Stadium application - planners recommendation

[sussex by the sea]

I know this has been briefly mentioned in other threads but I thought it should be subject of a seperate thread.

The Southend Council planning officers report is now on the Council website (via the Council & Democracy section, agenda & minutes, development control commitee 24/1). Basically their recommendation is that the stadium application either be deferred or withdrawn and a revised application be submitted. Either way, this would require the submission of further information and plans and would result in a delay of at least a month but probably longer.

The officers report goes on to state that should SUFC not wish to enter into discussions to resolve outstanding matters, then the Council is recommended to refuse permission for up to 14 different reasons.

It is open for the Councillors to reject the officers recommendation and approve the application (and I can say this happens more often on certain projects than people may suppose) but the officers report goes on to say that if the Councillors wish to do this, the proposal will need to be referred to the Secretary of State, Ruth Kelly, who would have the option of either deciding the application herself or letting the decision stand.

All of the above means that any approval appears further off than we all may hope and I remain of the view that Ron's timescales are a bit hopeful.

However, I do think that the officers have written their report in a way that leaves the door open for an approval if suitable amendments are made. The main positive is that they do not appear to object to the stadium itself but principally the amount of retail development and highways concerns which perhaps isn't a surprise.

For those who can attend, next week's meeting is still important if only ensure that the Councillors don't refuse the application at this stage but instead invite the submission of further information and plans.

 

[Smiffy]

Thanks SBTS..

No real surprise there then.

This is going to be a long hard fought battle..

 

[Technician]

For those of us taking a day's holiday to lend support to the club's stadium plans, this sounds like a bit of a blow...

What is our plan then? obviously make ourselves heard... but does anyone have any thoughts about our approach to the day? is there going to be a general meet up for a chat beforehand? etc and blah, blah, blah...

 

[jamessufc88]

getting more and more depressed and pessimistic about this at the moment. Not looking good at all.

 

[Interpol Shrimper]

To quote Unlucky Alf off The Fast Show

"BUGGER"

 

[Southend_Lady]

I dont think it is looking good either, I wouldnt be surprised if by this time next year we are still fighting to get it approved!

 

[jamessufc88]

Councils always listen to the bloody nimbys. Clearly don't want this area to move forward and modernise or have a successful football team to put it on the map. Whenever all those councillors say they're behind the plans, they're obviously talking bollox. They're going to ruin this club.

 

[Reading Shrimper]

Here is the text of the document:

1. The proposal to relocate the Southend United Football Club (SUFC) ground from Roots Hall to Fossetts Farm is subject to a package of four applications.
 the new stadium plus retailing, residential and associated development at Fossetts Farm;
 redevelopment of the existing stadium and adjoining land for a supermarket, residential and associated development;
 a minor technical matter to allow for demolition necessary to permit development of the Roots Hall site; and
 relocation of existing training pitches and construction of additional parking to allow the development of the new stadium and associated facilities.

2. The last application is located with the administrative area of Rochford District Council and this is due to be considered by them on 25 January 2007. The technical matter application is to demolish a non-listed building in a Conservation Area. This is the only clear cut application and is being recommended for refusal for reasons set out in the main reports. There are thus only two applications to which Members have to give extensive consideration.

3. The applications form a sequential package. If the training pitches cannot be relocated, whether in accordance with the current application or another as yet undefined option, the proposal to relocate the stadium will need strategic reappraisal. This in turn could create a situation whereby redevelopment proposals for their existing site could be, at least in the short term, rendered irrelevant because the Council cannot agree to the redevelopment of Roots Hall without a new stadium.

4. Having covered the applications, it is appropriate to look a lot more closely at the applicant SUFC. The town’s eponymous football club is a source of pride to all. Who cannot have cheered when they recently beat Manchester United. The club, which has a long history has played at Roots Hal since 1955. However the ground is now showing its age and is restricting SUFC’s capacity to grow and compete at the national level.

5. Demands of the 21st century cannot be met in the existing stadium. Also the site is inadequate in terms of car parking and general public facilities. For this reason a new location is being sought and in this regard it cannot be gainsaid that the Council would want to support the club in its modernisation proposals.

