City chief’s plea over Lane plans (From Worcester News)

I understood that a deal had been signed with Careys which was subject to planning permission being granted? Is the Worcester News now saying that there is no deal at all in place??

Where’s the affordable housing?

I am irritated by all this pleading from the football club, for many reasons, not least of which are the “mismanagement” and the “all-eggs-in-one-b
asket approach to Nunnery Way”.

However, the biggest problem I have with this latest bout of begging and spin is that the club has long expected the most disadvantaged families in Worcester to pay the highest price for the survival of what is - let’s face it - a failing private business.

For those of you unaware of the background, St Georges Lane is allocated for residential development in the current Local Plan. According to Table 4.7 (Provision of Affordable Housing: Allocated Sites) in the Worcester Local Development Framework document adopted in January 2008, St Georges Lane has an estimated capacity of 80 dwellings, of which NONE (zero) have to be “affordable”. Why? Contrast this with all the other allocated housing sites on the same table which are expected to provide 25-30% affordable housing.

It seems there was a “gentlemen’s agreement” struck some time ago between the council and the club waiving the need for a developer to provide social and affordable housing on St George’s Lane. This “concession” to the club might have been at risk when a new quota policy on affordable housing provision came into force, so Bellway Homes rushed in its application for 98 dwellings on St Georges Lane in December 2007, just ONE DAY before the quota policy became effective. That application has been held back “in abeyance” ever since, was then transferred to Careys New Homes and is only now coming forward for the councillors to consider at planning committee. To exclude social and affordable housing from such a development flies in the face of all local, regional and national planning policies derived from PPS3. However, it seems that under the current extant application the developer will be exempt from having to provide ANY affordable housing on the St George’s Lane site, thereby maximising the value of all the “open market” houses it hopes to build there and therefore the price it is prepared to pay to the club for the land. So, even the most generous interpretation of these events is that the developer might get to side-step some inconvenient obligations. However, some may see this as an elaborate scheme to maximise the sale price of St George’s Lane by deliberately denying between 20 and 40 affordable homes to the families of Worcester that need them most.

I really cannot see how it would be to the political advantage of the Councillors of Worcester to approve this planning application which would prop up an ailing private business for the benefit of its creditors and directly damage the life chances of people that need somewhere to live.

Shame on the planning committee if they approve this application.

It puzzles me that reducing the number of homes from 98 to 90 (10% roughly) equates to a reduction in the value of the site by over 50%. As Careys don`t intend to commence building for two or three years, by which time property and land values will be rising again, are City being well and truly shafted?
And presumably they will have to pay top dollar for the land and stadium at Nunnery Way (if it ever happens).
Whatever "deal" is in place (or isn`t) it seems the football club will benefit least.

Doogie. That also puzzled me at the time ie why a reduction by 8 houses led to a 50% cut in value, at a time when house prices had, or were projected to shortly, return to their pre-economic crisis levels.

It led me to look more carefully at something said in a statement by David Hallmark, hidden among some minutes online somewhere, regarding the overall deal. Which was a) the sale price but also b) the sharing (50-50) of the profit above a threshold of the sale price of the built properties. The level of that threshold has not been disclosed, but maybe has been set at somewhere around 200-250 pounds per sq.ft. Now the big question is, what might that amount to. Of course, it all depends on what level the threshold is finally set at, and market values of the property at the time of sale. Also, from the point of view of the Club, it would not be upfront money, but a later income stream once property sales kick in, perhaps several years down the line. It could be nothing at all, or something very small -perhaps not much more than a few hundred thousand, and is not likely to so high as to close the hole (ie nearly 4 million) between the previously agreed sale price of over seven million (which I understand was all upfront money).

Then there is also the 'sponsorship money' - three or four tranches of 25K, I think, although it appears the later (or additional?) tranches are being offered as an advance against the SGL sale price.

