, is subject to planning law - not the Council's fault.

 

CPO's have to be legitimately obtained and are subject to appeal if opponents feel that they are being illegally sought - not the Council's fault.

 

Any Council land sold to the Cub has to be sold subject to best value which could include the ransom value - that is their legal obligation.

 

If the Club feels that the Council is not co-operating it should say what the problem is. If the Club wants to defer a decision on the move/redevelopment it should say so, and not use the Council as a human shield.

 

Anderson's reply was unprofessional - but he probably does get pissed off by the uninformed brickbats from some, no excuse, but understandable. When the Council has offered POS to redevelop, granted a windfall planning consent on Anfield which will prove valuable for the future and granted planning and some STILL complain he probably asks himself what more the Council can do.

 

Your talking shite. Ask the pricks who are asking for obscene amounts of money for a property. The council are twats and only want ground-share, and Anderson is a twat hiding behind Michael Shields.

 

I'd front the fat twat. Fuckin liar he is, so fuck off defending him and an Everton run council.

[redasever]

There is no evidence of any obstacles placed by the Council.

 

In order to expand the club needs land it does not own - not the Council's fault.

 

The massing and elevation of a new stand , on a restricted site, is subject to planning law - not the Council's fault.

 

CPO's have to be legitimately obtained and are subject to appeal if opponents feel that they are being illegally sought - not the Council's fault.

 

Any Council land sold to the Cub has to be sold subject to best value which could include the ransom value - that is their legal obligation.

 

If the Club feels that the Council is not co-operating it should say what the problem is. If the Club wants to defer a decision on the move/redevelopment it should say so, and not use the Council as a human shield.

 

Anderson's reply was unprofessional - but he probably does get pissed off by the uninformed brickbats from some, no excuse, but understandable. When the Council has offered POS to redevelop, granted a windfall planning consent on Anfield which will prove valuable for the future and granted planning and some STILL complain he probably asks himself what more the Council can do.

 

We'll pass over the fact that it was Warren Bradley's council that did all those things and return to the point. There is no national planning policy which says you cannot redevelop Anfield. There isn't.

 

.

[109_ultra]

The decision to grant a planning application rests with the Local Authority. We can only infer that an application has not been lodged to redevelop anfield because its probably doomed to failure, for a lack of authority support.

 

The private individuals holding the club to ransom for selling cannot show any legitimate reason that property should not be subject to a CPO. There is a greater interest in the local area flourishing as a result of the redevelopment than there is in one individual recovering a disporportionate amount of money for an empty house.

 

A lot of excuses being made to absolve the council of any responsibility for our predicament, when really they hold all the cards.

[109_ultra]

Just received below respectful and informaive reply from Mr Arrogant himself...

 

Dear Mr Sharp

What utter nonsense you spout, do not believe everything you read. I have no intention of either encouraging or forcing

LFC into doing anything. As a commercial venture it is their choice not mine to take the decisions they need to make.

This Council are putting no obstacles I repeat for you NO OBSTACLES in the way, those obstacles that exist are national

policy issues on planning and nothing to do with this Local Authority, indeed LFC have praised my attempts to work with

them and they are on record saying as such. For the record and to set the record straight and to stop you talking tripe

I have no knowledge that Peel have ever been interested in LFC,EFC or jointly wanting them to relocate to the Central docks

on the contrary Peel are not interested in this, could I ask that before you send me future e-mails you at least check your facts.

 

Best wishes

 

 

Councillor Joe Anderson

 

Joe Anderson....a real man of the people :thumbup:

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

I think this pretty much proves Joe Anderson is lets say being a bit untruthful.

 

The housing minster which I would put as pretty much national.

 

Planning, building and the environment

Shapps calls on Liverpool Football Club not to score an own goal on redevelopment

 

<table summary="Principal information about the news item"> <colgroup><col class="w100px"> <col> </colgroup><tbody><tr> <th scope="row">Published</th> <td>20 August 2011</td> </tr> </tbody></table> Housing Minister Grant Shapps has today written to Liverpool Football Club, calling on them not to score an own goal by delaying a decision on their future home.

