Planning permission granted

[* ORM *]

I didn’t see a provision for a relocated Fish House or Spread Eagle in the approvals.

 

[Mr Browns Ghost]

I can’t see it holding concerts to much noise and surrounded by houses so no income from that

What like those concerts they don’t have at garons most of the year ? The ones that don’t finish at 10 and are not any trouble

 

[Barry.C]

Oh yes it can I'm afraid.

I appreciate and share the concerns around alternatives, given the history of football over the past 30 years or so.
However if the Tracey Crouch proposals did receive full Legislation backing after May, and much detail would still need to be worked out, one key focus in the report is to ensure the protection of the stadium ,even if sold on. Presumably there would also be much stricter fit and proper person tests in place, so we need to get behind the proposals.

One legal beaver looking at the Golden share plan suggested that fans could be given much more power and influence over the most important key aspects, via the Golden share concept and Veto's, , yet much will be dependent on how the detail of the legislation is framed which could even possibly be executed in part or fully without the Owners determination , even if they had invested a considerable amount in the club

Tom Lawrence will know the Golden share is a basic legal principle known to corporate lawyers, effectively issuing a bundle of rights, that would go to the Trust. Its a straightforward legal process to create, although slightly complicated if the Company is listed

Ive already signed a petition supporting it, prior to submission by Crouch ( thousands did ) and I would like to believe the proposals take away the likelihood of some unsavoury idiot or group owning the stadium and other assets in the future

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

I didn’t see a provision for a relocated Fish House or Spread Eagle in the approvals.

There is no need, the Golden Goblet/Rustyy Bucket will be the home pub and the Fish O'Mac the chippy?
Now what have I got wrong?

 

[RHB]

There is no need, the Golden Goblet/Rustyy Bucket will be the home pub and the Fish O'Mac the chippy?
Now what have I got wrong?

Where do I start?

 

[Kat_r]

Oh yes it can I'm afraid.

I appreciate and share the concerns around alternatives, given the history of football over the past 30 years or so.
However if the Tracey Crouch proposals did receive full Legislation backing after May, and much detail would still need to be worked out, one key focus in the report is to ensure the protection of the stadium ,even if sold on. Presumably there would also be much stricter fit and proper person tests in place, so we need to get behind the proposals.

One legal beaver looking at the Golden share plan suggested that fans could be given much more power and influence over the most important key aspects, via the Golden share concept and Veto's, , yet much will be dependent on how the detail of the legislation is framed which could even possibly be executed in part or fully without the Owners determination , even if they had invested a considerable amount in the club

Tom Lawrence will know the Golden share is a basic legal principle known to corporate lawyers, effectively issuing a bundle of rights, that would go to the Trust. Its a straightforward legal process to create, although slightly complicated if the Company is listed

Ive already signed a petition supporting it, prior to submission by Crouch ( thousands did ) and I would like to believe the proposals take away the likelihood of some unsavoury idiot or group owning the stadium and other assets in the future

I appreciate and share the concerns around alternatives, given the history of football over the past 30 years or so.
However if the Tracey Crouch proposals did receive full Legislation backing after May, and much detail would still need to be worked out, one key focus in the report is to ensure the protection of the stadium ,even if sold on. Presumably there would also be much stricter fit and proper person tests in place, so we need to get behind the proposals.

One legal beaver looking at the Golden share plan suggested that fans could be given much more power and influence over the most important key aspects, via the Golden share concept and Veto's, , yet much will be dependent on how the detail of the legislation is framed which could even possibly be executed in part or fully without the Owners determination , even if they had invested a considerable amount in the club

Tom Lawrence will know the Golden share is a basic legal principle known to corporate lawyers, effectively issuing a bundle of rights, that would go to the Trust. Its a straightforward legal process to create, although slightly complicated if the Company is listed

Ive already signed a petition supporting it, prior to submission by Crouch ( thousands did ) and I would like to believe the proposals take away the likelihood of some unsavoury idiot or group owning the stadium and other assets in the future

Imo property developers shouldn’t be allowed to own football clubs. So so achingly obvious they are going to do.

 

[Shrimpet steve]

I wont believe it until work actually starts

 

[BirminghamBlue]

If the owner of a football club is hell bent on making money from the site it doesn't matter if they are a property developer or not. An owner from a different industry could just hire planning consultants with expertise to manage the project from start to end. Similar to ron using Powerhaus. The only way to prevent it is just having fan ownership or a veto.

 

[Kat_r]

If the owner of a football club is hell bent on making money from the site it doesn't matter if they are a property developer or not. An owner from a different industry could just hire planning consultants with expertise to manage the project from start to end. Similar to ron using Powerhaus. The only way to prevent it is just having fan ownership or a veto.

Good point.

 

[rigsby]

Imo property developers shouldn’t be allowed to own football clubs. So so achingly obvious they are going to do.

Why?

 

[Kat_r]

I wont believe it until work actually starts

My best bet is work starts but doesn’t end with the current owners in place.

 

[Kat_r]

Why?

When you see what property developers (allowed by central government) will do to Southend thanks to city status and how kids who aren’t millionaires will be taught in classes of more than 35, loss of green space, increased pollution etc etc maybe that will make sense then.

