"Tara Walton volunteers for All Inclusive, an organisation that offers financial training to young people, based in the centre.
The 24-year-old said: 'It is good they have come and are actually paying attention to Croydon for once, but it shouldn't have taken the riots to do that.'"
Source Croydon Guardian 18 August 2011
"Prince shares Ken's concern at town decay"
Source Croydon Guardian 11 June 2004
Showing posts with label regeneration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label regeneration. Show all posts
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Limitless Offer for Minerva
Property Week reports that the developer Minerva has received a £258M cash offer from Dubai property company, Limitless.
As I noted back in May, this bid may well affect the much delayed plans for Park Place.
The original plan was for work on Park Place to start in spring this year, with completion expected in 2012.
Croydon council now claim that it does not expect to receive a new planning application from developer Minerva until October or November this year.
As I noted back in May, this bid may well affect the much delayed plans for Park Place.
The original plan was for work on Park Place to start in spring this year, with completion expected in 2012.
Croydon council now claim that it does not expect to receive a new planning application from developer Minerva until October or November this year.
Monday, June 02, 2008
Croydon Selects John Laing
Property Week reports that Croydon Council has selected John Laing Projects and Developments as its preferred partner for a £450M regeneration.
John Laing beat competition from Land Securities Trillium to be selected as Croydon Council's partner to redevelop four council-owned sites and build the council a new headquarters.
The cabinet is set to approve the creation of the 50:50 urban regeneration vehicle on 9 June.
The council said:
"Through setting up a limited liability partnership in which the council and its selected private sector investment partner would each have a 50% stake (through the authority's land assets and the partner’s cash) the council will be able to ensure regeneration takes place in the way it wants and to realise much greater value from the proceeds."
Councillor Tim Pollard said:
"It won't have escaped anyone's notice that some of the most successful companies in the UK are property developers. The council has for some time sold sites to the highest bidder only for developers to take all the profit when land is developed.
The solution we expect to engineer with John Laing will ensure we get a big slice of the future action and make a lasting contribution to Croydon's regeneration."
I might have more faith in the council's and Tim Pollard's abilities to regenerate Croydon, were it not for their obsession with trying to build an arena in Croydon.
John Laing beat competition from Land Securities Trillium to be selected as Croydon Council's partner to redevelop four council-owned sites and build the council a new headquarters.
The cabinet is set to approve the creation of the 50:50 urban regeneration vehicle on 9 June.
The council said:
"Through setting up a limited liability partnership in which the council and its selected private sector investment partner would each have a 50% stake (through the authority's land assets and the partner’s cash) the council will be able to ensure regeneration takes place in the way it wants and to realise much greater value from the proceeds."
Councillor Tim Pollard said:
"It won't have escaped anyone's notice that some of the most successful companies in the UK are property developers. The council has for some time sold sites to the highest bidder only for developers to take all the profit when land is developed.
The solution we expect to engineer with John Laing will ensure we get a big slice of the future action and make a lasting contribution to Croydon's regeneration."
I might have more faith in the council's and Tim Pollard's abilities to regenerate Croydon, were it not for their obsession with trying to build an arena in Croydon.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Park Place Collapse
It looks like the Park Place development scheme has collapsed (or rather is going to collapse).
How many years has the council (both Labour and Tory) tried to kid us that this development would ever happen?
Who seriously believed that this scheme would ever get off the ground?
How many other development schemes touted by the council are going to fail to get off the ground?
The failure of Croydon council to plan effectively has led to the degradation and decay of the area designated for the development, eg St George's Walk. Local businesses, such as Turtle's, have been under threat of closure because of this scheme.
In May 2005 I wrote that:
"Turtle's, one of Croydon's best known independent stores, is searching for new premises after compulsory purchase orders were issued to acquire the land for the £500M Park Place shopping centre."
In February 2005 I wrote about Minerva funding Croydon Council's fight against the Whitgift shopping centre expansion plans proposed by Minerva's rivals, who own the Whitgift. I stated then that this must surely raise reservations about the council's independence.
Interestingly, John Prescott crushed the rival scheme in March 2006; Andrew Rosenfeld (owner of Minerva) having loaned £1M to Labour.
According to The Times:
"Prescott killed the rival scheme, put forward by a consortium called Whitgift, by rejecting its appeal against an earlier refusal by inspectors to give it planning permission."
Prescott denied this and another allegation. Prescott confirmed that he had received the planning applications, but said he felt the decisions should be made locally.
"I passed it over to Croydon and (the other application) City of London Corporation.
