Re: The Emirates http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2006/may/03/sport.comment1
The opponents - 16 residents groups, trade unions and other organisations in the Islington Stadium Community Alliance - pointed, however, to the only independent assessment of the scheme, by Rupert Grantham, the government's planning inspector.
Following a six-week public inquiry, he reported in 2003 that although the stadium design is "world class", and would have a "positive impact" on the area, the development would deliver "disappointingly low" community benefits. Grantham decided this was not regeneration, but "simply a redevelopment scheme" which favours Arsenal's "private interests".
Specifically, he said the expanded stadium would cause inconvenience to residents, lose vital green space, and the development would be socially divisive, because most of the affordable housing is being concentrated in one area, behind Holloway Road, with the new waste station in the middle of it. Even the flats designated for shared ownership will be affordable only to people earning £30-40,000 a year. The affordable housing planned for a redeveloped Highbury has also been moved and Arsenal's former home will be reserved for prestigious apartments.
Grantham recommended that compulsory purchase orders to buy out businesses in the Ashburton Grove industrial estate should not be granted because there was no "compelling public interest" to justify forcible relocation. The businesses and campaigners are still smarting at the decision by the deputy prime minister John Prescott to ignore his planning inspector and grant the CPOs anyway. The businesses have mostly accepted settlements and are leaving.
The Emirates CPO's were quite clearly not in the public interest and they did have Stadium plans in place when CPO's were issued.
Completely different Al. The CPOs were for businesses not residential properties. And the point still stands that the CPOs were paid by the council not Arsenal. You say they were clearly not in the public interest but there are other opinions:
Regeneration benefits win CPOs for Arsenal’s stadium projectBy Ian Grant
The Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott has given the go ahead for Compulsory Purchase Orders on the Ashburton Grove project saying the regeneration benefits outweigh the objections.
The CPOs were for businesses on Queensland Road.
The CPOs were made by Islington Council on 17 June 2002 to acquire land for the purpose of securing the carrying out of development, redevelopment or improvement for a mixed use scheme including:
*a 60,000 capacity stadium;
*an education learning centre;
*a replacement Arsenal Sports and Community Centre;
*a replacement waste and recycling centre;
*new and refurbished homes;
*new live-work units;
*new general business space;
*new shops;
*financial services and cafes/restaurants;
*new leisure space;
*two new gym/health clubs;
*two new nurseries;
*four new community health facilities
*new publicly accessible open space
It was also made under section 13 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 for the acquisition of new rights to enter airspace over the East Coast Main Line and to enter land for facilitating construction, maintenance and renewal works.
There were 33 statutory objections and 61 non-statutory objections made on varying grounds but the main areas of concern were:
*there was no compelling case in the public interest for the confirmation of the CPO;
*the land to be acquired was neither required, nor suitable, for the purpose;
*there had been a failure to demonstrate deliverability or viability;
*the refusal to disclose financial material was a breach of Human Rights;
*the Council had not adopted the correct approach regarding interference with Human Rights; *the use of a CPO in this case may well be an unlawful state aid;
*the proposals were contrary to the development plan;
*the stadium could be constructed without involving properties in Queensland Road.
Other concerns expressed were:
*the loss of existing businesses/jobs to Islington;
*the problems of relocation;
*the new stadium could be constructed somewhere other than Ashburton Grove;
*what was needed mostly was jobs and educational facilities not leisure provision;
a scheme of this magnitude should offer more to the local community;
*there was no regeneration strategy;
*moving the Waste Transfer Station and Council depot to the centre of a new residential area was far from ideal;
*there was nothing to suggest that the proposed public transport improvements would be either sufficient to deal with the increased number of people or a fair exchange for the inconvenience caused by the stadium;
*loss of amenity from the disruption,
*noise and litter that would result from more frequent visits to the area by the additional visitors to the stadium;
*and the financial viability of the scheme could not be established from the evidence available.