Andrew Guy wrote:
Where’s the affordable housing? I am irritated by all this pleading from the football club, for many reasons, not least of which are the “mismanagement” and the “all-eggs-in-one-b asket approach to Nunnery Way”. However, the biggest problem I have with this latest bout of begging and spin is that the club has long expected the most disadvantaged families in Worcester to pay the highest price for the survival of what is - let’s face it - a failing private business. For those of you unaware of the background, St Georges Lane is allocated for residential development in the current Local Plan. According to Table 4.7 (Provision of Affordable Housing: Allocated Sites) in the Worcester Local Development Framework document adopted in January 2008, St Georges Lane has an estimated capacity of 80 dwellings, of which NONE (zero) have to be “affordable”. Why? Contrast this with all the other allocated housing sites on the same table which are expected to provide 25-30% affordable housing. It seems there was a “gentlemen’s agreement” struck some time ago between the council and the club waiving the need for a developer to provide social and affordable housing on St George’s Lane. This “concession” to the club might have been at risk when a new quota policy on affordable housing provision came into force, so Bellway Homes rushed in its application for 98 dwellings on St Georges Lane in December 2007, just ONE DAY before the quota policy became effective. That application has been held back “in abeyance” ever since, was then transferred to Careys New Homes and is only now coming forward for the councillors to consider at planning committee. To exclude social and affordable housing from such a development flies in the face of all local, regional and national planning policies derived from PPS3. However, it seems that under the current extant application the developer will be exempt from having to provide ANY affordable housing on the St George’s Lane site, thereby maximising the value of all the “open market” houses it hopes to build there and therefore the price it is prepared to pay to the club for the land. So, even the most generous interpretation of these events is that the developer might get to side-step some inconvenient obligations. However, some may see this as an elaborate scheme to maximise the sale price of St George’s Lane by deliberately denying between 20 and 40 affordable homes to the families of Worcester that need them most. I really cannot see how it would be to the political advantage of the Councillors of Worcester to approve this planning application which would prop up an ailing private business for the benefit of its creditors and directly damage the life chances of people that need somewhere to live. Shame on the planning committee if they approve this application.

Would I be correct in assuming your desire to see this application fail has more to do with it sounding the death knell for the Nunnery Way move rather than any concern over affordable housing for disadvantaged families? Presumably if the Nunnery Way site were to become housing (which it can't) then you would be in favour and support the need of more affordable housing in that area. I think not!

Andrew Guy.......one word some this complete idiot up.......prat. He has a rugby ball shaped head and thats why he is against any move for the club, maybe instead of writing an essay on something you truley dont understand maybe you should go and put the tea on for Cecil.

UP THE CITY and we will move and sell our land for housing!!

I don`t think Mr Guy has anything to do with the rugby club.
Whenever the Nunnery Way project has been mentioned in the past, he has just reproduced reams of rules and regulations,local plans etc regarding the stadium and "enabling development".
Now he`s switched his attention to the SGL end of the deal and produced more reams of planning data.
I`m not sure what his motivation is, but he seems obsessed with the football club`s dealings - as far as I can tell he has expressed no interest in any other property or development projects that have been reported in the WN.
The planning dept. have not so far shown much desire to bend any rules to help City so he can relax - I doubt if they are going to start now.

"City-Blue-Boy"-Bril
liant response!

I dont think it is now about bending rules - more a case of sticking with past ones that remain valid. Two years ago, the Council had a policy on social housing, and extended the deadline on its applicability to planning applications. The Bellways application was submitted before that deadline. One minutes, one day, one month, one year before - it doesnt matter. So the social housing policy of the Council that applied to the SGL application at the time of submission applies now, until a final decision is taken, or until such time as the application may be formally withdrawn.

Andy, I think Mr Guy wants it both ways where WCFC are concerned - the absolute letter of the law when it can be applied - the spirit of the law when it can`t.
I wish he would say what his beef with the football club is all about - or perhaps he`s just an amateur planning zealot wanting to demonstrate his specialist subject.
Incidentally, your response to my comment about the falling value of SGL was very interesting - I hope City are around to collect their money - i wonder where the cash goes if they aren`t.

CityBlueBoy wrote:
Andrew Guy.......one word some this complete idiot up.......prat. He has a rugby ball shaped head and thats why he is against any move for the club, maybe instead of writing an essay on something you truley dont understand maybe you should go and put the tea on for Cecil.

UP THE CITY and we will move and sell our land for housing!!