They made the decision, not me."
It is time that the council stopped kowtowing to the developers, and asserted a robust and coherent development policy that served the interests of the people who actually live and work in Croydon.
How many years has the council (both Labour and Tory) tried to kid us that this development would ever happen?
Who seriously believed that this scheme would ever get off the ground?
How many other development schemes touted by the council are going to fail to get off the ground?
The failure of Croydon council to plan effectively has led to the degradation and decay of the area designated for the development, eg St George's Walk. Local businesses, such as Turtle's, have been under threat of closure because of this scheme.
In May 2005 I wrote that:
"Turtle's, one of Croydon's best known independent stores, is searching for new premises after compulsory purchase orders were issued to acquire the land for the £500M Park Place shopping centre."
In February 2005 I wrote about Minerva funding Croydon Council's fight against the Whitgift shopping centre expansion plans proposed by Minerva's rivals, who own the Whitgift. I stated then that this must surely raise reservations about the council's independence.
Interestingly, John Prescott crushed the rival scheme in March 2006; Andrew Rosenfeld (owner of Minerva) having loaned £1M to Labour.
According to The Times:
"Prescott killed the rival scheme, put forward by a consortium called Whitgift, by rejecting its appeal against an earlier refusal by inspectors to give it planning permission."
Prescott denied this and another allegation. Prescott confirmed that he had received the planning applications, but said he felt the decisions should be made locally.
"I passed it over to Croydon and (the other application) City of London Corporation.
They made the decision, not me."
It is time that the council stopped kowtowing to the developers, and asserted a robust and coherent development policy that served the interests of the people who actually live and work in Croydon.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Croydon Regeneration
The Croydon Guardian reports that tonight Croydon, "once described as a 'complete concrete hell' by David Bowie, will announce a multibillion-pound regeneration plan that will, potentially, turn it into a beacon of sustainability, drawing on ideas from other European cities including Barcelona.
The architect Will Alsop, who once tried to reinvent Barnsley as a walled Tuscan hill town, is to mastermind the transformation, which has as its centrepiece 'a vertical version of the Eden Project' rising more than 30 storeys in Park Hill Park.
Effectively a giant greenhouse in the form of a skyscraper, it would become Croydon's primary visitor attraction with different species planted in 'sky gardens' on each floor.
Alsop has proposed hacking back 'a forest of car parks' choking the town centre, shutting eight-lane highways to through traffic and building a pedestrian-friendly 'emerald necklace' of parks.
The river Wandle is also to be brought back to the surface 40 years after it was buried in culverts and Alsop hopes to revive fishing for Wandle trout."
The plans don't stop there:
"20,000 new homes will be built to increase the town centre population from fewer than 5,000 residents to 50,000. Glass apartment blocks will be connected by high-level covered walkways crossing the main Wellesley Road, which will be reduced from eight lanes to two.
Pod-shaped buildings will rise up on stilts and scores of public squares and miniature parks will be built throughout the town centre, inspired by the regeneration of Barcelona after the 1992 Olympics."
Admirable in every way. However, I do have two caveats in respect of the ambitions of the council and the architect:
1 Why is the council wasting so much time and resources on trying to build the unwanted and unnecessary arena in Dingwall Road?
2 We have seen plans like this, eg high level walkways, before. Those of you with long memories may recall an exhibition held near the Fairfield Hall in the early 1990's. This was to showcase proposed designs for a "brave, new Croydon". We were treated to stunning models and drawings showing; glass walkways, communal gardens and elegant office/residential tower blocks. Needless to say, these plans came to nowt.
I wonder if any of us will live long enough to see these plans come to fruition?
The architect Will Alsop, who once tried to reinvent Barnsley as a walled Tuscan hill town, is to mastermind the transformation, which has as its centrepiece 'a vertical version of the Eden Project' rising more than 30 storeys in Park Hill Park.
Effectively a giant greenhouse in the form of a skyscraper, it would become Croydon's primary visitor attraction with different species planted in 'sky gardens' on each floor.
Alsop has proposed hacking back 'a forest of car parks' choking the town centre, shutting eight-lane highways to through traffic and building a pedestrian-friendly 'emerald necklace' of parks.
The river Wandle is also to be brought back to the surface 40 years after it was buried in culverts and Alsop hopes to revive fishing for Wandle trout."
The plans don't stop there:
"20,000 new homes will be built to increase the town centre population from fewer than 5,000 residents to 50,000. Glass apartment blocks will be connected by high-level covered walkways crossing the main Wellesley Road, which will be reduced from eight lanes to two.
