Our ambitione

[townerboy]

if it is true that spurs have withdrawn their application, does that leave us stuck at Brimmo? If it does then surely a struggle in the Ryman Prem is about the best we can hope? I for one hope we have the ambition to aim beyond that.

[lovely stuff]

From the way the preference voting went at the AGM.The QE stadium was second on the list of priorities behind gaining Ryman prem status and above laying down longterm roots at Brimsdown.So i hope our board (Dave Byrant in particular) are currently focusing of trying to secure our long term furure at the QE.

[andyetfc]

This agenda item was from the Planning meeting dated 30 August 2007 so if the application has been withdrawn, then it must have been recent.

 

288.

Tottenham Hotspur Football Training Centre Application : Arrangements for Planning Panel

 

To agree:

 

 

 

(a) the date of Thursday 11 October 2007, 7.30 pm at the Conference Room, Enfield Civic Centre; and

 

 

 

( the membership of the Panel

 

 

 

for a Planning Panel meeting in relation to application TP/07/1623 made by Tottenham Hotspur Football Club for the construction of a football training centre comprising a building incorporating training and associated facilities, ancillary buildings and plant, external pitches, access roads, parking, pathways, fences and external lighting at land between Whitewebbs Lane and Bulls Cross, Enfield.

 

Minutes:

 

NOTED Members’ discussion of possible improvements to the Planning Panel format and that suggestions were welcomed by the Chairman.

 

 

 

AGREED that a Planning Panel meeting be held on Thursday 11th October 2007, 7.30 pm at the Conference Room, Enfield Civic Centre, with the panel to be made up of seven Members of the Planning Committee; names to be notified to the Committee Secretary.

 

[Duke of York]

Where did this rumour come from? There's no news regarding the application withdrawal on the Spurs website, nor the Enfield Council or Enfield Society websites.

 

 

[townerboy]

saw it in a paper.

[Duke of York]

I'm sure I'll be amongst the minority at Town but I'll be delighted if they have withdrawn their application.

[lovely stuff]

Why??

[The Invisible Man]

It is on the Spurs website (or it was, I saw it there on Saturday).

 

The appeal has been withdrawn and a new application is to be submitted which claims to address all of the reasons for rejection (which was against officer's recommendations). I would hazard that this makes another rejection fairly unlikely if they've done it properly. Apparently the purchase of Whitewebbs Sports Club has made the new application possible.

[lovely stuff]

Then i would suggest that our board clarify with Enfield council that the original outline to provide Enfield Town FC with facilites at the QE,is still part of any application,and that Enfield council and Spurs intend to honour that original plan,if-and-when a successful application is accepted.

 

I did have a copy of the orignal plans,i'll try to dig them out.It was to provide a conference grade stadium on the QE site.Pitch would be turned 90 degrees and current main stand would be behind goal,with the rest of the stadium being new build.Bar/fucntion room facilites would be built seperately opposite the main enterance (on part of the current gravelled parking area).The plans also featured a full size all-weather pitch next to the ground.A new road would be built through where the current allotments are,and parking would be provided along this road and at the top of the road (behind the current rugby club bar).

 

Saying that, there are some many things to be thrashed out if the prosopal ever did come about.Who would own and run the site? How much use would Spurs want of facilites (i presume training +Reserve/youth teams games).What percentage of bar receits would we get? Would we have to pay to hire out the bar/Function facilites? Could we collect all or a percentage of any money gained form hiring out those facilites to third-parties (wedding/functions..etc?) There are so many unanswered questions that the possibility of it all falling into place is slim,but i feel this route is our best(if only) chance of ever gaining top non-league status in the future.

[The Invisible Man]

Why would they need to 'honour' that original plan? The application was rejected, this is a new and different application. When the application is submiited it will be in the public domain and will be available for inspection at the Civic Centre. There are no details on the website of course but I suspect that the purchase of Whitewebbs makes the use of the QE unnecesary.

 

 

Your points regarding ownership of the facility is crucial. I would not think that we would get any income from using someone else's stadium and clubhouse.

 

I guess that unless I win the lottery we are stuck with Brimmo.

[lovely stuff]

The orignal plans included the building of a stadium 'For Enfield Town football club'.No real mention of any proposed use by Spurs was included (although we all presumed they would want to make use of facilities).

