Watford FC on the move????

[AFF]

Word reaches me of a circular letter that has just been sent by a 'Working Party of St Stephens Parish Council' to all residents of Park Street. It refers to an article in the local paper concerning a substantial re-development of the sewage works site in Park Street and invites the informal views of the residents in advance of a formal Public Consultation which is likely to take place in the New Year.

 

The site is situated in the Metropolitan Green Belt.

 

It would seem that the development proposed comprises "Two hotels, a football stadium, a park and ride base and 100 new homes", although no further details are given in the letter.

 

I have been out of the country on holiday for the past two weeks and I haven't seen any reference to these proposals in the local press. Can anyone shed any light on the scheme? Is it Watford F.C.?

 

 

 

 

[Laz]

AFF, forgive me for being naive here but woundn't a scheme involving 2 hotels, 150 houses and no football ground be more profitable. I assume the people that a carving up the green belt are not doing it for fun and their motives are purely for profit. Although, I seem to remember someone saying that there was little profit to be made from these schemes. Please explain if you could.

[Rob_the_Saint]

More chance of pushing the plan through if they provide 'something for the community'?

 

On the subject of plans, good to see the Cp floodlight plan finally got the go-ahead.

[AFF]

Hi Laz.

 

I'm not a Planning Consultant, but....

 

Luton Town F.C. is a local case in point, although there are, of course, a number of examples around the country. In simple terms, if a Local Authority are keen to see a football club re-locate, usually on the basis that it's existing stadium is inappropriate in terms of land use etc., the Authority might be prepared to give favourable consideration to re-development in a location where it would not otherwise permit a purely 'commercial' development.

 

The construction of a new football stadium is costly and, in isolation, is not usually a viable proposition. A Local Authority may be prepared to consider the grant of Planning Permission for "enabling development" [in this case, it would seem that the applicant is hoping to obtain consent for 100/150 homes, 2 hotels and a Park & Ride base] alongside the new facility to create 'value' to facilitate the acquisition of the land and the construction of the new stadium.

 

Returning to your question, a Planning Permission for 2 hotels and 100/150 homes in isolation would almost certainly create a higher land value than a Planning Permission for those same new homes and hotels together with a football stadium. However, the principle is that, without the new stadium, Planning Permission for the new homes would not be granted in the first place.

 

I should make a couple of things clear.

 

The above outline is a simple summary of the principles behind the relocation of, say, a football stadium together with "enabling development". I do not know any of the details of the proposals at Park Street.

 

It is usually the case that much discussion takes place with the Local Planning Authorities before any proposal is submitted for detailed consideration, including a Public Consultation if appropriate. It should not be assumed that the Authority 'support' a planning application just because one has been submitted!

 

In the case of Park Street, if the site is within the Metropolitan Green Belt, then any development of this scale would appear to be a departure from Government Policy as there is a general presumption against development of any scale in the Green Belt. If, and I repeat if, the Local Authority are minded to grant consent, the application is likely to be called in by the Department of Environment or whatever Tone calls it nowadays, for a formal Public Inquiry.

 

I'll waive my usual professional fees on this occasion.

 

Always pleased to assist.

 

 

 

 

[The Caretaker]

AFF

 

As you often say "what do I know about football" <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

 

Its obviously Park Street Village FC, a forward thinking club who have just started their own youth team/s, helped I believe by a certain Mr Deacon. A club with ambition and an eye to the future ....good God man, whetever next !

 

 

[GHA EFM]

Rob, a bit off-topic of you but floodlight plan? What floodlight plan?

 

Is this the one relating to Orange sticking a mobile phone mast onto one of the floodlights that I read in the local rag a few weeks back?

[Rob_the_Saint]

Almost correct. They are creating a new floodlight tower by the railway line and putting the mobile phone bit on top. Local residents and park users not too impressed understandably.

[YB941 5thD EFM ~soul~]

Maybe we could ground-share with Watford at this new Park Street location??

 

<img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

 

 

[Laz]

Why is that good then? These things are ugly and not suitable for the park. Rather like that horrid grey fence (from the inside anyway) that surrounds the ground.

 

Rob, AFF, are you suggesting then that the football ground move is being used as a way of getting planning permission for the rest of the development?

 

I believe the situation is similar at Aylesbury. New ground and surrounding houses. Now I'm told that they want to sell the ground for new houses. Should we expect the same at City in about six or seven years time?

[GHA EFM]

I suppose a statement from SACFC is out of the question?

[Laz]

Unlikely.

