As predicted on this site on numerous occasions, according to the Croydon Guardian:
"Minerva, the company behind the £500m Park Place project, has admitted it needs someone to bail it out otherwise the development will not happen."
Why have the successive councils that have "ruled" Croydon insisted on favouring property companies that offer fancy ego boosting schemes, that have not got a chance in hell of becoming reality?
Croydon Council's stubborn delaying tactics over the Gateway development appear to be causing Stanhope Schroders problems as well.
Well done the council, serving their needs before the needs of the citizens of Croydon!
Showing posts with label gateway. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gateway. Show all posts
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Friday, April 13, 2007
CATARENA
Announcing a new website.
Croydon Against The Arena (www.catarena.org) is a site dedicated to opposing Croydon Council's plans to build an arena on land adjacent to East Croydon station.
This site has been created to provide a news source and public forum for the citizens of Croydon who are opposed to the plans of Croydon Council and Arrowcroft to compulsory purchase the land adjacent to East Croydon station, in order to construct an arena.
All contributions, news items and comments welcome.
Croydon Against The Arena (www.catarena.org) is a site dedicated to opposing Croydon Council's plans to build an arena on land adjacent to East Croydon station.
This site has been created to provide a news source and public forum for the citizens of Croydon who are opposed to the plans of Croydon Council and Arrowcroft to compulsory purchase the land adjacent to East Croydon station, in order to construct an arena.
All contributions, news items and comments welcome.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
CPO Objection
Here is the text of the letter that I sent 3rd February to Ruth Kelly, laying out my objections to the Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) of the Gateway site:
"Dear Ms Kelly,
Subject Compulsory Purchase of the Gateway Site Croydon Served 16 January 2007
I wish to formally object to Croydon Council’s proposed Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) of the Gateway development near East Croydon Station.
Please note that I am a long term resident of Croydon, and have no commercial interest or links with the proposed development or rival developers.
I have for the last three years been running www.croydoniscrap.com which highlights the ongoing decay and squalor that is eroding the heart of Croydon, in the hope of shaming those responsible to address the problem.
Dingwall Road in Croydon is without a doubt one of the most shameful areas within Croydon’s town centre. It is one of the main thoroughfares leading to East Croydon station and is used by commuters, visitors and residents on their way to and from the station.
However, instead of being a thriving and bustling thoroughfare of commerce, industry and residential properties; its “piss poor” derelict appearance has more similarity to the devastation following a nuclear attack, rather than the main thoroughfare of what is meant to be one of London's more prestigious outer boroughs.
There have been plans for the redevelopment of this site (known as the Gateway) for many years now. Unfortunately the two competing developers (Arrowcroft and Stanhope Schroders) have two rival plans. Arrowcroft want to include in their development an arena, this is the plan currently favoured by both the previous Labour council and the new Tory administration. Stanhope Schroders do not have plans for an arena, but do actually own a large part of the land on which the Gateway project would be constructed.
As such there is now a protracted legal battle (see Legal Battle) between the council and Arrowcroft on one side, and Stanhope Schroders on the other.
Needless to say the long suffering residents of Croydon, who have to endure the squalor and danger of walking down this scrofulous tumour on Croydon’s backside, have to wait whilst the legal teams fight it out.
In October 2006 Croydon Council’s Cabinet member for Finance and Regeneration, Tim Pollard, published a Cabinet Member’s Bulletin, which summarised a visit that he made to Hamburg to see an arena exactly the same as that proposed by Arrowcroft for the Gateway Site.
On the face of it the report shows that Pollard is enthusiastic about the arena. However, read the report closely and you will see that all is not well:
· The arena in Hamburg is not in the city centre, as such the large influx of people who attend sporting events and pop concerts do not disrupt the daily lives of the residents or commercial activities of Hamburg. Croydon’s arena would cause disruption.
· The Hamburg arena, as per Pollard, has an “uninspiring exterior”, ie it is ugly. He notes that it would have to look a lot better, if it were to be placed in a city centre such as Croydon.
· Most of the visitors to the Hamburg arena come by car. Yet those coming to the Croydon arena would be expected to endure the misery of public transport, thus displacing and inconveniencing those who currently live, commute and shop in Croydon.
· In another part of Pollard's report he notes:
“It has long been recognised that East Croydon Station needs to be redeveloped as it is reaching capacity at peak times. This is likely to be exacerbated by the new developments which are about to start in the town centre. Network Rail expects to release a development brief shortly and is keen to work jointly with Croydon Council to procure a development partner.”
In other words, East Croydon station will not be able to cope with the increase in numbers brought about by the arena. To trust Network Rail and the council to find an, as yet, undiscovered solution to this problem is taking far too great a leap of faith.
· The location of the Hamburg arena (outside the city and away from bars), and the fact that visitors come by car meant that those using the facilities were sober and well behaved. Given the fact that there are a large number of bars and clubs in Croydon, and the fact that visitors would not be driving it is reasonable to assume that those coming to the Croydon arena would be considerably less well behaved.
I detect, from the tone of the report, a sense of doubt about the project creeping into Pollard's mind. There are too many “ifs” for my liking.
