Kop Faithful update on the stadium issue and Anfield Regeneration

[Seemann]

According to Alan arena own 93 of the houses, but who is arena?

 

Sorry for my questions, but would just like to know more on this as the discussion is really significant for our future.

[redasever]

According to Alan arena own 93 of the houses, but who is arena?

 

Sorry for my questions, but would just like to know more on this as the discussion is really significant for our future.

 

Arena Housing Association - a not-for-profit agency of the council responsible for the 'delivery' of affordable housing in the area.

 

.

[lifetime fan]

Anyone know which architects the club have employed?

[redasever]

Anyone know which architects the club have employed?

 

I imagine they've asked AFL (if anyone) to help with feasibility studies but haven't appointed anyone for the real deal. Much as they've admired the Allianz Arena (Hertzog de Meuron), FSG have a history of using HOK Sports (Populous)

 

.

[Antynwa]

Arena Housing and Liverpool City Council have applied for planning permission to rennovate numerous houses on Lothair Road (Back of the Main Stand).

[Seemann]

Arena Housing Association - a not-for-profit agency of the council responsible for the 'delivery' of affordable housing in the area.

 

.

 

Cheers mate

[Seemann]

Arena Housing and Liverpool City Council have applied for planning permission to rennovate numerous houses on Lothair Road (Back of the Main Stand).

 

Is this recent events to mess with our plans or a long time ago?

[Cliff T. Beast]

I'm not gonna pretend to know about the ins and outs of Council legislation, all it seems to appear to me is that Everton are too skint to build/develop and the council are hoping they can get us to pay for a spanking new stadium to for them to use.

 

If this is the case they can fuck right off. Even if it was 50/50 split financially the last thing I want is to be sharing a stadium with that lot across the park.

[Antynwa]

It's a relatively 'new' application thats been put in, you can see what it entails by going on the LCC planning explorer.

[xerxes]

I make no assumptions about what you do or don’t know – you would be wise to do the same.

 

FSG have done a decent job to date. Your faith in Investment consortia is touching.

 

I have neither called nor believe anyone to be stupid.

 

Who said anything about only the Main Stand and only 5,000 seats? No-one.

 

For practical purposes redevelopment at Anfield is only efficient on two sides, the Main Stand and Anfield Rd. The area behind the Annie Rd End is cleared. I am not aware of any ransom issues here. The issue of land/house acquisition is behind the main stand.

 

The Main Stand currently holds around 12,000. A redevelopment in situ (Main Stand/ Annie Rd) was estimated first in the Morgan era and subsequently by Parry to sit at around 55,000, assuming anextra 4,500 odd seats at the Annie Rd and 5,500 odd on the Main Stand site – hence the reference to 5000. I am aware of nothing which has subsequently changed.

 

I hope that helps.

 

Expenditure of any public funds (by no means certain) would be in the compelling public interest in respect of wider area regeneration.

 

60000 at Anfield would create just as many long term jobs as 60000 in a new stadium and even the planners’ report described the economic benefits and employment prospects from the Anfield Plaza as ‘uncertain’.

 

The part redevelopment of Anfield provides for no public fund expenditure nor does it contribute to regeneration – which is the point.

 

A 60k redevelopment does not provide the same short or long term employment or investment benefits as a new stadium. A redevelopment would take in half the ground. A new stadium provides for 360 degree modernisation and facilities. The conference/banqueting amenity value would be more than double.

 

Anfield Plaza creates 42,000 sq ft of retail plus housing, around 200 plus jobs, all perfectly clear in the consent, the original of which I have seen. Partial redevelopment creates a handful more.

 

Don’t tell me what I agree to,.... a redevelopment must deal with the surrounding streets. Properties have to be acquired. The club must deal with properties it’s already got. The scheme must deal with the council properties.

 

Any do-able scheme must compensate owners and re-home those dispossessed and provide 10% extra for ‘moving allowance’. Just read the provisions within the Anfield/Breckfield Heartlands HMRI as an illustration and engage your brain before opening your mouth.

 

A redevelopment does not have to do deal with the surrounding streets – a specific disadvantage from the local community’s point of view. As I suggested before, it may be in the Club’s interest to offer a contribution to regeneration as a lever to secure CPO’s.