6. The duty of the planning committee is to implement the Council’s adopted planning policies and where these are in conflict to weight them in the balance. Very little in planning is black and white and these applications are shades of grey. Members must, however, be rational in their decision making and any decision made must be reasonable, ie the head must rule the heart.

7. Support for a scheme or facility should not be at any cost. There is a whole raft of policy issues to be taken into account. These cannot be ignored. And neither should the needs of the applicant be paramount where there are clear policy conflicts.

8. When making their decision Members have a range of choices. Both applications are departures, ie they would need to be referred to the Secretary of State if Members are minded to view either or both applications favourably. This allows the Secretary of State to decide whether to call-in the application for his own determination following a inquiry. He may or may not grant planning permission.

9. The alternative is to refuse permission for either or both applications – this leaves them open to challenge at appeal. Finally there is the option of deferring consideration. By doing so Members must be very clear why they are accepting this course of action and what it is they expect to achieve by it.

10. Prior to the grant of planning permission both applications will need to be subject of a s106 Obligation. The two reports each set out possible reasons for refusal as well as possible heads of terms for s106 Obligations.

11. However, given a wish to agree a new stadium, but not at any price, and with the range of issues (some policy, some detailed) which remain to be addressed Members may wish to defer consideration of both applications. This would allow the applicants to make appropriate amendments such as to satisfy the LPA’s concerns.


J W Young
southendunitedfootballclub/pw

 

[C C Csiders]

Quote[/b] (sussex by the sea @ Jan. 17 2007,13:28)]planning officers

OED definition: Sad, lonely men with no interest, whatsoever, in any sporting activity, and women. More often than not seen wearing grey suits, with ill-trimmed beards, drinking warm real ale, with similar lifeless unworthys. These people remain virgins until the day they die owing to their bad breath, ugly looks and small (or no) genitalia.

 

[Up the Shrimpers]

Add the fact that any council members that declare they are Southend fans can't vote on this decision. It doesn't look good.

 

[Tilly hates yellow boots]

Quote[/b] (Up the Shrimps @ Jan. 17 2007,14:38)]Add the fact that any council members that declare they are Southend fans can't vote on this decision.  It doesn't look good.

Well why don't they all become Col******r fans then !

Ok maybe that a bit to far

but maybe just say their not into football ?

 

[pickledseal]

Quote[/b] (C C Csiders @ Jan. 17 2007,14:34)]

Quote[/b] (sussex by the sea @ Jan. 17 2007,13:28)]planning officers

OED definition: Sad, lonely men with no interest, whatsoever, in any sporting activity, and women. More often than not seen wearing grey suits, with ill-trimmed beards, drinking warm real ale, with similar lifeless unworthys. These people remain virgins until the day they die owing to their bad breath, ugly looks and small (or no) genitalia.

I actually met a reasonably hot girl out in chelmsford for the other day who wants to go into town planning....

 

[Jam_Man]

Quote[/b] (jamessufc88 @ Jan. 17 2007,14:00)] They're going to ruin this club.

Well thats a bit harsh, if the ground never got agreed then we would stay at RH. The club wouldnt have the same opportunity to develop or progress, but thats hardly ruining it.

This doesnt sound like its already been agreed and to be "rubber stamped" as claimed elsewhere on here.

Sounds like the proposals will need to be re-submitted to address any reasons for rejection so this may be dragging on for longer than we hoped.

At least its not a total rejection I guess.

 

[Technician]

Quote[/b] (Technician @ Jan. 17 2007,13:46)]For those of us taking a day's holiday to lend support to the club's stadium plans, this sounds like a bit of a blow...

What is our plan then? obviously make ourselves heard... but does anyone have any thoughts about our approach to the day? is there going to be a general meet up for a chat beforehand? etc and blah, blah, blah...

Anybody...?

 

[Smiffy]

My bet is it will be called in or deferred until a later date, when a more up-to-date traffic survey, flood attenuation report and archealogical survey have been submitted.

This will take some time folks, but I feel we will get there in the end.