Pod-shaped buildings will rise up on stilts and scores of public squares and miniature parks will be built throughout the town centre, inspired by the regeneration of Barcelona after the 1992 Olympics."
Admirable in every way. However, I do have two caveats in respect of the ambitions of the council and the architect:
1 Why is the council wasting so much time and resources on trying to build the unwanted and unnecessary arena in Dingwall Road?
2 We have seen plans like this, eg high level walkways, before. Those of you with long memories may recall an exhibition held near the Fairfield Hall in the early 1990's. This was to showcase proposed designs for a "brave, new Croydon". We were treated to stunning models and drawings showing; glass walkways, communal gardens and elegant office/residential tower blocks. Needless to say, these plans came to nowt.
I wonder if any of us will live long enough to see these plans come to fruition?
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Funding Cut
It looks as though the government has put the mockers on some of Croydon's regeneration schemes. Chancellor Alistair Darling announced during the Comprehensive Spending Review that the £77M that Croydon was supposed to be receiving in funding through the Local Enterprise Growth Initiative (LEGI) may be unavailable in the future.
It seems that Croydon Labour group leader, Councillor Tony Newman (ex Council Leader), is trying to blame the current Conservative council for this.
Given that it was the Labour administration under Newman that bankrupted Croydon in the first place, I find his comments to be "a bit rich".
It seems that Croydon Labour group leader, Councillor Tony Newman (ex Council Leader), is trying to blame the current Conservative council for this.
Given that it was the Labour administration under Newman that bankrupted Croydon in the first place, I find his comments to be "a bit rich".
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Shortlist For Regeneration
Property Week reports that Croydon Council has narrowed its list of development partners for a £450M urban regeneration vehicle down to three.
Land Securities Trillium, Mapeley with Terrace Hill and housebuilder Fairview and builder John Laing Projects and Developments are in the final list to partner Croydon Council in redeveloping five council-owned sites worth around £89M.
The centrepiece of the project will be to provide 200,000 sq ft of office space for the council as well as working to regenerate Croydon Town Centre.
Let us hope that the regeneration of Croydon, much vaunted over the past 15 years, finally becomes a reality.
Land Securities Trillium, Mapeley with Terrace Hill and housebuilder Fairview and builder John Laing Projects and Developments are in the final list to partner Croydon Council in redeveloping five council-owned sites worth around £89M.
The centrepiece of the project will be to provide 200,000 sq ft of office space for the council as well as working to regenerate Croydon Town Centre.
Let us hope that the regeneration of Croydon, much vaunted over the past 15 years, finally becomes a reality.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Sweating The Assets
Croydon Council have announced a joint venture proposal whereby the council will put between £30m and £60m of property assets into a specially created limited partnership, to be matched by funds from a private sector developer.
The private investor will take over the development of the joint venture, which will also take on bank debt to help regenerate Croydon town centre and, in theory, make profits for both the council and the private company. The ultimate value of the vehicle has been estimated at £450m.
Councillor Tim Pollard, a fan of the arena development, said:
"We have to make better use of our assets. The Government White Paper has been encouraging councils to look to their assets and make sure they are sweating them. In this kind of deal it makes a lot of sense for us to put in our assets and the private sector to put in the equity."
I am most certainly in favour of the council making the most of its, sorry, our assets. However, given the lamentable shortcomings demonstrated so far with regard to the "regeneration" of Croydon (eg the arena) are the council actually capable of making a success of this?
The private investor will take over the development of the joint venture, which will also take on bank debt to help regenerate Croydon town centre and, in theory, make profits for both the council and the private company. The ultimate value of the vehicle has been estimated at £450m.
Councillor Tim Pollard, a fan of the arena development, said:
"We have to make better use of our assets. The Government White Paper has been encouraging councils to look to their assets and make sure they are sweating them. In this kind of deal it makes a lot of sense for us to put in our assets and the private sector to put in the equity."
I am most certainly in favour of the council making the most of its, sorry, our assets. However, given the lamentable shortcomings demonstrated so far with regard to the "regeneration" of Croydon (eg the arena) are the council actually capable of making a success of this?
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, December 07, 2006
Pathetic!
When I saw that there were to be some Christmas lights in Croydon centre this year, for the first time in a number of years, I actually started to feel a degree of optimism about Croydon's future.
Sadly that optimism was misplaced, as per the Croydon Guardian:
"Part of Croydon has been left in the dark after a Christmas lights blunder.