 

In an open market sale the vendors are free to ask for whatever they want (hence my hypothetical figures). None of us should take any satisfaction from the miserly provision of CPO compensation payments – which is why CPO’s tend to be so vigorously resisted. CPO’s are not granted to allow private companies to make increased profits at the expense of individual homeowners.

 

[ quote]A new stadium can completely ignore the local streets and go it’s own sweet way in the park. What chance a shiny stadium with a patch of dug-up grass where the pitch was and railings round an empty site which no-one can make money on? Plenty.Economic privations? So?

 

You may wish to redraft that...................

 

You’re telling us what FSG think. You do not have a clue what they think

Who’s blaming council? Not meA specific and practicable scheme? Here’s one and that ain’t just nice CGIs.

 

I have never said what FSG think. I have consistently advocated that they should be more transparent in what they do think. I am glad that you are not blaming the Council to date. The CGI is just a nice CGI- it has no planning status.

 

The club have said (Ian Ayre) that the cost of a new stadium is double. I imagine they’ve looked at it don't you?. I don’t think they’re guessing.The club has also 'laid out' that a redevelopment is more economically viable than a new stadium particularly in the medium, which is just where it matters. If we had to wait two years for a re-design, then four more to build it then 15 years to pay it off (ok half is to 7 years with naming rights), that would be 13 more years before we see any benefit. Thirteen, more, years

Has a new stadium been costed? The old one, or a new one? Has a redevelopment been costed? If so which is it? Has the level of naming rights for a new stadium been established- what is it? If there are facts – let’s have them. Your equation compounds so many unknowns as to be meaningless.

 

I’ll go slowly on the last one... the further away houses are, the less of a ‘problem’ rights of light are. The amount of (day)light is the issue. Height, in itself, is NOT the issue.

 

Now, you clearly don’t know how this works (despite you being an expert an' all), so do some research; but to help you - instead of the houses being 15m away, let’s say the main stand (for example) was built up to the car park wall. Let’s say Lothair Road was cleared. Let's say that left the houses in Alroy Road 30m away. How much higher do you think you could build without affecting their light? [Answer: about 15m]

 

You are simply wrong. Height causes two problems. Firstly distance is not key – height is. It is the height which determines how far away property needs to be to be unaffected. Secondly the prevailing skyline matters. An increased elevation poses two problems; the point at which it is out of keeping with the surrounds, and the extent to which it sts a precedent for other tall buildings in the area.

 

I suggest you listen to what people say here (and eslewhere) - you might learn something.

 

Most of all and if the welfare of the club really is your interest, I suggest you put aside the little chip that you’ve got on your shoulder about FSG and have a cool look at the situation.

 

Your invocation to listen is wise. I make no assumptions about FSG. I hope that all of this has allowed you to take the cool balanced look you advocate.

I have no preference for a new or redeveloped stadium so long as it represents the best financial and footballing answer for the club. I do think that as fans we have been poorly served by the Directors for the past two decades on the stadium issue. The era of passive acceptance is over.

 

Some are still happy to swallow the bait “its the Councils fault” “the owners will do the right thing”, I am not. I test, and accept what is proven and expose what is wrong – which is what everyone should do.

[redasever]

I make no assumptions about what you do ...

 

As I said. No reply needed. You mistake me for someone who gives a monkey's what you think or puts any store in it.

 

.

Edited October 3, 2011 by redasever

[redasever]

It's a relatively 'new' application thats been put in, you can see what it entails by going on the LCC planning explorer.

 

I saw the application for 'gates and walls'. I think it was about 6 months ago? Have you got a planning reference? Sorry - it's so much easier...

 

.

[xerxes]

We are a football club not developers. and don't be stupid regarding paying over the odds like £550k to £1m.

 

A new redeveloped Anfield for 63,000 costs as of 10 months ago £130m. This club is the biggest revenue earner for this city, It deserves help from the council not a council who keep telling it to ground-share.

 

Alan,if there are not grounds for CPO's we have to pay whatever it takes - or redevelop on what we own.

 

The term "compelling public interest" involves the City as a whole, local landowners as well as fans.

 

When Council workers are losing their jobs and libraries are being closed, the argument that a private company should have public money used to acquire property for a private companys financial benefit for little to no public benefit is not going to win CPO's.