Sometimes you wonder whether the football club has got the fans it deserves, and I think CityBlueBoy has just confirmed it! Andrew Guy understands the situation all too well. We may not see eye to eye about certain aspects of the move, however, his understanding of the situation cannot be questioned. He has at least read the documents, unlike CityBlueBoy.
Andy, Jim Panter outlined the profit share agreement at the meeting at the cricket club, the figure of up to £200,000 was forecast I believe, however, this was nothing more than guesswork, certainly not enough to balance the books on the plan for an Alpha Projects £2 million stadium! SGL was never going to be sold for £7.3 million, that was a clever ploy by Careys to get SGL off the public market, which is fair enough, but the club never negotiated any kind of involvement in the PC, or any financial penalties for failing to complete in a reasonable period of time. From talking to Careys, its clear that they have "invested" over £500,000 in costs to continue Bellways planning permission, and expect repayment of this if we don't go ahead with them, its also clear that the "sponsorship" is in fact an advance deal sweetener, which also would have to be repaid if Careys do not go ahead.
Furthermore Careys have now secured the future of the club for the remainder of this season by "advancing" against the purchase price (although the purchase price itself is still fluid!!).
The planning department have tried their utmost to assist the football club move, and it is documented that planning officers are disappointed that the club have not used the social housing exemption for the purpose that it was agreed upon, that is to maximise the money available to the club for the ground move, it has instead been used as a form of "security" to enable further borrowings against the asset!! I sincerely hope that that does not count against the football club at this time.
The club is now in a position where the sale of SGL is no longer part of a managed business plan, its a necessary asset sale, unfortunately the club have given up their rights to maximise that asset sale, to the company who will buy it!

Ahhhh now we see whats going on Andrew Gay is cooking Avante's tea, makes sence! Why get involved with the process and talk the rubbish that he and now for some silly reason you are talking, do you have anything to do with WCFC......my guess is no, does he....again no, keep your opinions to yourself as times are hard enough down the lane without you lot having a say on certain articles. People might start to respect you both if maybe you had the clubs intrests at heart but as neither of you do then us REAL fans will continue to support our local club and get behind them. By the way if you have dave boddys mobile number in your phone by all means pass it on

“We really hope Worcester city planners can convince whoever they need to convince, including the councillors, to give planning permission so we can move on and do this deal with Careys.”As a shareholder I know just how hard times are, far more than you do. I read the company accounts, do you? I've only done 30 years of service down at SGL, and in that time I've run the club website, I've set up the Supporters Trust, I've stewarded at fun runs, I've stewarded in the stand, I've been involved in club forums, I've been involved in fund raising events like the hollyoaks football matches and even arranged a pretty successful gig down the Lane. I've got Dave Boddy's number in my mobile as well as Graham Selby's, Mick Tuohys, John Bartons and Andy Morrisons.
Today I've had 3 emails from Anthony Hampson and 2 from Jim Panter regarding club matters. I was hoping to meet with Anthony tonight but work means I'm away.
So you're right, I have nothing to do with the club pah!!
Have you ever spoken with Careys? or SMD? or David Hallmark? Have you ever taken the time to talk to anyone involved in running the club and to question whats going on?
What I say is not rubbish, its fact, not my facts, but the facts given to me by people like Frank Scanlon from Careys New Homes.
The figures arent my figures, they're Jim Panters figures, £100,000 loss per year, and a club constitution incapable of reversing this.
You talk of the ground move without having a clue what its all about, have you read the planning officers comments when recommending rejection of the Carey plan? They're public documents on the City Council website, surely as a real fan you've read these?
I want this deal to go ahead to sell SGL as soon as possible, I have backed Anthony's view of sale and leaseback since it was first tabled. But you've got to wake up and realise that this isnt about selling SGL and moving to a new ground. This is about selling SGL to stop the bank foreclosing (they don't want to be our bankers anymore, and neither do anyone else!!) and the club being wound up.
Maybe if more real fans had listened to the fact being presented over two years ago, the club wouldn't be in the position it is now. No City supporter wants to see the club die, and I more than most want to keep high level non-league football in Worcester. Dammit what am I going to do if it disappears? I've got a Worcester city tattoo on my arm, and I've instructed that my ashes be scattered over SGL!! So I'm kind of stuffed more than most if WCFC was to disappear!!
Now if you'd like to tell me which part of what I've written is rubbish, then please fire away.