Chairman's statement

[beesknees99]

The council are completely overdoing the negativity by using terms like “not workable”.

If it really was a dead duck, TK would not bother with the venture.

The whole thing is a ridiculous political game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rudebwoyben]

The council are completely overdoing the negativity by using terms like “not workable”.

If it really was a dead duck, TK would not bother with the venture.

The whole thing is a ridiculous political game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, you’re absolutely right here. As other posters have said on here, the situation on the ground for where we want to build South Underhill is completely at odds with what the council is saying.

[thebeekeeper]

Not directly related to Barnet / South Underhill, but I went down a bit of a rabbit hole looking into Oxford United's new stadium application.

Though much larger in scale, there are some similarities with our plans, in that the site they want to build on is currently part of the green belt.

They recently held a public consultation and you can view the slides from that online: https://oufcstadium.co.uk/wp-content/up ... ited-3.pdf

I thought it was quite interesting (and remarkably comprehensive). I wonder if we'll do something similar as part of our planning process?

[simples169]

I thought the area the new stadium was to be built on was the old cricket ground which TK owns?
There are houses built on all the roads which go around the site as well as the school, so how can the council object to building?

[Devon_Bee]

...as well as the school, so how can the council object to building?

When the council wants something built that suits them the rules get bent in their favour. Hence why the school wasn't an issue, they make the rules to suit them.

[Tuesds]

I thought the area the new stadium was to be built on was the old cricket ground which TK owns?
There are houses built on all the roads which go around the site as well as the school, so how can the council object to building?

No, he had the lease for the site, which he took on from the cricket club. I believe the land is owned by the council. It is undeveloped and is green belt land. That doesn’t mean development can’t take place, but it makes getting planning permission difficult. We got planning permission for broadly same site back in 2002, and while the planning framework has changed since then that showed that obtaining planning permission is not impossible if the right case is made.

The fact that the council owns the land, however, means that rather than just not opposing it, the council has to actively want it to happen and be a joint partner in the project if it is to become a reality. Which is why its public statements have concerned me - the politics of telling residents ‘we will protect your green spaces’ in response to this prospect and then later becoming a partner in the project as landlord just don’t make any sense.

All we can do is keep trying to raise awareness and create a positive image of the club and the plans to get Back to Barnet.

[OB1]

I thought the area the new stadium was to be built on was the old cricket ground which TK owns?
There are houses built on all the roads which go around the site as well as the school, so how can the council object to building?

No, he had the lease for the site, which he took on from the cricket club. I believe the land is owned by the council. It is undeveloped and is green belt land. That doesn’t mean development can’t take place, but it makes getting planning permission difficult. We got planning permission for broadly same site back in 2002, and while the planning framework has changed since then that showed that obtaining planning permission is not impossible if the right case is made.

The fact that the council owns the land, however, means that rather than just not opposing it, the council has to actively want it to happen and be a joint partner in the project if it is to become a reality. Which is why its public statements have concerned me - the politics of telling residents ‘we will protect your green spaces’ in response to this prospect and then later becoming a partner in the project as landlord just don’t make any sense.

All we can do is keep trying to raise awareness and create a positive image of the club and the plans to get Back to Barnet.

When we got planning permission for South Underhill last time the council refused to extend the lease on the land. This was the reason we moved.

[DerekRocholl]

I thought the area the new stadium was to be built on was the old cricket ground which TK owns?
There are houses built on all the roads which go around the site as well as the school, so how can the council object to building?

No, he had the lease for the site, which he took on from the cricket club. I believe the land is owned by the council. It is undeveloped and is green belt land. That doesn’t mean development can’t take place, but it makes getting planning permission difficult. We got planning permission for broadly same site back in 2002, and while the planning framework has changed since then that showed that obtaining planning permission is not impossible if the right case is made.

The fact that the council owns the land, however, means that rather than just not opposing it, the council has to actively want it to happen and be a joint partner in the project if it is to become a reality. Which is why its public statements have concerned me - the politics of telling residents ‘we will protect your green spaces’ in response to this prospect and then later becoming a partner in the project as landlord just don’t make any sense.

All we can do is keep trying to raise awareness and create a positive image of the club and the plans to get Back to Barnet.

When we got planning permission for South Underhill last time the council refused to extend the lease on the land. This was the reason we moved.

They didn’t refuse to extend the lease, they made conditions for extending it that TK didn’t want to accept.

He wanted 115 years at a pepper corn rent, they offered 15 years at a market rate which they put at £7k per annum.