[AFF]

Hi Laz.

 

How will we know which floodlight pylon is the mast thingy? In the unlikely event that I fall pregnant, I would rather not stand under it.

 

As far as the Planning Permission issue is concerned, Laz, yours is an interesting choice of words. In the event that Planning Permission is, indeed, granted for a redevelopment along the lines suggested in the Green Belt, then it is fair to say that the construction of a new stadium is a key element of the scheme. If the football stadium were not included, then a much more modest proposal would be likely to be under consideration, if anything.

 

It's a strange location for Watford F.C, to consider, but then, what do I know about it?

 

 

 

 

[Laz]

Perhaps MK Dons are on the move again!

 

We'll have to wait until whoever is involved informs those who care.

[ASF]

I understand that Watford are raising funds to buy back Vicarage Road (with help from a certain E John).

 

Maybe it's Arsenal to be close to their training facilities.

[GHA EFM]

Arsenal are already developing a plot down in London, not too far from Highbury.

 

Is it definitely not Luton then?

[R Zimmerman]

Maybe I can shed some light on this. A while back there was a planning application for two hotels and football training facilities to be built by the M25 junction, but this was turned down.

The football facilities were simply to be built so that they could attract clubs to stay at the hotels.

As the was original plans that were turned down were just five minutes up the road it wouldn't surprise me that it the same person(s) are looking to build in Park Street instead.

[AFF]

I have it on good authority that the scheme at Park Street involves the relocation of St Albans City F.C. from Clarence Park, although I have seen no details of the proposals.

 

On another thread, Laz asked "What are the benefits to SACFC of a move to Park Street?"

 

Ignoring Park Street for a moment, although I have very fond feelings for Clarence Park, I believe that there are good reasons to explore options for relocation.

 

There is limited car parking at Clarence Park which is frustrating on match days although not crucial, but the opportunities to run social, fund-raising events during the week and the summer months are very limited. The main stand is of wooden construction and the view of the pitch is hampered by the structural columns. The facilities generally are inadequate and the ability to make major improvements is severely restricted as the property is, firstly leasehold, and secondly situated in a public park.

 

I do not know the details of the Park Street proposals and I wouldn't comment until they are made public.

 

There are some issues concerning a relocation which should be of concern to the many thousands of Saintsfans which have not yet been aired on here.

 

As indicated above, whether at Park Street or elsewhere, it is likely that the Local Authority would permit "enabling development" alongside a new stadium in order to provide sufficient funds to finance the relocation. The cost of a new stadium for a club at this level will depend upon the size, scale and nature of the facilities, of course, but for this purpose, we can assume a cost in the wide range of £3-5 million.

 

So. Picture the new stadium completed. Who will own the ground? Will it be the football club? Or will it be leased to the club? If so, at what rent? [The rent at Clarence Park is £1 per annum.] What will be the length of the lease?

 

There will be 'commercial' elements of the development alongside the stadium. Who will own those? If they produce an annual income, will any of that income be for the benefit of SACFC?

 

In common with most others, this football club has not been able to survive on the income it generates for a number of years. Different Chairmen have had their own ways of dealing with that small problem. Once re-located, how will the football club generate additional annual income to finance its running costs?

 

I expect that these matters will be debated in the appropriate place in due course.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Laz]

AFF, it seems that you and I have differnt views for your three main points:

 

Car Parking: The ground is within easy walking distance for some 10-20 thousand people. There is ample street parking in the area. There is a massive car park at the City station which is underused on a Saturday or during the evenings. For away supporters there is the City station just five minutes away.

 

Wooden Stand: Could be replaced. I believe there was a plan to erect a stand for 400-500 seats a while back. Its design would allow expansion to 2,000 should demand require it!

 

Facilities: I don't think the imposed limits hamper the existing events. There are often free seats for the quiz nights, and the bar is rarely full before a match, despite the introduction of SKY. As I recall the above plan for a new stand would have increased the playing facilities and the bar area.

 

If we move elsewhere, nearly all our supporters would need to drive. I'm not sure how reliable the public transport is from Park Street on a Tuesday night after extra time and penalties.

 

I'm sure we have some supporters that don't drive. Therefore we would need a car park at the new ground, not just for our own dwindling support but for all travelling fans.

 

I have to conclude that the motives for moving the ground are possibly other than for the good of the club.

[Rob_the_Saint]

We need a fans' forum!

[Laz]

Robster, you only have fans forums when things are going well! It's a chance for everyone that pat the manager on the back and ask tame questions about playing formations.