I would note that Croydon Council own none of the land, but the previous administration signed with Arrowcroft and committed to the scheme some years ago. Councillor Pollard notes that the Council have a legally binding contract with Arrowcroft (source
Contract)
This more than lilkely means that if the deal with Arrowcroft fails, there may be penalties imposed on Croydon. I note the following:
· Croydon is effectively bankrupt
· Croydon cannot afford the penalties, if they arise
· The current administration quite clearly do not like the arena project. However, the decision to go ahead is most likely being based on the fear of penalties rather than the benefits (of which there are none) of having an arena.
Clearly the decision to impose a CPO is flawed, and has been taken for the wrong reasons.
William Hill, Head of Property at Schroders said:
“I do not know whether to laugh or cry. This must be a first. A CPO brought by a Council to stop the immediate regeneration of derelict land by a willing, able and fully funded developer with construction scheduled to start in a matter of weeks.”
David Camp, chief executive of Stanhope, said:
“As baffling as this all may seem, the benefit of the CPO starting is at long last the Arrowcroft arena proposals will be subject to some impartial and proper scrutiny.”
“Over five years on from the submission of the arena scheme for planning we still do not know who the arena operator is, where the funding for the scheme is coming from and the basis of the viability assessment carried out.”
I would also remind you that the Secretary of State granted permission to Stanhope and Schroders’s scheme in the high court. I draw your attention to the minutes of the Select Committee on Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions (1 November 2004). Where it was made very clear that the committee believed that the then Labour administration had a conflict of interest.
The minutes also note that the then Labour administration made the dispute between themselves and Stanhope personal. Sir Paul Beresford is quoted as saying:
“I just happen to have been given the Croydon Gateway report that you gave to your Labour group. It is quite abusive, it is personally abusive. I find it quite extraordinary...
It is the report that went to the Labour group on 5 February this year and it says: "These so-called blue-chip developers have acted like irritable children when their toy has been snatched from them, whining and screaming to the press and anyone else who will listen." Then it goes on to name a number of individuals, including Sir Stuart, but naming him with a rather abusive phrase, which I will not use, and others that have resisted or not agreed with you also get abusive names applied to them?..
Calling one of the individuals, that I have not named, ‘Mr Slime’ and another one ‘Mr Dud’..
You are in a position where, certainly by the paper, you have got some personal difficulties with individuals, you want an Arena on the schemes and really you want Arrowcroft to do the development, so that, in essence, anyone else putting in an application, including the people that own the land, is wasting their time?..”
Source:
Parliament
It is clear that the then Labour administration had no intention of viewing any other scheme impartially. Therefore the scheme, and related CPO, is flawed and should be blocked.
My recommendations are as follows:
· The residents of Croydon do not want or need an arena. Therefore the arena should be ditched.
· The residents of Croydon want Dingwall Road to be developed as speedily and as decently as possible. Go for the plan that can be started as quickly as possible.
· The council must stop wasting time on legal battles with Stanhope Schroder, simply because their development does not have an arena.
Get the site redeveloped now!
Abandon the CPO and the flawed Arrowcroft proposal.
We, the residents of Croydon, are fed up with the ongoing delays and empty promises of the council.
I would also note that Andrew Pelling MP (Croydon Central) has written to me, with his support.
To read Councillor Pollard’s report visit this link:
Pollard
Take a virtual walk down Dingwall Road via this link:
Dingwall Road
Please feel free to contact me if you need further details.
Yours sincerely,
Ken Frost MA FCA FIPFM"
"Dear Ms Kelly,
Subject Compulsory Purchase of the Gateway Site Croydon Served 16 January 2007
I wish to formally object to Croydon Council’s proposed Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) of the Gateway development near East Croydon Station.
Please note that I am a long term resident of Croydon, and have no commercial interest or links with the proposed development or rival developers.
I have for the last three years been running www.croydoniscrap.com which highlights the ongoing decay and squalor that is eroding the heart of Croydon, in the hope of shaming those responsible to address the problem.
Dingwall Road in Croydon is without a doubt one of the most shameful areas within Croydon’s town centre. It is one of the main thoroughfares leading to East Croydon station and is used by commuters, visitors and residents on their way to and from the station.
However, instead of being a thriving and bustling thoroughfare of commerce, industry and residential properties; its “piss poor” derelict appearance has more similarity to the devastation following a nuclear attack, rather than the main thoroughfare of what is meant to be one of London's more prestigious outer boroughs.
There have been plans for the redevelopment of this site (known as the Gateway) for many years now. Unfortunately the two competing developers (Arrowcroft and Stanhope Schroders) have two rival plans. Arrowcroft want to include in their development an arena, this is the plan currently favoured by both the previous Labour council and the new Tory administration. Stanhope Schroders do not have plans for an arena, but do actually own a large part of the land on which the Gateway project would be constructed.
As such there is now a protracted legal battle (see Legal Battle) between the council and Arrowcroft on one side, and Stanhope Schroders on the other.
Needless to say the long suffering residents of Croydon, who have to endure the squalor and danger of walking down this scrofulous tumour on Croydon’s backside, have to wait whilst the legal teams fight it out.