In a letter to Ian Ayre, Managing Director of the club, Mr Shapps said that the future regeneration of Anfield, one of Liverpool's most deprived communities, rests on the critical decision which is still to be made by the club: whether to begin work on expanding and redeveloping the existing stadium on Anfield Road or build a brand new one in nearby Stanley Park.

Mr Shapps pointed to his recent visit to the city, where he saw first hand the need for regeneration and investment, and how residents of the area feel stranded after waiting for years to see work begin.

The Minister said that a new or redeveloped stadium would not only allow the club to increase their capacity and improve facilities for players and fans, but would lead to significant regeneration in an area of high deprivation. He said it would lead to new homes, schools and a health centre in an area of the country that badly needs these amenities.

And he said that as well as driving economic growth and contributing to the local economy, a clear decision by the Club could contribute to a resurgence in private sector enterprise and help support more people back into work.

Mr Shapps said that as a significant presence in the community and a prominent local business, Liverpool Football Club had a responsibility to its local community and an important role to play in driving growth and improving the social and physical quality of the area.

Grant Shapps said:

"On my visit last month I saw for myself the impact that the decision yet to be taken by Liverpool Football Club will have on the area, and how much the local people in Anfield need certainty and a definite decision on the future of their neighbourhood.

"In the interests of the wider community, the club needs to make a swift decision on whether they plan to build a new stadium or stay where they are - either way the residents around Anfield deserve to know. The delay is causing unnecessary uncertain for the community. Local residents are living in limbo.

"The council has already asked for extra time for the lease on Stanley Park by six months to allow the club time to explore all options, but the quicker Liverpool FC makes a decision, the more options they have. It's down to them not to score an own goal by delaying a decision on the club's future home once more and ensure the council never has to walk alone in their attempts to regenerate the local area."

That pretty much confirms theres no obsticles nationally over the redeveloping.

 

It does however show we havent applied to do it.Which now makes me think why did John Henry say a while back about all the red tape involved in re developing the ground,seems to me of come from the council telling him this.

 

 

Theres no way the housing minster would say about the re developing of the ground,and then for us to go down that route and then being told of all this red tape crap.

 

Shapps calls on Liverpool Football Club not to score an own goal on redevelopment - Planning, building and the environment - Department for Communities and Local Government

[Einch]

There is no evidence of any obstacles placed by the Council.

 

In order to expand the club needs land it does not own - not the Council's fault.

 

The massing and elevation of a new stand , on a restricted site, is subject to planning law - not the Council's fault.

 

CPO's have to be legitimately obtained and are subject to appeal if opponents feel that they are being illegally sought - not the Council's fault.

 

Any Council land sold to the Cub has to be sold subject to best value which could include the ransom value - that is their legal obligation.

 

If the Club feels that the Council is not co-operating it should say what the problem is. If the Club wants to defer a decision on the move/redevelopment it should say so, and not use the Council as a human shield.

 

Anderson's reply was unprofessional - but he probably does get pissed off by the uninformed brickbats from some, no excuse, but understandable. When the Council has offered POS to redevelop, granted a windfall planning consent on Anfield which will prove valuable for the future and granted planning and some STILL complain he probably asks himself what more the Council can do.

 

What a load of absolute crap. The club should reveal what the council have told them off the record? The office of the deputy prime-minister had final say on the approval we currently have around Stanley Park so again any view of council benevolence towards our club is laughable. The council are a bunch of Blueshite cunts and Burnham can suck my cock the fucking bitch.

[redasever]

The decision to grant a planning application rests with the Local Authority. We can only infer that an application has not been lodged to redevelop anfield because its probably doomed to failure, for a lack of authority support.

 

The private individuals holding the club to ransom for selling cannot show any legitimate reason that property should not be subject to a CPO. There is a greater interest in the local area flourishing as a result of the redevelopment than there is in one individual recovering a disporportionate amount of money for an empty house.

