With the level of objection to the scale of the development being displayed on the Exeter City Council website by David Treharne and others from the St. James’ area, is there a possibility that the planning application could either be rejected or modified substantially to the point where Yelverton would not be prepared even to fund the Old Grandstand replacement?
Grecian Red (with his substantial planning experience) warned about the dangers of not engaging with the St. James’ Forum approximately two years ago. That lack of foresight from the Club in not doing so at an early stage appears to have come back to bite them on the backside. It could also have possibly saved an enormous amount being spent on consultants’ fees , and I have not seen much evidence of those consultants also engaging with the Forum. The one possible redeeming feature that I can envisage is that if Exeter City Council seek to kill the planning application then they would (or ought to) realize that it could also be the death knell of the Club as the current financial model is clearly unsustainable in the long run unless greater off field income is generated through a substantial redevelopment of St. James’ Park. This is one of the very few avenues left for the Council to support the Club. Certainly in a response to my FOI request, the Council have clearly indicated that they are not prepared to make a direct financial contribution to the redevelopment. They are not even prepared to make landlords’ repairs to SJP. Their only other options would be to sell the freehold to the Club so that the Club can make the best use of it (although again they have indicated to me in that FOI request that they have no intention of doing so) or to sell the freehold directly to a housing developer and pass the proceeds of that sale over to the Club to help finance a move away from St. James’ Park. In doing this the Council would gain from government grants available for promoting new housing developments (the method to be used to fund the bus station site), and this would also redress the balance of student accommodation/ residential accommodation in the area. The problem here, as I have warned so many times, is the lack of alternative sites, and the Council would need to be very proactive in finding one.
If the planning application fails and the Council is still not prepared to help in the ways that I have outlined above, then what can the Trust and Club do to effect their own redevelopment solution?
1. If it wishes to maintain, or even enhance its credibility, the Trust must take the lead on the project , at the same time dispensing with its ‘ruralistic’ approach and concentrate on the main issues.
2. Clearly we have received little or no value from the enormous amount spent on consultancy fees. The Trust should set itself to sanction any further spending, investigate why we have spent so much to date, and perhaps take to task those responsible.
3. I have long espoused the value to the Trust in having a Capital Projects Working Group. Why hasn’t this been set up? St. James’ Park would need to be redeveloped on a piecemeal basis in the future and a Capital Projects Working Group would be tasked with identifying the critical path in the chain and then funding each stage of the project without adversely affecting the overall financial position of the Club.
4. The Club still does not have the credibility to be able to borrow money. However this does not apply to the Trust and the Trust could make short term use of that ability by perhaps borrowing from the City Council at very low PWLB related rates or perhaps from a securitized loan based on assigned membership income in order to be able to finance some of those stages that need to be completed in one hit.
5. I think the public would be supportive of staged redevelopment projects and would readily support fundraising schemes where they could see their money being directly applied rather than disappearing into the Club black hole.
6. The lease should be sorted immediately before the start of any staged project – no whys, wherefores , ifs or buts. Let us know what we’re dealing with, and the improvements that could be made through any form of enabling contribution without being financially punitive.
Grecian Red (with his substantial planning experience) warned about the dangers of not engaging with the St. James’ Forum approximately two years ago. That lack of foresight from the Club in not doing so at an early stage appears to have come back to bite them on the backside. It could also have possibly saved an enormous amount being spent on consultants’ fees , and I have not seen much evidence of those consultants also engaging with the Forum. The one possible redeeming feature that I can envisage is that if Exeter City Council seek to kill the planning application then they would (or ought to) realize that it could also be the death knell of the Club as the current financial model is clearly unsustainable in the long run unless greater off field income is generated through a substantial redevelopment of St. James’ Park. This is one of the very few avenues left for the Council to support the Club. Certainly in a response to my FOI request, the Council have clearly indicated that they are not prepared to make a direct financial contribution to the redevelopment. They are not even prepared to make landlords’ repairs to SJP. Their only other options would be to sell the freehold to the Club so that the Club can make the best use of it (although again they have indicated to me in that FOI request that they have no intention of doing so) or to sell the freehold directly to a housing developer and pass the proceeds of that sale over to the Club to help finance a move away from St. James’ Park. In doing this the Council would gain from government grants available for promoting new housing developments (the method to be used to fund the bus station site), and this would also redress the balance of student accommodation/ residential accommodation in the area. The problem here, as I have warned so many times, is the lack of alternative sites, and the Council would need to be very proactive in finding one.
If the planning application fails and the Council is still not prepared to help in the ways that I have outlined above, then what can the Trust and Club do to effect their own redevelopment solution?
1. If it wishes to maintain, or even enhance its credibility, the Trust must take the lead on the project , at the same time dispensing with its ‘ruralistic’ approach and concentrate on the main issues.
2. Clearly we have received little or no value from the enormous amount spent on consultancy fees. The Trust should set itself to sanction any further spending, investigate why we have spent so much to date, and perhaps take to task those responsible.
3. I have long espoused the value to the Trust in having a Capital Projects Working Group. Why hasn’t this been set up? St. James’ Park would need to be redeveloped on a piecemeal basis in the future and a Capital Projects Working Group would be tasked with identifying the critical path in the chain and then funding each stage of the project without adversely affecting the overall financial position of the Club.
4. The Club still does not have the credibility to be able to borrow money. However this does not apply to the Trust and the Trust could make short term use of that ability by perhaps borrowing from the City Council at very low PWLB related rates or perhaps from a securitized loan based on assigned membership income in order to be able to finance some of those stages that need to be completed in one hit.
5. I think the public would be supportive of staged redevelopment projects and would readily support fundraising schemes where they could see their money being directly applied rather than disappearing into the Club black hole.
6. The lease should be sorted immediately before the start of any staged project – no whys, wherefores , ifs or buts. Let us know what we’re dealing with, and the improvements that could be made through any form of enabling contribution without being financially punitive.