In October 2006 Croydon Council’s Cabinet member for Finance and Regeneration, Tim Pollard, published a Cabinet Member’s Bulletin, which summarised a visit that he made to Hamburg to see an arena exactly the same as that proposed by Arrowcroft for the Gateway Site.
On the face of it the report shows that Pollard is enthusiastic about the arena. However, read the report closely and you will see that all is not well:
· The arena in Hamburg is not in the city centre, as such the large influx of people who attend sporting events and pop concerts do not disrupt the daily lives of the residents or commercial activities of Hamburg. Croydon’s arena would cause disruption.
· The Hamburg arena, as per Pollard, has an “uninspiring exterior”, ie it is ugly. He notes that it would have to look a lot better, if it were to be placed in a city centre such as Croydon.
· Most of the visitors to the Hamburg arena come by car. Yet those coming to the Croydon arena would be expected to endure the misery of public transport, thus displacing and inconveniencing those who currently live, commute and shop in Croydon.
· In another part of Pollard's report he notes:
“It has long been recognised that East Croydon Station needs to be redeveloped as it is reaching capacity at peak times. This is likely to be exacerbated by the new developments which are about to start in the town centre. Network Rail expects to release a development brief shortly and is keen to work jointly with Croydon Council to procure a development partner.”
In other words, East Croydon station will not be able to cope with the increase in numbers brought about by the arena. To trust Network Rail and the council to find an, as yet, undiscovered solution to this problem is taking far too great a leap of faith.
· The location of the Hamburg arena (outside the city and away from bars), and the fact that visitors come by car meant that those using the facilities were sober and well behaved. Given the fact that there are a large number of bars and clubs in Croydon, and the fact that visitors would not be driving it is reasonable to assume that those coming to the Croydon arena would be considerably less well behaved.
I detect, from the tone of the report, a sense of doubt about the project creeping into Pollard's mind. There are too many “ifs” for my liking.
I would note that Croydon Council own none of the land, but the previous administration signed with Arrowcroft and committed to the scheme some years ago. Councillor Pollard notes that the Council have a legally binding contract with Arrowcroft (source
Contract)
This more than lilkely means that if the deal with Arrowcroft fails, there may be penalties imposed on Croydon. I note the following:
· Croydon is effectively bankrupt
· Croydon cannot afford the penalties, if they arise
· The current administration quite clearly do not like the arena project. However, the decision to go ahead is most likely being based on the fear of penalties rather than the benefits (of which there are none) of having an arena.
Clearly the decision to impose a CPO is flawed, and has been taken for the wrong reasons.
William Hill, Head of Property at Schroders said:
“I do not know whether to laugh or cry. This must be a first. A CPO brought by a Council to stop the immediate regeneration of derelict land by a willing, able and fully funded developer with construction scheduled to start in a matter of weeks.”
David Camp, chief executive of Stanhope, said:
“As baffling as this all may seem, the benefit of the CPO starting is at long last the Arrowcroft arena proposals will be subject to some impartial and proper scrutiny.”
“Over five years on from the submission of the arena scheme for planning we still do not know who the arena operator is, where the funding for the scheme is coming from and the basis of the viability assessment carried out.”
I would also remind you that the Secretary of State granted permission to Stanhope and Schroders’s scheme in the high court. I draw your attention to the minutes of the Select Committee on Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions (1 November 2004). Where it was made very clear that the committee believed that the then Labour administration had a conflict of interest.
The minutes also note that the then Labour administration made the dispute between themselves and Stanhope personal. Sir Paul Beresford is quoted as saying:
“I just happen to have been given the Croydon Gateway report that you gave to your Labour group. It is quite abusive, it is personally abusive. I find it quite extraordinary...
It is the report that went to the Labour group on 5 February this year and it says: "These so-called blue-chip developers have acted like irritable children when their toy has been snatched from them, whining and screaming to the press and anyone else who will listen." Then it goes on to name a number of individuals, including Sir Stuart, but naming him with a rather abusive phrase, which I will not use, and others that have resisted or not agreed with you also get abusive names applied to them?..
Calling one of the individuals, that I have not named, ‘Mr Slime’ and another one ‘Mr Dud’..
You are in a position where, certainly by the paper, you have got some personal difficulties with individuals, you want an Arena on the schemes and really you want Arrowcroft to do the development, so that, in essence, anyone else putting in an application, including the people that own the land, is wasting their time?..”
Source:
Parliament
It is clear that the then Labour administration had no intention of viewing any other scheme impartially. Therefore the scheme, and related CPO, is flawed and should be blocked.
My recommendations are as follows:
· The residents of Croydon do not want or need an arena. Therefore the arena should be ditched.
· The residents of Croydon want Dingwall Road to be developed as speedily and as decently as possible. Go for the plan that can be started as quickly as possible.
· The council must stop wasting time on legal battles with Stanhope Schroder, simply because their development does not have an arena.
Get the site redeveloped now!
Abandon the CPO and the flawed Arrowcroft proposal.