 

A lot of excuses being made to absolve the council of any responsibility for our predicament, when really they hold all the cards.

 

 

Tain’t the way it works. There’s policy and there’s applications. If the application fits the policy - consent. If it doesn’t - refusal. Local residents don’t have to do anything.

 

The club has to show council that it would be in the greater public interest to compel council to exercise CPO. And council should be listening.

 

Council spend more than they get on basic services. The balance comes from reserves. Shapps wants them to use those reserves to replace the £120m government has taken from them. To do that council must cut services.

 

So Council has no money and a duty to provide housing under The Housing Acts. They see themselves in a difficult position. Perhaps they just have a lack of imagination. They can’t see that redevelopment works for them.

 

The tangible benefits of a new stadium to the community are some shops and a few offices the club doesn't even have to build and a sports centre. A redevelopment has to do something about the streets around the ground - a direct and tangible benefit

 

.

Edited October 1, 2011 by redasever

[xerxes]

What a load of absolute crap. The club should reveal what the council have told them off the record? The office of the deputy prime-minister had final say on the approval we currently have around Stanley Park so again any view of council benevolence towards our club is laughable. The council are a bunch of Blueshite cunts and Burnham can suck my cock the fucking bitch.

 

On the contrary, all that I said was factually correct.

 

The reason why the SP decision reached the Office of the DP was because using POS like this is a contentious one, recommended by the Council.

[redasever]

On the contrary, all that I said was factually correct.

 

The reason why the SP decision reached the Office of the DP was because using POS like this is a contentious one, recommended by the Council.

 

Oooh, you're so clever. It's so clever, it doesn't make sense. BTW it's ODPM.

 

Always a pleasure.

 

.

[xerxes]

The decision to grant a planning application rests with the Local Authority. We can only infer that an application has not been lodged to redevelop anfield because its probably doomed to failure, for a lack of authority support.

 

The private individuals holding the club to ransom for selling cannot show any legitimate reason that property should not be subject to a CPO. There is a greater interest in the local area flourishing as a result of the redevelopment than there is in one individual recovering a disporportionate amount of money for an empty house.

 

A lot of excuses being made to absolve the council of any responsibility for our predicament, when really they hold all the cards.

You would be wrong to infer that.

 

A planning application that does not meet planning standards is doomed to failure - that is no fault of the Council.

 

No-one (not least the club) has suggested that a CPO could be obtained.

 

There is virtually no benefit to the local area in the limited revelopment of Anfield. the immediate neighbours may indeed feel worse off as a result of increased massing /elevation. There is considerably greater benefit to the area by a SP/AP redevelopment.

 

The reasons why landowners may not want to sell are many. Some may simply want to stay where they are- it is their home. Some may actively want to see the improvements that a SP/AP redevelopment may bring. Some may be owner occupiers wishing to ransom the club. Some may be speculators wanting to ransom the club. The case that someone living in their home should be forced to sell to make a foreign investor richer is a poor one. The Club have been bad neighbours in many respects. The surrounding area has been allowed to deteriorate by piecemeal purchase by the club and there have been rumours of third parties attempting/succeeding in buying up property on the club's behalf without disclosing whom they were acting for.

 

There is no evidence of the Council having been guilty of anything. It is the Club, not the Council, who hold the cards. If FSG do not want to front up the capital required for a new stadium, they should say so. If there are specific impediments to a redevelopment they should say what they.

 

My guess? They don't want to put the capital up for a new stadium. A redevelopment of Anfield on land owned by the Club is relatively a lot of work for not much return. An in situ redevelopment of Anfield using acquired land is uncertain because firstly the ownerships may not be secured, and secondly if they are, the massing and elevation of the new stands may not get planning permisssion.

[xerxes]

Oooh, you're so clever. It's so clever, it doesn't make sense. BTW it's ODPM.

 

Always a pleasure.

If there is anything which you do not understand - just ask.

 

Thank you for your compliment on my cleverness, but there is nothing particualrly clever about some pretty simple facts.