The farce came after a long running fundraising campaign to light up the town that was backed by the Croydon Business group and the Croydon Advertiser.
The lights were originally erected in South End between Laud Street and Coombe Lane but had to be taken down when organisers discovered there were no suitable power sockets."
This farce begs the question, if the council are unable to organise something a simple as Christmas lights; how on earth are they going to manage and organise the much needed regeneration of the decaying town centre?
Sadly that optimism was misplaced, as per the Croydon Guardian:
"Part of Croydon has been left in the dark after a Christmas lights blunder.
The farce came after a long running fundraising campaign to light up the town that was backed by the Croydon Business group and the Croydon Advertiser.
The lights were originally erected in South End between Laud Street and Coombe Lane but had to be taken down when organisers discovered there were no suitable power sockets."
This farce begs the question, if the council are unable to organise something a simple as Christmas lights; how on earth are they going to manage and organise the much needed regeneration of the decaying town centre?
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, February 02, 2004
Dingwall Road - Post Nuclear Croydon
Dingwall Road is one of the main thoroughfares used by commuters, to go between their homes, offices and East Croydon station (the main line station that connects Croydon to London, Gatwick and the coast).
I would say that several thousand people, both locals and visitors use this road.
I wonder precisely what impression this squalid, unkempt and decaying example of corporate/council design and planning gone wrong must make.
Croydon Council are very keen to promote Croydon as the ideal place to make movies. I for one would agree that if you wished to make a movie about life after a nuclear attack, then Dingwall Road would be my location of choice.
Dingwall Road has a fine combination of hideous car parks, bill boards, waste land, dirt, detritus, plastic bags in trees and derelict office buildings. It says more about Croydon Council and its competence wrt planning and design (past and present) than words or political speeches ever could.
It is more reminiscent of communist East Europe, rather than a vibrant heart of a 21st century town.
Personally I would like to see every council member past and present, who had a hand in approving the planning of this carbuncle; together with the architects and corporate money men who put forward the plans, visit every resident on Croydon on their bended knees and apologise for this miserable excuse for a thoroughfare.
As for the current members of Croydon Council who, don’t forget that they raised council tax by 27% last year (and no doubt will do so again), have sat on their hands for the past few years and watched this road rot further; I have nothing but contempt. It is not without some justification that they were awarded my prestigious "Worse Than Worthless" award last year.
The nearest we have ever come to renovation and urban regeneration is the cheap plastic model of "Future Croydon", displayed in Allders shopping mall.
This has as much chance of becoming reality as I have of becoming Pope!
I have assembled a photo collage of pictures that I have taken one afternoon, as I took a “pleasant” stroll down Dingwall Road.
To view highlights of my stroll along Dingwall Road please click Post Nuclear Croydon.
I present an example of one of the pleasant sights of my walk below:
Dingwall Road is one of the main thoroughfares used by commuters, to go between their homes, offices and East Croydon station (the main line station that connects Croydon to London, Gatwick and the coast).
I would say that several thousand people, both locals and visitors use this road.
I wonder precisely what impression this squalid, unkempt and decaying example of corporate/council design and planning gone wrong must make.
Croydon Council are very keen to promote Croydon as the ideal place to make movies. I for one would agree that if you wished to make a movie about life after a nuclear attack, then Dingwall Road would be my location of choice.
Dingwall Road has a fine combination of hideous car parks, bill boards, waste land, dirt, detritus, plastic bags in trees and derelict office buildings. It says more about Croydon Council and its competence wrt planning and design (past and present) than words or political speeches ever could.
It is more reminiscent of communist East Europe, rather than a vibrant heart of a 21st century town.
Personally I would like to see every council member past and present, who had a hand in approving the planning of this carbuncle; together with the architects and corporate money men who put forward the plans, visit every resident on Croydon on their bended knees and apologise for this miserable excuse for a thoroughfare.
As for the current members of Croydon Council who, don’t forget that they raised council tax by 27% last year (and no doubt will do so again), have sat on their hands for the past few years and watched this road rot further; I have nothing but contempt. It is not without some justification that they were awarded my prestigious "Worse Than Worthless" award last year.
The nearest we have ever come to renovation and urban regeneration is the cheap plastic model of "Future Croydon", displayed in Allders shopping mall.
This has as much chance of becoming reality as I have of becoming Pope!
I have assembled a photo collage of pictures that I have taken one afternoon, as I took a “pleasant” stroll down Dingwall Road.
To view highlights of my stroll along Dingwall Road please click Post Nuclear Croydon.
I present an example of one of the pleasant sights of my walk below:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)