@Sherif H, a question for you based on the stadium builds you've had experience of. How do the number of iterations we've been through compare to other builds?
I'm genuinely interested as it seems that our build saga is endless, but it may be that this is par for the course. Just interested to know how we compare.
It differs wildly - much depends on whether it is public or private funding being used for the development.
All new-build stadium projects take an age to progress from inception to completion for a few reasons - principally:
- They aren't of any obvious value / high priority to the presiding planning authority
- Particularly in large urban areas, there is typically limited opportunity for site acquisition, and when land is found, the planning hurdles can drag the matter out for some time - agreeing Section 106 obligations can sometimes be a project in itself
- If public money is being used, then the local authority needs to see some of their needs being satisfied within the development site (this somewhat reverts back to the earlier Section 106 point)
- If the project is of sufficient scale, then it may get called in by the Secretary of State (as per FF) which further increases the timesecales
As an example, the Colchester Community Stadium had a construction cost of about £15m. This was funded by the Local Authority, and they then set up a Stadium Management Company to operate the venue - this means the Club gets a serviceable venue for no outlay, but also means that the Council benefits from most of the revenue generation on a non-matchday.
Furthermore, it was placed on a site which enabled the longer term regeneration of the Northern Corridor of Colchester to be commenced - the Local Authority has since gone on to develop a new A12 junction, a Park & Ride site and the Northern Gateway Sports Complex to name but a few - it served a function for them.
This is probably where these opinions of a so-called 'identikit' stadium come from - the stadium is essentially the least important part of the longer term development, and therefore majors on bang for buck as opposed to architectural flair - not necessarily a bad thing in my book, as stadium architecture is extremely subjective...it is there to serve a function and looking aesthetically original or imposing is just a nice-to-have.
Ricoh Arena was another, albeit only partially owned by the Council and a Sports Trust which owns and operates most of the other leisure venues in the City - again though, it ticked many of the same boxes as the Colchester.
FF is a completely different story - because it is being funded solely by private capital, there is virtually no incentive for the Local Authority (other than the perceived benefits of housing a potentially successful football club in it's footprint - this is very subjective for various decision makers...) to move things on, except of course in the event that the structure of the land deal enables much needed regeneration in a certain area - this is why the current proposals seem to have struck a chord, as the levels of housing being delivered would satisfy the Council's massive quotas.
In the same vain, given the gargantuan size of the task involved in delivering such a behemoth, every element of the development plan needs to align - everything needs to happen at the right time - as most of you know, timing has not been kind to Ron, but it would appear that we now have the right development mix to proceed - it again now comes down to topping up the kitty to ensure everything can proceed, and that, unfortunately will always be a bit of a lottery.
As has happened in the past iterations of the FF masterplan, if the economic conditions change, the proposed development mix (and therefore funding model) might well need to change again, and there the planning clock needs to be wound back partially yet again...