We, the residents of Croydon, are fed up with the ongoing delays and empty promises of the council.
I would also note that Andrew Pelling MP (Croydon Central) has written to me, with his support.
To read Councillor Pollard’s report visit this link:
Pollard
Take a virtual walk down Dingwall Road via this link:
Dingwall Road
Please feel free to contact me if you need further details.
Yours sincerely,
Ken Frost MA FCA FIPFM"
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Inquiry Confirmed
Further to my recent letter to Ruth Kelly (Secretary of State for Communties and Local Government), objecting to the CPO being enacted by Croydon Council in respect of the land to be used for the Gateway development, I have received a letter today from her Casework Manager for South East London.
Extract:
"..Further to my earlier letter acknowledging your objections to the above order, the Secretary of State has notified the acquiring authority that she intends to hold an inquiry into that order..."
Good, let us stop the absurd arena plan once and for all!
Extract:
"..Further to my earlier letter acknowledging your objections to the above order, the Secretary of State has notified the acquiring authority that she intends to hold an inquiry into that order..."
Good, let us stop the absurd arena plan once and for all!
Monday, February 26, 2007
Arrowcroft Abandons Highcourt Action
Property Week reports that Arrowcroft have told the High Court that it will not proceed with the action against communities secretary Ruth Kelly, who gave planning consent for the rival Stanhope Schroders' scheme for the Croydon Gateway development last June.
Arrowcroft believes that the subsequent decision by the council to compulsorily purchase the site for the Arrowcroft scheme, means that it does not need to proceed with the court case.
Pride comes before a fall!
Arrowcroft believes that the subsequent decision by the council to compulsorily purchase the site for the Arrowcroft scheme, means that it does not need to proceed with the court case.
Pride comes before a fall!
Friday, February 16, 2007
The Arrowcroft "Newsletter"
I received the following email from Croydon Council today, in respect of my enquiry regarding the Arrowcroft "newsletter".
Dear Mr. Frost,
Thank you for your email dated 8/02/07, sent to Croydon Council, in which you ask questions pertaining to a newsletter you have received recently.
It is very likely that the document you refer to is the spring 2007 newsletter produced by Arrowcroft.
Croydon Council has a devolvement agreement with Arrowcroft to develop the Gateway site adjacent to East Croydon station. In order to keep local people informed of progress with development, Arrowcroft produces a regular newsletter which is distributed to households within the CR0 postcode area. The Council is aware of and approves the content of the newsletter. No residents’ addresses have been supplied by the Council to Arrowcroft. The design, printing and distribution of this newsletter is paid entirely by Arrowcroft and so no Croydon Council taxpayers’ money is used for this purpose.
I hope this answer allays your concerns.
In my view, given that the content of "newsletter" is approved and reviewed by the council (ie they derive political/PR benefit from the "newletter"), yet paid for by Arrowcroft, does this not constitute some form of "election" or "political" contribution that should be declared by both Arrowcroft and the council?
I have raised the matter with my MP, Andrew Pelling.
Dear Mr. Frost,
Thank you for your email dated 8/02/07, sent to Croydon Council, in which you ask questions pertaining to a newsletter you have received recently.
It is very likely that the document you refer to is the spring 2007 newsletter produced by Arrowcroft.
Croydon Council has a devolvement agreement with Arrowcroft to develop the Gateway site adjacent to East Croydon station. In order to keep local people informed of progress with development, Arrowcroft produces a regular newsletter which is distributed to households within the CR0 postcode area. The Council is aware of and approves the content of the newsletter. No residents’ addresses have been supplied by the Council to Arrowcroft. The design, printing and distribution of this newsletter is paid entirely by Arrowcroft and so no Croydon Council taxpayers’ money is used for this purpose.
I hope this answer allays your concerns.
In my view, given that the content of "newsletter" is approved and reviewed by the council (ie they derive political/PR benefit from the "newletter"), yet paid for by Arrowcroft, does this not constitute some form of "election" or "political" contribution that should be declared by both Arrowcroft and the council?
I have raised the matter with my MP, Andrew Pelling.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Gateway Propaganda Sheet
Sent to Croydon Council today:
"Yesterday I, and I assume other residents living in Croydon, received another expensively produced colour 4 page propaganda sheet outlining the benefits of the Arrowcroft/Croydon Council proposal for the Gateway site.
It was remarkably "economical with the actualite", eg it scrupulously refuses to mention that Stanhope own the gateway site and have a rival plan for it.
The propaganda sheet notes that Arrowcroft are in "partnership with Croydon Council", and makes liberal references to Croydon Council.
I assume that the wording and layout has been approved by the council prior to distribution.
I have a number of questions:
1 Did the council pass on my address details, and the address details of other residents, to Arrowcroft?
2 How much does this regular propaganda sheet cost to produce?
3 Who is paying for it, Arrowcroft or Croydon council (ie the taxpayers)?
I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards
Ken Frost MA FCA FIPFM"
"Yesterday I, and I assume other residents living in Croydon, received another expensively produced colour 4 page propaganda sheet outlining the benefits of the Arrowcroft/Croydon Council proposal for the Gateway site.
