Spending a windfall

[Antony Moxey]

No it would be sold with a restrictive covenant saying it could only be used purely for sporting purposes. This would only be lifted with the permission of the council and they can also include a clause that any profit above the selling price goes to the council. This protects tax payers and football fans from any shark coming in after the Trust and seeking to sell the ground and then vanish off with the proceeds.

The only body able to lift a restrictive covenant on a piece of land the council wish to sell is... ...the council. Oh well, that's that then. I'd have thought that if they wanted to the council could sell the land to who they want for as much as they want without any obligation to do us any favours.

 

[rightwing]

The only body able to lift a restrictive covenant on a piece of land the council wish to sell is... ...the council. Oh well, that's that then. I'd have thought that if they wanted to the council could sell the land to who they want for as much as they want without any obligation to do us any favours.

Logic seems to have gone out the window today.

 

[Antony Moxey]

The only organization that would be offered the right to buy would be us. Otherwise, the Council would have to provide us with an alternative stadium.

Not saying you're wrong but are you sure on that? I always thought the local plan said that if the council built on any existing land that was for leisure purposes it had to provide an equal alternative leisure site, not necessarily another football ground. In other words if they sell the ground as long as they provide land elsewhere that can be used as a leisure facility then they were OK.

Of course as I said it's only what I think the local plan means rather than saying it's definitely how it is, but also regarding the local plan how set in stone is it? Can it be changed or is it legally binding? The city is obliged to provide a certain number of housing units - what if the only way to achieve that is to develop the park?

 

[Antony Moxey]

Logic seems to have gone out the window today.

What do you mean?

 

[iscalad]

Not saying you're wrong but are you sure on that? I always thought the local plan said that if the council built on any existing land that was for leisure purposes it had to provide an equal alternative leisure site, not necessarily another football ground. In other words if they sell the ground as long as they provide land elsewhere that can be used as a leisure facility then they were OK.

Of course as I said it's only what I think the local plan means rather than saying it's definitely how it is, but also regarding the local plan how set in stone is it? Can it be changed or is it legally binding? The city is obliged to provide a certain number of housing units - what if the only way to achieve that is to develop the park?

Well there is this,

http://www.devonlive.com/greater-exeter-plan-could-lead-to-a-new-cranbrook/story-30209261-detail/story.html

 

[Exehausted]

Not saying you're wrong but are you sure on that? I always thought the local plan said that if the council built on any existing land that was for leisure purposes it had to provide an equal alternative leisure site, not necessarily another football ground. In other words if they sell the ground as long as they provide land elsewhere that can be used as a leisure facility then they were OK.

Of course as I said it's only what I think the local plan means rather than saying it's definitely how it is, but also regarding the local plan how set in stone is it? Can it be changed or is it legally binding? The city is obliged to provide a certain number of housing units - what if the only way to achieve that is to develop the park?

Absolutely Antony. As I said, it's all very unlikely, but even if there is a one in a thousand chance it could happen, I would rather we slammed the door shut. If RW is right and the Park was only valued at £500,000 as a sports ground, I think it would be worth it. That or a 200 year lease with powerful covenants. You only have to look at the mess the Council are making of the Bus Station site. Having buses parked down at Marsh Barton and a drop off point in the streets where the VU cinema is and where the bus work shop is. That and closing Paris St to through traffic it's a total muck up. The Police, Fire Brigade, local traders have all said it's ludicrous and will be dangerous, but do they listen?
Nope. And as I said, when there's an enormous pot of gold to be had I trust no one!

 

[grecianred]

Not saying you're wrong but are you sure on that? I always thought the local plan said that if the council built on any existing land that was for leisure purposes it had to provide an equal alternative leisure site, not necessarily another football ground. In other words if they sell the ground as long as they provide land elsewhere that can be used as a leisure facility then they were OK.

Of course as I said it's only what I think the local plan means rather than saying it's definitely how it is, but also regarding the local plan how set in stone is it? Can it be changed or is it legally binding? The city is obliged to provide a certain number of housing units - what if the only way to achieve that is to develop the park?

Haven't posted in a while....

Local Plans are not set in stone and in any event unlike in some countries decisions are not always made in accordance with them. The Town and Country Planning Act requires decisions to be made in accordance with the Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise (there's lots of case law and what is capable of and what is not capable of being a material planning consideration.

The football ground is definitely protected in the adopted Core Strategy although from memory not in the same way something like Exwick Playing Fields would be (i.e. Likely to be protected unless replacement provision were made elsewhere).

I would imagine that City will remain at SJP in my lifetime and can't really imagine a scenario in which it'd be sold (I think the point about restrictive covenants is probably right, I also think if the land was to be sold it's value would probably be based on its existing use value; I can't imagine this not being the case).