 

Try telling teaching assistants and bin men that the Council does not have enough money to keep them on, but can find £5m to buy houses for a company whose employees can earn over £100k a week.

 

Like everyone, in theory, as a fan, I would love us to stay at Anfield with a fitting redeveloped Anfield.But if people want to understand where we are, and why we are where we are, I offer an explanation .

[Antynwa]

I saw the application for 'gates and walls'. I think it was about 6 months ago? Have you got a planning reference? Sorry - it's so much easier...

 

.

 

Nope.

 

I saw it a while back to be honest, it may be the same application. It referred to about 3 houses on that road and renovations.

 

Incidentally the houses to the left of the Shankly Gates have recently had some structural improvements.

[redasever]

Nope.

 

I saw it a while back to be honest, it may be the same application. It referred to about 3 houses on that road and renovations.

 

Incidentally the houses to the left of the Shankly Gates have recently had some structural improvements.

 

Would this be it (three more like this)?:

 

11F/0313 22, 24, 26 Lothair Road Liverpool L4 0RL To convert from flats to single dwelling house, remove outriggers, improve curtilage and pedestrian access FINAL DECISION 10-02-2011 Approve with Conditions.

 

So, change of use to single family and improvements to the gates and walls - where would the money come from?

 

.

Edited October 3, 2011 by redasever

[xerxes]

Council cannot use compulsory purchase powers unless it's in the compelling public interest. There has to be a scheme that includes the stadium but also provides that compelling public interest.

 

Anfield means a lot of money coming into the city. More visitors means more money for the city. A new stadium doesn't work financially for the club

 

Housing money is public money and Council just lost £120m of it - a scheme that gets the housing ball rolling and lets in private money to replace the lost government money ought to swing it. That isn't the club's concern but...

 

Three things. A big plan for the whole area that the club can be a part of, local authority powers and money from a private investor.

 

.

 

Why don't you always post like that? Succinct, accurate, spot on.

[redasever]

...But if people want to understand where we are, and why we are where we are, I offer an explanation .

 

A wholly inaccurate explanation. What's worse - you know it is.

 

.

[redasever]

Why don't you always post like that? Succinct, accurate, spot on.

 

And which part of that can be achieved with a new stadium. Oh yeah - none of it.

 

.

[Cliff T. Beast]

At least we're not being fed promises of spades in the ground within 'x' amount of days. If taking their time means the right decision then so be it.

 

I would prefer a redevelopment as shelling out £300mill seems a lot of money for an extra 15k seats

[redasever]

In the past four months the club have bought ten houses. They need to buy 150 for the redeveloped anfield. They know arena own 93 and the others that are privately owned are quoted at silly money. They have plans to turn anfield into a 63000 seater stadium. But whilst the council wont cpo those houses needed the club stands still. Yes the club will pay over the odds but not at the prices quoted. Maybe the council should help us out a little?

 

Yes they should. If they did, they would help the community as well.

 

.

[Guest ShoePiss]

Have to say I really enjoy the exchanges between redasever and xerxes, compelling arguments on both sides and lots of detail that's useful.

[Antynwa]

Would this be it (three more like this)?:

 

11F/0313 22, 24, 26 Lothair Road Liverpool L4 0RL To convert from flats to single dwelling house, remove outriggers, improve curtilage and pedestrian access FINAL DECISION 10-02-2011 Approve with Conditions.

 

So, change of use to single family and improvements to the gates and walls - where would the money come from?

 

.

 

I'd imagine arena housing.

[Guest alantkayll]

Alan,if there are not grounds for CPO's we have to pay whatever it takes - or redevelop on what we own.

 

The term "compelling public interest" involves the City as a whole, local landowners as well as fans.

 

When Council workers are losing their jobs and libraries are being closed, the argument that a private company should have public money used to acquire property for a private companys financial benefit for little to no public benefit is not going to win CPO's.

 

Try telling teaching assistants and bin men that the Council does not have enough money to keep them on, but can find £5m to buy houses for a company whose employees can earn over £100k a week.

 

Like everyone, in theory, as a fan, I would love us to stay at Anfield with a fitting redeveloped Anfield.But if people want to understand where we are, and why we are where we are, I offer an explanation .