It was remarkably "economical with the actualite", eg it scrupulously refuses to mention that Stanhope own the gateway site and have a rival plan for it.
The propaganda sheet notes that Arrowcroft are in "partnership with Croydon Council", and makes liberal references to Croydon Council.
I assume that the wording and layout has been approved by the council prior to distribution.
I have a number of questions:
1 Did the council pass on my address details, and the address details of other residents, to Arrowcroft?
2 How much does this regular propaganda sheet cost to produce?
3 Who is paying for it, Arrowcroft or Croydon council (ie the taxpayers)?
I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards
Ken Frost MA FCA FIPFM"
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Compulsory Purchase of the Gateway Site
I have today submitted a formal objection to Croydon Council's proposed Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) of the Gateway development near East Croydon Station, to The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Planning Division.
Sunday, December 03, 2006
Croydon's Gateway To Nowhere II
My thanks to Andrew Pelling MP for Croydon Central, who emailed me on Friday evening agreeing with my article "Croydon's Gateway To Nowhere".
Let us now see if Croydon Council can be persuaded to see sense.
Let us now see if Croydon Council can be persuaded to see sense.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Croydon's Gateway To Nowhere
Dingwall Road in Croydon is without a doubt one of the most shameful areas within Croydon's town centre. It is one of the main thoroughfares leading to East Croydon station and is used by commuters, visitors and residents on their way to and from the station.However, instead of being a thriving and bustling thoroughfare of commerce, industry and residential properties; its "piss poor" derelict appearance has more similarity to the devastation following a nuclear attack, rather than the main thoroughfare of what is meant to be one of London's more prestigious outer boroughs.
There have been plans for the redevelopment of this site (known as the Gateway) for many years now. The trouble is that two rival developers (Arrowcroft and Stanhope Schroders) have two rival plans. Arrowcroft want to include in their development an arena, this is the plan currently favoured by both the previous Labour council and the new Tory administration. Stanhope Schroders do not have plans for an arena, but do actually own a large part of the land on which the Gateway project would be constructed.
As such there is now a protracted legal battle between the council and Arrowcroft on one side, and Stanhope Schroders on the other. Needless to say the long suffering residents of Croydon, who have to endure the squalor and danger of walking down this scrofulous tumour on Croydon's' backside, have to wait whilst the legal teams fight it out.
Had the council had the guts to reject the unwanted arena some years ago, a large part of the Gateway project would have been completed by now.
In October 2006 Croydon Council's Cabinet member for Finance and Regeneration, Tim Pollard, published a Cabinet Member's Bulletin which summarised a visit that he made to Hamburg to see an arena exactly the same as that proposed by Arrowcroft for the Gateway Site.
On the face of it the report shows that Pollard is enthusiastic about the arena. However, read the report closely and you will see that all is not well:
- The arena is in Hamburg is not in the city centre, as such the large influx of people who attend sporting events and pop concerts do not disrupt the daily lives of the residents or commercial activities of Hamburg. Croydon's arena would cause disruption.
- The Hamburg arena, as per Pollard, has an "uninspiring exterior", ie it is ugly. He notes that it would have to look a lot better, if it were to be placed in a city centre such as Croydon.
- Most of the visitors to the Hamburg arena come by car. Yet those coming to the Croydon arena would be expected to endure the misery of public transport, thus displacing and inconveniencing those who currently live, commute and shop in Croydon.
- In another part of Pollard's report he notes:
"It has long been recognised that East Croydon Station needs to be redeveloped as it is reaching capacity at peak times. This is likely to be exacerbated by the new developments which are about to start in the town centre. Network Rail expects to release a development brief shortly and is keen to work jointly with Croydon Council to procure a development partner."
In other words, East Croydon station will not be able to cope with the increase in numbers brought about by the arena. To trust Network Rail and the council to find an, as yet, undiscovered solution to this problem is taking far too great a leap of faith. - The location of the Hamburg arena (outside the city and away from bars), and the fact that visitors come by car meant that those using the facilities were sober and well behaved. Given the fact that there are a large number of bars and clubs in Croydon, and the fact that visitors would not be driving it is reasonable to assume that those coming to the Croydon arena would be considerably less well behaved.
- I detect, from the tone of the report, a sense of doubt about the project creeping into Pollard's mind. There are too many "ifs" for my liking.
- The residents of Croydon do not want or need an arena. Therefore ditch the arena.
- The residents of Croydon want Dingwall Road to be developed as speedily and as decently as possible. Go for the plan that can be started as quickly as possible.
- Stop wasting time on legal battles with Stanhope Schroder, simply because their development does not have an arena.
- Get the site redeveloped now!
To read Councillor Pollard's report visit this link: Pollard Report.
Take a walk down Dingwall Road here Post Nuclear Croydon
Monday, October 23, 2006
The Battle For Hearts and Minds
The battle between Stanhope Schroders and Arrowocroft for the hearts and minds of the citizens of Croydon over their rival proposals for the development of the scrofulous tumour on the backside of Croydon, otherwise know as Dingwall Road, continues.