Reasons
In determining the applications for confirmation of the CPO and issuing of the exchange land certificates, the Secretary of State concludes that:
• the main justification for the use of compulsory purchase powers, i.e. to achieve a comprehensive regeneration scheme, has been met
• the land is suitable for the development, redevelopment or improvement proposed and that the benefits and advantages that would flow from the proposed development in terms of regeneration outweigh any conflict with the UDP
• there is a compelling case in the public interest that the CPO should be confirmed
• the exchange land is equally advantageous to the public and no less in area than the land that would be lost
• all of the land which the Council now seek to have included in the CPO is required for the purposes of the proposed development
• the scheme is likely to be deliverable
• the use of a CPO in this case does not constitute an unlawful state aid which should be notified to the European Commission
• the compulsory acquisition of the land is justified in the public interest and is proportionate in relation to the need for the development covered by the CPO and
• the outstanding objections do not outweigh the benefits of the scheme
Section 106
The ODPM letter states that: a section 106 agreement includes relocation of existing businesses; funding to upgrade and increase the capacity of the nearby tube and rail stations at Holloway Road and Drayton Park; controlled parking measures to mitigate impacts of vehicular and pedestrian traffic on the highway; and other traffic management measures and affordable housing provisions to allow occupants to buy all of the equity at any time.
The letter also outlines that the proposals represent an opportunity to regenerate two of the boroughs poorest areas – the Lough Road site has been identified as an Area of Opportunity since at least 1988 and although much of Queensland Road is in use, many of its buildings are outmoded and in poor condition.
The Secretary of State notes that the proposal for a stadium at Ashburton Grove was acknowledged in the Council’s Regeneration Strategy produced in December 2000 and this indicated that a new regeneration framework was being formulated to link King’s Cross with Finsbury Park through the centre of the borough.
He also notes that the Ashburton Grove Waste Transfer Station is outdated and operating close to its practical capacity and it needed to be upgraded in order to meet statutory recycling targets.
Furthermore the Secretary of State notes the Council’s conclusion that the likelihood of essential wider regeneration (especially at Queensland Road) not being delivered by AFC was so low that they were content to conclude the land disposals necessary to enable the construction of the stadium to proceed.
He also notes that the Council originally sought to justify the use of compulsory purchase powers on the basis that this would help to secure AFC’s long term future in the borough and that the scheme proposed would bring regeneration benefits. However, the main justification presented to the inquiry was that the CPO was needed to achieve a comprehensive regeneration scheme.
Regeneration benefits
But the key was regeneration benefits. The letter states - The Secretary of State has had regard to the regenerative benefits referred to by the Council. These include:
* more than 2000 new homes to be built some of which would be affordable;
*4 new community health facilities for rent by the Health Service;
*2 new children’s nurseries to accommodate 110 children,
*a new computer learning centre for use by the local community;
*a new and larger sports facility for use by the public;
*the relocation of the Queensland Multimedia Arts Centre within the borough;
*giving priority to Islington residents for up to 10,000 new season tickets;
*£500,000 for a new community development trust and £40,000 a year for community initiatives up until one year after the stadium opens;
*more than 28,000 sq m of new business and commercial space;
*a net gain of approximately 1,800 new full time jobs, more than half of which are expected to be in the local area;
*a scheme to increase opportunities for local trade with AFC and to train local unemployed people for work during and after the construction period;
*a new Waste Recycling Centre which allows increased recycling by members of the public and accommodates a new depot for Council refuse lorries;
*new public open space and money towards its upkeep;
*up to £500,000 for improvements to 3 Council owned estates in the local area;
*improvements to public transport and traffic management in the local area, estimated to cost more than £8,000,000
*and up to £500,000 to monitor the impact of large crowds attending the stadium and to identify possible mitigation measures.
http://archive.arsenalnewsreview.co.uk/articles/i-2004-05-20-16-59-54.html 