 

Why should the club pay 300 more times what these properties are worth? The properties are owned by people who don't even live in them but bought them let them rot on the basis this day will come. Well I for one would not give them a penny more.

 

What is wrong with CPO's on properties that nobody lives in and are there for these people to hold a club to ransom and have no interest in the area at all.

[Guest alantkayll]

I make no assumptions about what you do or don’t know – you would be wise to do the same.

 

FSG have done a decent job to date. Your faith in Investment consortia is touching.

 

I have neither called nor believe anyone to be stupid.

 

 

 

For practical purposes redevelopment at Anfield is only efficient on two sides, the Main Stand and Anfield Rd. The area behind the Annie Rd End is cleared. I am not aware of any ransom issues here. The issue of land/house acquisition is behind the main stand.

 

The Main Stand currently holds around 12,000. A redevelopment in situ (Main Stand/ Annie Rd) was estimated first in the Morgan era and subsequently by Parry to sit at around 55,000, assuming anextra 4,500 odd seats at the Annie Rd and 5,500 odd on the Main Stand site – hence the reference to 5000. I am aware of nothing which has subsequently changed.

 

I hope that helps.

 

 

 

The part redevelopment of Anfield provides for no public fund expenditure nor does it contribute to regeneration – which is the point.

 

A 60k redevelopment does not provide the same short or long term employment or investment benefits as a new stadium. A redevelopment would take in half the ground. A new stadium provides for 360 degree modernisation and facilities. The conference/banqueting amenity value would be more than double.

 

Anfield Plaza creates 42,000 sq ft of retail plus housing, around 200 plus jobs, all perfectly clear in the consent, the original of which I have seen. Partial redevelopment creates a handful more.

 

 

 

A redevelopment does not have to do deal with the surrounding streets – a specific disadvantage from the local community’s point of view. As I suggested before, it may be in the Club’s interest to offer a contribution to regeneration as a lever to secure CPO’s.

 

In an open market sale the vendors are free to ask for whatever they want (hence my hypothetical figures). None of us should take any satisfaction from the miserly provision of CPO compensation payments – which is why CPO’s tend to be so vigorously resisted. CPO’s are not granted to allow private companies to make increased profits at the expense of individual homeowners.

 

[ quote]A new stadium can completely ignore the local streets and go it’s own sweet way in the park. What chance a shiny stadium with a patch of dug-up grass where the pitch was and railings round an empty site which no-one can make money on? Plenty.Economic privations? So?

 

You may wish to redraft that...................

 

 

 

I have never said what FSG think. I have consistently advocated that they should be more transparent in what they do think. I am glad that you are not blaming the Council to date. The CGI is just a nice CGI- it has no planning status.

 

 

Has a new stadium been costed? The old one, or a new one? Has a redevelopment been costed? If so which is it? Has the level of naming rights for a new stadium been established- what is it? If there are facts – let’s have them. Your equation compounds so many unknowns as to be meaningless.

 

You are simply wrong. Height causes two problems. Firstly distance is not key – height is. It is the height which determines how far away property needs to be to be unaffected. Secondly the prevailing skyline matters. An increased elevation poses two problems; the point at which it is out of keeping with the surrounds, and the extent to which it sts a precedent for other tall buildings in the area.

 

 

 

Your invocation to listen is wise. I make no assumptions about FSG. I hope that all of this has allowed you to take the cool balanced look you advocate.

I have no preference for a new or redeveloped stadium so long as it represents the best financial and footballing answer for the club. I do think that as fans we have been poorly served by the Directors for the past two decades on the stadium issue. The era of passive acceptance is over.

 

Some are still happy to swallow the bait “its the Councils fault” “the owners will do the right thing”, I am not. I test, and accept what is proven and expose what is wrong – which is what everyone should do.

 

Yes it stands at £300m new £130m redeveloped.

[PestiRed]

Always leant towards the new stadium but mainly because I thought it would give us better options on capacity & cash from corporate facilities.

This 63,000 redevelopment for £130m makes things a little different. Does anyone have details or rough plans of how it could be done? Would be interested to know if it gives us the required corporate boxes as well. The scum make a fortune from theirs & we need that cash.