Today I received from Arrowcroft a glossy mailshot that attempted to persuade the recipients of the advantages of building an arena, which Croydon does not need, and inviting me to attend the Arrowcroft exhibition in the Whitgift Centre.
The only problem with the invitation is that the exhibition was held 19th to 21st of October, today is the 23rd of October.
Aside from that, the mailshot notes that the council has set in motion the process of acquiring the site, currently owned by the rival developer Stanhope Schroders. Arrowcroft states that they are "close to commencing development of the Gateway site.."
Nonsense!
As I have already stated on this site, this process will take an inordinate amount of time. It should be noted that Arrowcroft first achived planning approval for this scheme over 3 years ago in 2006. Yet Dingwall Road continues to decay.
Stanhope Schroders, who own the site, will fight them every step of the way.
Dingwall Road has been in a state of ever worsening decay for years. The battle between the two developers will merely ensure that the citizens of Croydon will have to endure the blight on their urban landscape for a good many more years.
So much for trying to improve our lives!
The site needs to be redeveloped now!
Feel free to take a walk along Croydon's post nuclear road of shame via this link Dingwall Road.
Today I received from Arrowcroft a glossy mailshot that attempted to persuade the recipients of the advantages of building an arena, which Croydon does not need, and inviting me to attend the Arrowcroft exhibition in the Whitgift Centre.
The only problem with the invitation is that the exhibition was held 19th to 21st of October, today is the 23rd of October.
Aside from that, the mailshot notes that the council has set in motion the process of acquiring the site, currently owned by the rival developer Stanhope Schroders. Arrowcroft states that they are "close to commencing development of the Gateway site.."
Nonsense!
As I have already stated on this site, this process will take an inordinate amount of time. It should be noted that Arrowcroft first achived planning approval for this scheme over 3 years ago in 2006. Yet Dingwall Road continues to decay.
Stanhope Schroders, who own the site, will fight them every step of the way.
Dingwall Road has been in a state of ever worsening decay for years. The battle between the two developers will merely ensure that the citizens of Croydon will have to endure the blight on their urban landscape for a good many more years.
So much for trying to improve our lives!
The site needs to be redeveloped now!
Feel free to take a walk along Croydon's post nuclear road of shame via this link Dingwall Road.
Saturday, July 29, 2006
The Blight Continues
Those of you who may have hoped that Dingwall Road, the post nuclear wasteland that greets commuters and shoppers in the very heart of Croydon, may finally be on the verge of being developed will have to wait a lot longer.
It is reported that a High Court challenge has been issued by Arrowcroft, the council's preferred developer for the Gateway site, over the granting of planning permission for the Stanhope/Schroder's rival scheme.
Arrowcroft have taken umbridge at the Government's decision to grant permission to Stanhope/Schroder's office-led development.
The Arrowcroft plan includes a 12,500 seat arena, which has become something of a fetish for the council. Needless to say it is quite unecessary for Croydon, and will overburden the already stretched East Croydon station's facilities.
A spokesman for the Department of Communities and Local Government said a challenge had been issued, but its lawyers had only just started examining the papers.
This means that the citizens of Croydon will have to wait even longer, and endure the ongoing decay of the town centre, whilst the lawyers battle it out for who will actually get the right to earn millions from this development.
The solution is simple, the council should ditch the ridiculous idea for a sports arena.
Saturday, March 25, 2006
The Stubborn Donkeys Ruling Croydon Council
It seems that Croydon Council is determined to push forward with its proposal for building an arena at the Gateway development on Dingwall Road.
This despite the fact that:
1 The people of Croydon do not need, or want, a sporting arena
2 The site is owned by Stanhope, who have their own plans for redevelopment
3 The council will have to acquire the land via compulsory purchase order (CPO)
4 The arena development, proposed by Arrowcroft, will take longer to complete than the Stanhope proposal; not least because the legal wrangling over the CPO will slow matters down by a good few years
5 The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has now called in the application from Arrowcroft
All of this means that the citizens of Croydon will have to endure the disgrace and decay of Dingwall Road for many more years.
The only hope is the fact that the ruling Labour regime will be voted out of office in the forthcoming local elections on May the 4th, and this absurd idea for an arena will be consigned to the dustbin of history.
Visit Dingwall Road - A Vision of Post Nuclear Croydon and take a walk down one of the main thoroughfares of Croydon.
Those of you who wish to view Dingwall Road from space, will enjoy the satellite photos on this interactive map - Dingwall Road from Space.
This despite the fact that:
1 The people of Croydon do not need, or want, a sporting arena
2 The site is owned by Stanhope, who have their own plans for redevelopment
3 The council will have to acquire the land via compulsory purchase order (CPO)
4 The arena development, proposed by Arrowcroft, will take longer to complete than the Stanhope proposal; not least because the legal wrangling over the CPO will slow matters down by a good few years
5 The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has now called in the application from Arrowcroft
All of this means that the citizens of Croydon will have to endure the disgrace and decay of Dingwall Road for many more years.
The only hope is the fact that the ruling Labour regime will be voted out of office in the forthcoming local elections on May the 4th, and this absurd idea for an arena will be consigned to the dustbin of history.
