Our ambitione

[lovely stuff]

Spurs want to build on Green Belt land.(That will be the main crux of both old and new applications). The borough of Enfields Senior Planning Officer recommended acceptance of Spurs' initail application.It was the indiviual councilors who voted by majority against agreeing to the application.As such,it will again be those people who Spurs will have to pursuade to accept the new proposal.These councilors refused a very professional, sound (all boxes ticked) original application. (an application that included a large sweetener of new sporting facilities for the borough in exchange for taking greenbelt land).When the councilors refused the applilcation,they went directly against the advice of their own top planning manager.

 

These councilors are hard people to please.Knowing that,Spurs have got to put an even better application in this time round.If i were them, i would be looking to increase any offers of funding for local community sporting facilities,rather than withdrawing any offers of help.

[andyetfc]

From the minutes of the Chase, Southbury and Town Area Forum, 7 June 2007.

 

Minute 4ix. 6.8 Queen Elizabeth ll Stadium

 

A resident advised that the local press had reported that two football clubs would be utilising the stadium.

 

Councillor Rye responded saying that there were no confirmed plans for the stadium. A report would be going to Cabinet in the Autumn and a paper released with the details. He added that none of the proposals would encroach onto the playing fields.

 

For sight of the planning application, go to the relevant planning page on the Enfield Council web site and type in TP/07/1623. This is the current planning application from THFC.

 

 

[Southport - TOWNER]

according to a relable source there will be football at QE 2 next season.........................

 

 

 

[Sponsor of Beer]

Originally Posted By: lovely stuff

Spurs want to build on Green Belt land.(That will be the main crux of both old and new applications). The borough of Enfields Senior Planning Officer recommended acceptance of Spurs' initail application.It was the indiviual councilors who voted by majority against agreeing to the application.As such,it will again be those people who Spurs will have to pursuade to accept the new proposal.These councilors refused a very professional, sound (all boxes ticked) original application. (an application that included a large sweetener of new sporting facilities for the borough in exchange for taking greenbelt land).When the councilors refused the applilcation,they went directly against the advice of their own top planning manager.

These councilors are hard people to please. Knowing that,Spurs have got to put an even better application in this time round.If i were them, i would be looking to increase any offers of funding for local community sporting facilities,rather than withdrawing any offers of help.

I think this misses the political dimension. The whole process seems to me to be something of a set piece.

i)Spurs submit application
ii) Residents go up in arms
iii) Council refuses application to keep in with voters
iv) Spurs succeed on Appeal
v) Council says it's hands were tied (and probably doesn't defend it's original decision, so as not to waste local taxpayers' money
vi) The world doesn't stop turning


What's interesting here is the seeming change of tack, bringing the Whitewebbs land into the equation. Despite the fact that the new application claims to have addressed all of the reasons for refusal of the original, I wouldn't be surprised if the scenario described above is repeated.

I wonder if Spurs are in not in quite so much of a rush, as they are still trying to lever commitments to public transport improvements out of LB Haringey and TfL by threatening to move from White Hart Lane. A major investment in new training facilities at Bulls Cross would perhaps weaken their hand in that regard, or drive up the price of land if a new stadium was generally to the north of the existing.

As for whether the s106 can be adequately linked to QE, I don't think that's a problem. LB Enfield plans to invest more widely in the playng fields, and may have to with the potential loss to the community of the Whitewebbs pitches, so it will all be lost in the bigger picture.

[lovely stuff]

Originally Posted By: Southport - TOWNER

according to a relable source there will be football at QE 2 next season.........................

Are you talking about E1893fc? If so, only if they stay in the ESL,because there is no way Ryman football could be played their next season in its current state.It would take a good year or two of work (and loads of money)to bring it up to anywhere near basic ryman levels.Even then it would be a dire place to watch football.Its currently a crumbing wreck of a venue with a massive running track and dreadful car access (you try getting out of Donkey Lane onto Caterhatch on a Saturday).

[townerboy]

but it is in enfield, and close to the original home of EFC

[lovely stuff]

All the more reason why we should be staking a very strong claim for the venue.The difference is, we only see it as viable football venue if the site was completely redeveloped and modernised (New road access/Removal of running track/new terracing/new fencing/new bar..etc).The fact is,that neither club can fund anywhere near the amount required to turn it into a viable football stadium.(around the 1-2 million mark).Town would need the site to be outside funded either by Spurs or prefurably the council.If 1893 want to pour what money they have into the endless 'money pot' that is the current wreck of the QE.Let them get on with it.I personally don't think it is viable for either club to play their in its current state.There are at least 10 park games on Saturdays most using the main stand changing rooms.A rugby game,plus occasionally other events happening at the playing fields.On Saturdays ,if there are three or more cars infront of you trying to turn right onto Caterhatch,it can take 15 minutes to get out of Donkey lane.I dread to think how long it would take it you to get out if there are 10 or 15 cars in front of you after the match.

[andyetfc]

What's to say that Enfield Ignations RFC don't want a say in the matter? They have been around a lot longer than we have.

[andyetfc]

Chase, Southbury and Town Area Forum

Thursday, 25th January, 2007 7.30 pm

 

ix. Min. 6.8 Queen Elizabeth ll Stadium

 

Councillor Rye advised that the Enfield and Haringey Athletics Club had now moved into the new facility at Picketts Lock.

 

He said that the refurbishing of the Q.E. ll Stadium was being looked into for community access.

 

Councillor Rye reported that consultations would take place over the possibility of re instating Enfield Football Club at the grounds, which would be ‘good news’ for Enfield.

 

How about we wait and see what develops? Does make interesting reading from a public document.

 

[lovely stuff]

That document was issued in January 2007.The document you posted from June 2007 stated that 2 football clubs would be unitilising the stadium.

Very confusing.It seems the council are maintaining their longstanding tradition of keeping their a*rse and their elbow in seperate locations.

 

 

[The Invisible Man]

Clearly out of date as Enfield FC have folded.

[Southport - TOWNER]

but it is also clear that enfield/1664 are talking to the council

[lovely stuff]

It is clear the EFC were.I presume the new club are as well.Will the council still consider 1893 as 'worthy' of consideration as they may have done to EFC?

 

When fairly wealthy businessmen talk to the council,i get worried.The councils past record suggests that they don't always keep their playing field level.I've just got a feeling that when Dave Bryant puts out his polite,repectful,tentative feelers in the direction of the council,they may fall on deaf ears.As i've found in the past that they usually listen more to the more persistant line of enqiuery.(as well as the option that will cost them less money in the short-term).Lets wait and see.

[townerboy]

lets be honest, we haven't got a clue what is going on have we?

 

[The Invisible Man]

Nope.

[Squadron Leader]

Originally Posted By: The Invisible Man

Nope.

I think that's half the trouble!!!