 

[Shrimpador]

Quote[/b] (Smiffy @ Jan. 17 2007,15:02)]My bet is it will be called in or deferred until a later date, when a more up-to-date traffic survey, flood attenuation report and archealogical survey have been submitted.

This will take some time folks, but I feel we will get there in the end.

There seem to be alot of other objections too though:
The Rochford DC views on the training pitches
The proximity to the cemetery / gardens of rememberance
The retail development does not sound promising as it is out-of-town which is apparently against guidelines – if we have to scale that back then how will that affect the funding of the Stadium?
Something about a monument in Prittlewell??!
By the sounds of what I’ve briefly read about the traffic reports, it’s not as simple as getting more surveys done, it sounds like some serious re-thinking needs to be done.


But I know nothing about town planning and Ron still seems very positive about it so I'm trying to stay optimistic....

 

[Jam_Man]

Quote[/b] (Shrimpador @ Jan. 17 2007,15:51)]The retail development does not sound promising as it is out-of-town which is apparently against guidelines – if we have to scale that back then how will that affect the funding of the Stadium?

Really ?

Thought retail parks were always outside of Town these days.

 

[sussex by the sea]

Quote[/b] (C C Csiders @ Jan. 17 2007,14:34)]OED definition: Sad, lonely men with no interest, whatsoever, in any sporting activity, and women. More often than not seen wearing grey suits, with ill-trimmed beards, drinking warm real ale, with similar lifeless unworthys. These people remain virgins until the day they die owing to their bad breath, ugly looks and small (or no) genitalia.

Thanks !

sbts - (12 years as a planning officer)

 

[Shrimpador]

Exactly - the Government are trying to stop the degeneration of High Streets and Town Centres.

These quotes are from the minutes for the 24th.

Quote[/b] ]8.14. PPS6 sets out the necessary tests for retail development, it states “To deliver the Government’s objective of promoting vital and viable town centres, development should be focussed in existing centres in order to strengthen and, where appropriate, regenerate them”
8.15. This precisely states the LPA’s view that the overriding aspect of retail policy must be to strengthen and revitalise the town centre.  Even if it were to be agreed that this proposal would not adversely impact upon the vitality and viability of the town centre it could be argued that it would delay its renaissance.

Quote[/b] ]• Proposed retail store unacceptable as not located within existing centre, not been subject to adequate sequential test, not make positive contribution to Southend Town Centre, likely to prejudice Town Centre role, and not contribute to meeting identified qualitative deficiencies in convenience goods retail provision

Not too sure whether they're on about the Tesco at Roots Hall or the new retail bit of Fossett's Farm but doesn't sound good to me. I'm no town planner though. Hopefully the councillors will see through all this and realise that the value of a new stadium is much more worthwhile than our crappy High Street.  

 

[The 4th man]

Quote[/b] (Shrimpador @ Jan. 17 2007,18:36)]Exactly - the Government are trying to stop the degeneration of High Streets and Town Centres.

These quotes are from the minutes for the 24th.

Quote[/b] ]8.14. PPS6 sets out the necessary tests for retail development, it states “To deliver the Government’s objective of promoting vital and viable town centres, development should be focussed in existing centres in order to strengthen and, where appropriate, regenerate them”
8.15. This precisely states the LPA’s view that the overriding aspect of retail policy must be to strengthen and revitalise the town centre. Even if it were to be agreed that this proposal would not adversely impact upon the vitality and viability of the town centre it could be argued that it would delay its renaissance.

Quote[/b] ]• Proposed retail store unacceptable as not located within existing centre, not been subject to adequate sequential test, not make positive contribution to Southend Town Centre, likely to prejudice Town Centre role, and not contribute to meeting identified qualitative deficiencies in convenience goods retail provision

Not too sure whether they're on about the Tesco at Roots Hall or the new retail bit of Fossett's Farm but doesn't sound good to me. I'm no town planner though. Hopefully the councillors will see through all this and realise that the value of a new stadium is much more worthwhile than our crappy High Street.

The simple way to allow the rejuvination of the highstreet is help the small and medium buisnes (you know those intresting shops you want to go in and browse and buy(low rents high taxs breaks ) . And scope off more of the huge corprration profits

Not going to happen really