Visit Dingwall Road - A Vision of Post Nuclear Croydon and take a walk down one of the main thoroughfares of Croydon.
Those of you who wish to view Dingwall Road from space, will enjoy the satellite photos on this interactive map - Dingwall Road from Space.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Dingwall Road - A Vision of Post Nuclear Croydon
Those of you who need to have their memories refreshed as to how bad Dingwall Road, one of the main thoroughfares of Croydon, has become; may enjoy a brief "cyberwalk" down this most unlovely and unloved of Croydon's roads.Visit Dingwall Road - A Vision of Post Nuclear Croydon to take the tour.
Admittedly, since the photos were taken one of the buildings has now been demolished. Unfortunately, all that remains is now an empty piece of waste ground shrouded by the omnipresent boarding that dominates Croydon's decaying landscape.
Hardly an improvement!
Those of you who wish to view Dingwall Road from space, will enjoy the satellite photos on this interactive map- Dingwall Road from Space.
Monday, January 30, 2006
Arena To Be Ditched?
It seems that Croydon Council may finally be displaying some signs of common sense, at least when it comes to their daft idea to build an arena at the Gateway site on Dingwall Road.
If reports in the Croydon Guardian are to be believed, Croydon Council's opposition to building offices and homes on the site has been ditched.
Given the chronic housing shortage in the South East you would have thought that they would have jumped at the chance, wouldn't you?
Stanhope, the developers, are now reportedly able to start working on the site which has been derelict for 40 years.
Yes, read that again, the site has been derelict for 40 years; that is inexcusable!.
What does that say about the effectiveness of our beloved Croydon Council?
Some dinosaurs on the council may still claim that they want an arena (why for goodness sake?); yet realistically, as I have said on this site many times, it would mean that they would have to make a compulsory purchase of the site from Stanhope.
How on earth can they afford to do that?
We, the ratepayers and citizens of Croydon, have been let down badly by "our" council over the last few decades.
It is time that the council, and those political parties who vie for our votes every few years, were sent a message that we are not prepared to allow our town centre to decay any further.
The opportunity to deliver that message comes this May, when the local elections are being held.
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Gateway To Nowhere
It is reported that "a £30M deal has been completed by Stanhope /Schroders which, they claim, answers objections to their redevelopment plans for the derelict site next to East Croydon station.The companies have bought Lansdowne House, in Lansdowne Road, one of Croydon's most highly regarded office blocks, from the HSBC Bank pension fund.
They have also bought a surface car park in neighbouring Dingwall Road.
Buying the 1.25 acre car park site is, Stanhope/Schroders claim, something of double whammy".
However, the problem for Stanhope/Schroders is that Croydon Council are obsessed with having a sports arena built; which Stanhope/Schroders do not have in their plans.
Rival developers Arrowcroft do have plans for a sports arena, and Croydon Council favour them instead of Stanhope/Schroders.
The issue for the long suffering citizens of Croydon is that much of the land in the Gateway area is owned by Stanhope/Schroders, and that there is now a battle of wills between the two opposing developers and the Council as to which plan will eventually be realised.
This of course means interminable delays, and the ongoing decay of Dingwall Road (the picture is a fine example of how bad things are).
I think that it is time that Croydon Council saw common sense and abandoned their plans for an arena, which will add no value to the centre of Croydon.
Let us just get on and develop the site as quickly as possible!
Saturday, June 04, 2005
Arena Planning Disaster
As you can see from the extract below, from The Croydon Guardian, the council's plans for building an arena in Croydon are being slated again.
Why the surprise?
I have been saying for months, on this site, that the idea of an arena for Croydon is a waste of time and money.
Let us get on with redeveloping the disgrace that is Dingwall Road, without the unwanted arena, before we all grow old and die!
Extract of article:
"Plans to reopen the Millennium Dome as an entertainment arena could spell disaster for Croydon's own arena plans.
Stanhope and Schroders, who own and manage the 8.5-acre site next to East Croydon station, has said a 23,000 capacity arena replacing the dome in 2007 makes rival developer Arrowcroft's plans for a 12,500-seat arena in Croydon unworkable..."
Why the surprise?
I have been saying for months, on this site, that the idea of an arena for Croydon is a waste of time and money.
Let us get on with redeveloping the disgrace that is Dingwall Road, without the unwanted arena, before we all grow old and die!
Extract of article:
"Plans to reopen the Millennium Dome as an entertainment arena could spell disaster for Croydon's own arena plans.
Stanhope and Schroders, who own and manage the 8.5-acre site next to East Croydon station, has said a 23,000 capacity arena replacing the dome in 2007 makes rival developer Arrowcroft's plans for a 12,500-seat arena in Croydon unworkable..."
Monday, April 18, 2005
D Day
20th of April is D Day for Stanhope/Schroders to come up with an "arena based" plan, for the Gateway development in and around the Dingwall Road area.
They have not, until now, wanted to include an arena as it is reportedly unviable.
Now, seemingly, they are talking about including a 6,000-seat arena in their revised plans.
