Chairman's statement

[DerekRocholl]

From what a friend of mine who was in a senior position in planning a few years ago tells me this is typical of TK's approach to negotiating. Apparently he is confrontational, lays down demands and is unwilling to compromise. At that time the council were keen to help but he made it difficult for them to do so. If you want somebody's help it's best not to put their backs up I feel. This is what he seems to have done now.

Contrast this with the approach taken by Nigel Wray, Chairman of Saracens. He spend time getting to know the council did lots of schmoosing, as they say, and made it easy for the council to help.

I do worry slightly that an unexpected announcement like this will have irritated the council, but equally it may have been necessary to push the process along a bit, so it's hard to tell without knowing more details about the situation.

Again, hopefully the use of an external company in the process will curb some of the instincts that you're talking about re: TK (if that assessment is accurate)- you would imagine that WSP have enough experience to know how to handle a potentially delicate application process like this. We also appointed Keith Ferry as a club vice-president back in late 2022, who is presumably having some input about how to handle council-related matters.

TK has spent the last 10 years (and more) waiting for the council to pull their finger out, including having them over to the Hive and also being in regular contact with them. How much longer should he have waited? It's time for the council to get off the fence and let us all know if they'll ever support the club coming back to Barnet.

Has the SA got any meetings lined up with TK and or WSP to try to establish how best supporters can apply their efforts to help with the application process. It is probably best to have a co-ordinated approach before taking too many pot shots at the Council or anyone else ?

At the end of the day the Council can only “get off the fence” if they have a credible formal proposal/application to consider.

[beew]

They propose this to pool the St John's Ambulance, Scouts and Rainbow centres into one large building, together with cafe and sports facilities. So Barnet council had a draft proposal to build on the greenbelt land but didn't go through with it.

I hesitate to say, but if they had gone ahead with this new large building on green belt land, that they'd of got planning for it with no problems...

I'm sure you're right but they would of had to justify the costs (£11 million) together with the greenbelt issues. The cost issue
could now go away with our proposals, making it easier for the decision to be made. This must be good news, in the fact that the council have it in their planning strategy to provide a community facility on the greenbelt at exactly the same place that we have a plan to build a community facility stadium. The two are connected in one, and I think this is what TK has been in discussion with the council.

[thebeekeeper]

From what a friend of mine who was in a senior position in planning a few years ago tells me this is typical of TK's approach to negotiating. Apparently he is confrontational, lays down demands and is unwilling to compromise. At that time the council were keen to help but he made it difficult for them to do so. If you want somebody's help it's best not to put their backs up I feel. This is what he seems to have done now.

Contrast this with the approach taken by Nigel Wray, Chairman of Saracens. He spend time getting to know the council did lots of schmoosing, as they say, and made it easy for the council to help.

I do worry slightly that an unexpected announcement like this will have irritated the council, but equally it may have been necessary to push the process along a bit, so it's hard to tell without knowing more details about the situation.

Again, hopefully the use of an external company in the process will curb some of the instincts that you're talking about re: TK (if that assessment is accurate)- you would imagine that WSP have enough experience to know how to handle a potentially delicate application process like this. We also appointed Keith Ferry as a club vice-president back in late 2022, who is presumably having some input about how to handle council-related matters.

TK has spent the last 10 years (and more) waiting for the council to pull their finger out, including having them over to the Hive and also being in regular contact with them. How much longer should he have waited? It's time for the council to get off the fence and let us all know if they'll ever support the club coming back to Barnet.

I did mention in my post that "it may have been necessary to push the process along a bit", so I'm not suggesting that he necessarily should have waited any longer, just that it's a delicate balance between trying to get the ball rolling and the council feeling somewhat ambushed - if we want to get them onside.

[b4life]

We are waiting on a date to meet with the club, that may or may not include TK.

[hoofer2]

Some of the issues with previous applications even at the Hive has been building more / plan for more than intitial guidance.

Copthall - outside footprint of running track, 2 stadiums at South Underhill. Building stands larger than what had planning before.

I hope with WSP leading the consultation there will be a tighter relationship knowledge of limitations and constraints that can be mitigated.