 

[Kat_r]

In answer to your question, we won't be like those other clubs as we do not have, atm , an extremely wealthy money benefactor /donator/ laundering owner like those do.
I do agree that the potential for 20k fans is here abouts in this ever expanding City and metropolis.

Do you think the current residents of Southend actually want to live in an ‘ever expanding metropolis’ with all that means for them? Or do they have to be quiet?

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

Do you think the current residents of Southend actually want to live in an ‘ever expanding metropolis’ with all that means for them? Or do they have to be quiet?

That is a bizarre pair of questions, and I doubt that my opinion matters a jot either.
The many different age groups and a social economical groups will have their own likely common responses as will those seeking employment, schooling and housing stability. The town or city has changed enormously over the last 10 to 20 years (I was born here over 60 years ago and witnessed much change) and the current majority are used to not having close countryside, brickfields, open space, or the older local businesses and large core employees such as Access, VAT, MOD, Fords close at hand. Older, longer local folks will have nostalgia and fear for infrastructure and over burdened "city" environment, which they may have profited from but don't like.
"Be quiet?", no they don't, any group, but I hope they keep respectful and reasoned.

Answered as briefly as possible.

 

[Kat_r]

That is a bizarre pair of questions, and I doubt that my opinion matters a jot either.
The many different age groups and a social economical groups will have their own likely common responses as will those seeking employment, schooling and housing stability. The town or city has changed enormously over the last 10 to 20 years (I was born here over 60 years ago and witnessed much change) and the current majority are used to not having close countryside, brickfields, open space, or the older local businesses and large core employees such as Access, VAT, MOD, Fords close at hand. Older, longer local folks will have nostalgia and fear for infrastructure and over burdened "city" environment, which they may have profited from but don't like.
"Be quiet?", no they don't, any group, but I hope they keep respectful and reasoned.

Answered as briefly as possible.

The current population have no say in the matter. And not really good enough to say they aren’t used to countryside as It will be very sad to see the loss of green space as everybody deserves that. Even Essex people.

The only people who benefit will be those looking to make money from housing and those who want to see the population change in ways to suit their agenda.

The fact still stands that there will be a squeeze on infrastructure and the ordinary folk will suffer. Just not those making the decisions in London and the Home Counties who holiday in Cornwall. They will be very grateful Essex is taking the housing numbers away from their area.

By keep quiet I mean they literally so not have a voice or a choice. Just have to sit back and watch it unfold. Quite tragic

 

[Tommy2holes]

When you see what property developers (allowed by central government) will do to Southend thanks to city status and how kids who aren’t millionaires will be taught in classes of more than 35, loss of green space, increased pollution etc etc maybe that will make sense then.

I hear what you are saying and agree that green belt should be protected but what are the youth of today going to do to get on the property ladder.

Increasing population, more demand for property which is not available, leads to higher rents and the impossibility of home ownership.

Without new builds being built, the youth of the future won't have any chance of home ownership.

The real problem is a greed driven buy to let market than snaps up affordable property and converts to HMO's. An individual does not need to own 200+ properties.

 

[Kat_r]

I hear what you are saying and agree that green belt should be protected but what are the youth of today going to do to get on the property ladder.

Increasing population, more demand for property which is not available, leads to higher rents and the impossibility of home ownership.

Without new builds being built, the youth of the future won't have any chance of home ownership.

The real problem is a greed driven buy to let market than snaps up affordable property and converts to HMO's. An individual does not need to own 200+ properties.

Oh I totally agree locals deserve housing. Council housing or affordable etc is another debate. I would never decry houses built for locals. That would be a terrible thing to do. What I’m saying is the houses and flats currently being built are being snapped up by londoners and overseas people which means more houses need to be built to lower the prices for locals which in turn means less green space for everybody. It’s a viscous cycle. And will only get worse sadly. Southend is already an incredibly densely populated and I worry for its current population going forward as there’s already a squeeze on school places and roads etc caused by so many people moving here without thought for infrastructure. It’s the average southender who will suffer not those sending their kids to the private or grammar schools. They are the minority who will be fine.

I guess bottom line is how much does the government want to use City status as an excuse to allow a free for all for house builders To take the pressure off elsewhere and will the council stand up to them and demand houses for locals.

 

[overseas shrimper]

Imo property developers shouldn’t be allowed to own football clubs. So so achingly obvious they are going to do.

It's not like we were looking at moving to a new ground for decades prior to Ron taking the club on.

 

[Kat_r]

It's not like we were looking at moving to a new ground for decades prior to Ron taking the club on.

Good point. I guess my perspective is why can’t owners of clubs be happy building stadiums and not houses on the side too. I suppose it’s a question of what owners of clubs should be allowed to do. Ties into what Barry c was mentioning about the rules going forward about what’s going to be deemed fit and proper etc.

 

[brigg blue]

I may be in the minority here but I'm actually quite pleased that the new ground will be surrounded by houses, the kids growing up there will end up going to matches and being fans so in just a few short years there will be a soul to the place.

Compare it to out of town, concrete car park bowls where everyone has to drive to the match its a big improvement