In the event that the council rejects these plans, the battle for Gateway will drag on through the courts for years; as Arrowcroft, the council and Stanhope fight it out for their preferred plans.
Meanwhile the good citizens of Croydon will be left to endure that ugly, rotting and dangerous disgrace that is known as Dingwall Road.
Shame on the council and the developers for making us endure this.
They have not, until now, wanted to include an arena as it is reportedly unviable.
Now, seemingly, they are talking about including a 6,000-seat arena in their revised plans.
In the event that the council rejects these plans, the battle for Gateway will drag on through the courts for years; as Arrowcroft, the council and Stanhope fight it out for their preferred plans.
Meanwhile the good citizens of Croydon will be left to endure that ugly, rotting and dangerous disgrace that is known as Dingwall Road.
Shame on the council and the developers for making us endure this.
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
Dingwall Road Redevelopment Gets Personal
As predicted on this site some time ago, the redevelopment of Dingwall Road will take an eternity; as the council and the two development companies, Arrowcroft and Stanhope, battle it out for supremacy with regard to their preferred plan.
You will recall that Stanhope own the land and have one set of plans for redevelopment, Arrowcroft have another set of plans which includes an unnecessary arena (the preference of the Council).
The Times reports today that Adrian Dennis, a Croydon Councillor, has abused parliamentary privilege and made inaccurate allegations against the chairman of Stanhope.
Needless to say, lawyers are now involved; thus complicating and worsening the already fractious relationship between the Council and the developers.
The losers in this will, of course, be the citizens of Croydon; who have to endure the eyesore, and canker, in the heart of Croydon that is Dingwall Road.
To read the full Times article visit The Times.
You will recall that Stanhope own the land and have one set of plans for redevelopment, Arrowcroft have another set of plans which includes an unnecessary arena (the preference of the Council).
The Times reports today that Adrian Dennis, a Croydon Councillor, has abused parliamentary privilege and made inaccurate allegations against the chairman of Stanhope.
Needless to say, lawyers are now involved; thus complicating and worsening the already fractious relationship between the Council and the developers.
The losers in this will, of course, be the citizens of Croydon; who have to endure the eyesore, and canker, in the heart of Croydon that is Dingwall Road.
To read the full Times article visit The Times.
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Hope for Dingwall Road?
I am pleased to read that Stanhope and Schroeders have come up with a sensible, and speedy, development plan for Dingwall Road (the cancer in the heart of Croydon).
Should their plans be approved, they claim that the site will be fully redeveloped by 2007.
There is one problem with this plan, it does not contain an arena.
Now, the lack of an arena poses no problem to me; nor indeed, I suspect, to the majority of the residents of Croydon. However, our beloved council (the same people who have brought us to the edge of bankruptcy) have an obsession with building a monument to their criminal waste of resources.
What better way to remind us of their incompetence, than to build a 12,500 seat arena; that will add nothing tangible to the Borough?
The council's preferred developer, Arrowcroft, have tabled plans for an arena. The trouble is, the land which they intend to build this folly on is owned by Stanhope.
This means that, if the council insist on pushing ahead with their wasteful and redundant plan, the development of Dingwall road will be held up for at least a decade; as lawyers for the various parties involved battle it out.
The citizens of Croydon will be emasculated spectators, wringing their hands as they watch the ongoing decay of the town centre.
Now is the time to tell the council to drop their ridiculous plan for an arena.
We want to see Dingwall Road redeveloped now, not in ten or more years time.
A date has been finally set for the public inquiry into Croydon's unitary development plan, the blueprint for the borough's development for the next 10 years. It is time for the people of Croydon to reject the absurd idea for the construction of an arena.
We don't want, or need it.
What we want is a speedy, aesthetically pleasing, redevelopment of the Dingwall road site.
Should their plans be approved, they claim that the site will be fully redeveloped by 2007.
There is one problem with this plan, it does not contain an arena.
Now, the lack of an arena poses no problem to me; nor indeed, I suspect, to the majority of the residents of Croydon. However, our beloved council (the same people who have brought us to the edge of bankruptcy) have an obsession with building a monument to their criminal waste of resources.
What better way to remind us of their incompetence, than to build a 12,500 seat arena; that will add nothing tangible to the Borough?
The council's preferred developer, Arrowcroft, have tabled plans for an arena. The trouble is, the land which they intend to build this folly on is owned by Stanhope.
This means that, if the council insist on pushing ahead with their wasteful and redundant plan, the development of Dingwall road will be held up for at least a decade; as lawyers for the various parties involved battle it out.
The citizens of Croydon will be emasculated spectators, wringing their hands as they watch the ongoing decay of the town centre.
Now is the time to tell the council to drop their ridiculous plan for an arena.
We want to see Dingwall Road redeveloped now, not in ten or more years time.
A date has been finally set for the public inquiry into Croydon's unitary development plan, the blueprint for the borough's development for the next 10 years. It is time for the people of Croydon to reject the absurd idea for the construction of an arena.
We don't want, or need it.
What we want is a speedy, aesthetically pleasing, redevelopment of the Dingwall road site.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)