I also think TK has gone public so early is to make sure no leaks to the media from another source as soon as engagement begins.

Beware sharing artificial pitches with schools. All the schools where I live would expect to have private pitch hires as much needed additional revenue. Conflict of usage will be inevitable

[11bee717]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wBpn2vMUyU0
Dan Martin confirms there had been dialogue with the council prior to the original statement

[DerekRocholl]

We are waiting on a date to meet with the club, that may or may not include TK.

That’s good to hear, it would be good to know how active the club and their advisers want supporters to be and in what way. It would be sub optimal to proceed unilaterally.

[Berlinbee]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wBpn2vMUyU0
Dan Martin confirms there had been dialogue with the council prior to the original statement

Nothing that we didn’t already know in that segment. It does seem the club are taking every step to ensure we tick all boxes to ensure the council can only approve the application. Cautiously positive

[barnetjohn]

Interview with Dan Martin doesn't really add much. It just says the clubs planning consultants have "reached out" to the council.

Taken together with the update statement there is still not much to go on here. Hard to gauge how likely this is to move forward but given council's response it sounds like they are sceptical.

If the SA are meeting the club it would be good if they can ask and get answers to the five key questions earlier in this thread.

[barnetpete]

Interview with Dan Martin doesn't really add much. It just says the clubs planning consultants have "reached out" to the council.

Taken together with the update statement there is still not much to go on here. Hard to gauge how likely this is to move forward but given council's response it sounds like they are sceptical.

If the SA are meeting the club it would be good if they can ask and get answers to the five key questions earlier in this thread.

Interesting take on it. I took away the bit Dean talks about how they have been speaking to the council for ages and the council had to initially come out publicly a bit sceptical of the plans.

Knowing you have seen previous applications self implode over the years due to poor decisions / PR disasters I fully get your scepticism. I just think maybe lessons have been learnt and this time the tactics seem a bit different, much more aim for partnership working, realistic not overly ambitious plans, using the very best consultants. Guess time will tell!

[Berlinbee]

https://www.barnetfc.com/back-to-barnet ... march-2024

[hoofer2]

After driving up Barnet Lane for first time for ages, one concern is there are already a number of astro pitches and sports centre - will this be a reason used not to back South Underhill?

[ETBee]

The astro pitches are not in the same part of the field as the proposed stadium. I was walking there recently and am surprised how small the available site is. I estimated the size to be about 300ms x 160ms. My conclusion is that we should not assume that this will be another Hive stadium but will be more like the size of Borehamwood. The space for functions (weddings!), match day hospitality, a gym etc would appear to be limited. Training may have to continue to be carried out at the HIve - the original purpose,I think. But it would be in Barnet!

[hoofer2]

The astro pitches are not in the same part of the field as the proposed stadium. I was walking there recently and am surprised how small the available site is. I estimated the size to be about 300ms x 160ms. My conclusion is that we should not assume that this will be another Hive stadium but will be more like the size of Borehamwood. The space for functions (weddings!), match day hospitality, a gym etc would appear to be limited. Training may have to continue to be carried out at the HIve - the original purpose,I think. But it would be in Barnet!

This was also a concern of mine - no potential to expand site, as well as if Barnet FC are playing at a stadium in Barnet, club and stadium will be sold.

The revenue from The Hive will no longer feed into Barnet FC

[beew]

The astro pitches are not in the same part of the field as the proposed stadium. I was walking there recently and am surprised how small the available site is. I estimated the size to be about 300ms x 160ms. My conclusion is that we should not assume that this will be another Hive stadium but will be more like the size of Borehamwood. The space for functions (weddings!), match day hospitality, a gym etc would appear to be limited. Training may have to continue to be carried out at the HIve - the original purpose,I think. But it would be in Barnet!

Quick measurements from google maps suggest the proposed site will be big enough to accommodate what we currently have at the Hive (including the proposed south stand) and will benefit from being totally enclosed. I'd imagine the west part of the stadium will be wider than current east stand to allow for 3000 seats and conference/hospitality/community rooms.