 

The agreement to build facilites for the 'people of Enfield',was used as a significant sweetener for the borough because Spurs were wanting to biuld on so much Enfield Green belt.That situation remains the same,whether they have purchased Whitewebbs or not.

 

If the new plans do not involve the QE,it wll be just another in a long line of shamefull incidents by Enfield council,in expertly screwing up any chance of football in Enfield.

 

1.Refusing the Saracens joint new stadium project with EFC

2.Selling Southbury road to developers.

3.Refusing Spurs original training ground application.

 

It seems the council are continually doing all they can to drive Enfield Football into the dirt.

[The Invisible Man]

How do you know if the situation remains the same, without sight of the application? The point with Whitewebbs is, whatever Spurs may have wanted to use the QE for, presumably they can use Whitewebbs for. One would however expect that if our club was named in a planning application (original or new) that out board was aware and had been in discussion with the applicant. How does the applicant know that we want it? Obviously our own board will have been, and will continue to be, totally open and up-front with rest of the membership....

 

If the new application does not involve the QE, is has nothing to do with the council, they are not the applicant. Arguably they can ask for a Section 106 but it might not be applicable in this case.

 

However, this is all pure speculation until the application is submitted, and we can but hope. I wonder of the board have contacted the Spurs to ebquire/nudge/hint?

 

Your final points will not find many here in disagreement, I don't think, although I wouldn't say the council was the main culprit in point 2. But we don't want to go there again......

 

 

[Sponsor of Beer]

I'd have thought it more important to know what's happened to the Appeal against the original refusal that's due to be heard in November (I think). The second application, apparently, dealt with all the reasons for refusing the first (I assume by developing out the Whitewebbs site)-so it would be odd for it to have been withdrawn, if the Appeal is still alive.

[lovely stuff]

Quite!

 

Spurs' application to build on Enfields green belt failed (despite the considerable sweetener of agreeing to fund a development of the QE stadium for the people of Enfield).So why would an application without that considerable sweetener gain approval?Why would purchasing Whitewebbs make any difference.Unless Spurs planned to move half of their new proposed facilies to Whitwebbs and thus need less space at Bulls Cross.So if Spurs originally offered ETFC a new ground at the QE,surely the council would require them to offer us the same facilities at Whitewebbs,if they were to approve the new application?

 

More questions than answers

[lovely stuff]

Invis-Why has your previous post dissapeared? did you delete it?

 

 

 

You seem to be under the impression that any facilites at the QE proposed in the original application would have beeen owned and run by Spurs.This was not how the offer of QE redeveopment was worded.It proposed the building of a ground FOR ETFC, not that ETFC would be allowed to be tennents.Although i agree,Spurs' involvement with regard to ownership/profit distribution..etc were not fully laid out.Although our board has said previously that we would not be interested in any development that didn't allow us to generate our own bar/function room receits.So as our board backed Spurs' proposal,i presume they were happy with what was on the table.

[The Invisible Man]

No, LS, it's still there. I can see it!

 

Indeed, building something 'for' someone doesn't imply ownership in any way, if that's all it said. Presumably the council would have retained ownership of the stadium, with Town playing there, leasing/renting it from the council? ETFC would have to be someone's tenants unless Spurs bought it from the council then gave it to us. It's academic now anyway.

 

The Spurs website clearly states that the appeal against the original decision has been withdrawn.

[Sponsor of Beer]

So Spurs are looking to rely on the subsequent application. That makes sense, having paid £1m for Whitewebbs and pursuing an Appeal that didn't utilise it would have been problematical.

[lovely stuff]

Invis.You still havn't explain how purchasing Whitewebbs improves Spurs' chances of gaining approval for the Bulls Cross development(especially if they also withdraw their initial offer to fund local facilities in Enfield).Also,why are you so convinced that their new proposal won't still include the QE?

[townerboy]

I knwow!!! why don't we just build ourselves a massive new stadium, and let spurs ressies play there for a fee.

[The Invisible Man]

I don't think I said it would, but obviously they think the new application will succeed or they wouldn't be doing it, and presumably the aquisition of the Whitewebbs site has made the new scheme possible. If as they say all the reasons for refusal last time are addressed there are probably few grounds (pardon the pun) for refusal: there probably weren't last time as the refusal was against officer's advice.

 

I'm not convinced about the QE, I don't know, not having seen the application. I pointed out that the applicant is not required to 'honour' anything in a previous application.

 

A Section 106 agreement has to relate to the application in some way.