I can't imagine the Greater Exeter Plan looking seriously at SJP...

 

[Pete Martin (CTID)]

This is the relevant section from the Exeter local plan. Although ageing, it remains relevant.

The 2015 SHLAA (Strategic Housing Land Allocation Assessment) only considered the land adjacent to SJP (for student accommodation) so I think the club are on pretty firm ground (literally) as long as we choose/need to remain where we are

Sports Stadia

7.42 Within the City there are two sports stadia which accommodate professional or first class amateur sporting activities - St James Park (home to Exeter City Football Club) and the County Ground (home to Exeter Rugby Football Club and Exeter Speedway). Following the Taylor report, PPG17 highlighted the inadequacy of existing stadia, and the need for improvements in terms of public safety, as an issue appropriate to be addressed in the preparation of local plans. Improvements to St James Park are underway. Permission has been granted for a new rugby stadium adjoining the M5, at Sandy Park.

7.43 These facilities, together with the Arena athletics ground, contribute to the overall economic vitality of the City. In determining planning applications for development which would enable improvements to the stadia to be implemented, the community benefits arising from such a development will be taken into account whilst recognising important amenity considerations such as noise, the impact of floodlighting and traffic generation. The Council will also take into account the advantages of retaining major spectator sports within urban areas which are easily accessible to large areas of the resident population.

L9: DEVELOPMENT ON LAND AT, ADJOINING, OR ASSOCIATED WITH, ST. JAMES PARK, OR THE COUNTY GROUND, OR THE ARENA WILL BE PERMITTED PROVIDED THAT:

(a) THE PROPOSAL RETAINS AND SUPPORTS THE PRINCIPAL SPORTING ACTIVITY;
(b) IT WILL NOT HARM LOCAL AMENITY BY VIRTUE OF NOISE, FLOODLIGHTING, CAR PARKING, TRAFFIC GENERATION OR OTHER DISTURBANCE.

 

[grecianred]

This is the relevant section from the Exeter local plan. Although ageing, it remains relevant.

The 2015 SHLAA (Strategic Housing Land Allocation Assessment) only considered the land adjacent to SJP (for student accommodation) so I think the club are on pretty firm ground (literally) as long as we choose/need to remain where we are

Sports Stadia

7.42 Within the City there are two sports stadia which accommodate professional or first class amateur sporting activities - St James Park (home to Exeter City Football Club) and the County Ground (home to Exeter Rugby Football Club and Exeter Speedway). Following the Taylor report, PPG17 highlighted the inadequacy of existing stadia, and the need for improvements in terms of public safety, as an issue appropriate to be addressed in the preparation of local plans. Improvements to St James Park are underway. Permission has been granted for a new rugby stadium adjoining the M5, at Sandy Park.

7.43 These facilities, together with the Arena athletics ground, contribute to the overall economic vitality of the City. In determining planning applications for development which would enable improvements to the stadia to be implemented, the community benefits arising from such a development will be taken into account whilst recognising important amenity considerations such as noise, the impact of floodlighting and traffic generation. The Council will also take into account the advantages of retaining major spectator sports within urban areas which are easily accessible to large areas of the resident population.

L9: DEVELOPMENT ON LAND AT, ADJOINING, OR ASSOCIATED WITH, ST. JAMES PARK, OR THE COUNTY GROUND, OR THE ARENA WILL BE PERMITTED PROVIDED THAT:

(a) THE PROPOSAL RETAINS AND SUPPORTS THE PRINCIPAL SPORTING ACTIVITY;
(b) IT WILL NOT HARM LOCAL AMENITY BY VIRTUE OF NOISE, FLOODLIGHTING, CAR PARKING, TRAFFIC GENERATION OR OTHER DISTURBANCE.

Pretty much what I remembered. And don't use the 's' word SHLAA's are bane of my life!!

 

[Avening Posse]

I know we have all been here before, but totally concur with the thinking. Our ground has planning for sport. Any professional valuer would value it on that basis if it was clear that planning permission for other more lucrative uses had a closed door. That would generate a value of x, and in my view I think it would be around the 1m mark tops. If the Council sold to the Trust (as opposed to the Club) it would be perfectly capable of putting in things binding on the land that says if it is EVER sold for an alternative use the Council receive overage (meaning they receive the requisite uplift in the market value in the future). That doesn't solve anything for us if we are looking for somewhere else in the future, but is excellent for us if we intend to stay put, and means when we invest in the ground it isn't a waste of money any more. On the political front, I don't see why the Council would resist this if the money was right, and I believe it would be politically popular if it was the Trust acquiring, but I have not lived down there for nearly 30 years so haven't a clue what the political scene is like