Football and lesser sports > Liverpool FC, football, sport

Anfield Redevelopment

(1/12) > >>

Tes:
It looks like there's some movement:

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/sep/10/liverpool-john-w-henry-anfield

http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/liverpool-fc-not-restricted-financially-5891487

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/10300084/Liverpool-ready-to-move-ahead-with-redevelopment-of-Anfield-after-John-W-Henry-reveals-finances-are-in-place.html

Two interesting parts from the Telegraph article:

Agreements in principle have been reached with the majority of those house­holders, but it is understood a remaining three landlords are still in talks.

Three landlords, but how many properties between them?

The reason FSG has delayed submission of plans or the release of designs is a determination to work in co-ordination with the neighbourhood, and also because it would be pointless unless there was a political and community consensus in support of those plans.

The part in bold is nice to hear. Releasing designs before agreement has been reached over every single house would be wrong, and it would look as though FSG, and most importantly, the club, was taking it for granted that the houses could be purchased. No matter how much we want the redevelopment, we must remember these are people's homes we're talking about, and they are going to be sacrificing their homes so a private company can expand and make more money.

Tes:
A pair of rather conflicting reports:

Liverpool council's £260m Anfield project moves forward

By Steve Graves  17 Oct 2013 00:01

Plans to redevelop Anfield are poised to take a step forward as councillors are set to agree to the compulsory purchase of properties.

The £260m Anfield Project,  set to create 700 jobs and lead to the refurbishment of 500 homes, relies on nearly 700 houses being demolished.

While many have been bought up over the years to allow work to go ahead  around 30 remain outside the developers’ control.

On Friday next week, members of Liverpool council’s cabinet will be asked to approve, in principle, the use of compulsory purchase orders (CPOs) to smooth the scheme’s path.

The council claims CPOs would be used only as a last resort, with negotiations ongoing with property owners over possible sales.

Houses in Lothair Road and Rockfield Road, yards from Liverpool FC’s stadium, are believed to be among those which could be affected.

Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson said: “We have had overwhelming support from local residents and businesses for our plans and there is unarguable public interest in driving these proposals forward.

“The people of Anfield have been let down too often in the past. We will not let them down again.

“We remain confident that we will be able to acquire properties without having to resort to CPOs but want to get agreement for them should they be required. The legal justification for CPOs, should they be needed, is unequivocal.”

A total of 699 properties were identified as being in “clearance zones” at the project’s outset. Of these, 279 have been demolished or are in the demolition process at the moment.

A further 346 have been purchased, or an agreement for their sale has been agreed, with other property-holders continuing to speak to the development consortium, headed by the council.

The local authority says CPOs for 30 properties would be “the very worst case scenario.”

Robert Porter, of housing association partners Your Housing, said: “We have to acquire land in a manner which is fair to property owners and which enables the schemes to progress.

“We have consulted at length with residents and businesses and are confident we have the support of the community to deliver these improvements.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/liverpool-councils-260m-anfield-project-6196467


Meanwhile:


Liverpool's Anfield redevelopment plans hit by impasse over six neighbouring properties

By Chris Bascombe   16 Oct 2013  11:59PM BST

 Liverpool may have to wait a further two years before they can submit Anfield redevelopment plans unless agreement is swiftly reached over six houses that are still blocking expansion.

Deals are in place between Liverpool City Council and all home owners apart from three landlords who own six properties neighbouring the club, but the impasse may be about to create a lengthy legal fight.

Liverpool city councillors are to debate later this month whether to force through Compulsory Purchase Orders for the houses in the Rockfield area near Anfield stadium.

If CPOs are required, it could take another 18 months to acquire the houses. Even then, Liverpool would need time to acquire permission from city planners to expand and then at least another two years to complete the building work.

A CPO has always been considered a last resort with the three parties and would lead to an infuriating delay for the club and city council. There remains optimism this route will not be required, but the CPO proposal to be put before councillors on Oct 27 – and to be decided early next year – underlines growing concern about removing the final obstacles.

Four of the remaining properties are described as “derelict”. The remaining two are not occupied by the owners – at least one of the landlords lives abroad – while council sources confirm those who reside in the Anfield area have overwhelmingly backed regeneration proposals.

Liverpool mayor Joe Anderson said action was required to ensure a handful of property owners did not stand in the way of a £260 million regeneration of the whole of Anfield.

He said: “We have had overwhelming support from local residents and businesses for our plans and there is unarguable public interest in driving these proposals forward. The people of Anfield have been let down too often in the past. We will not let them down again.

“We remain confident that we will be able to acquire properties without having to resort to CPOs but want to get agreement for them should they be required. The legal justification for CPOs, should they be needed, is unequivocal.”

The broader regeneration programme, much of it independent of the stadium project, has the support of 80 per cent of local homeowners who have seen a series of regimes – at council level and at the club – fail to deliver promises for more than 10 years. Liverpool’s owners, Fenway Sports Group, and the city council believe they have made strides to deal with difficult legacies.

The club confirmed last year they had decided to remain at Anfield and expand to a 60,000-seat stadium rather than move to Stanley Park.

As well as the stadium, there is a plan to create new housing, shopping facilities, a hotel and the creation of a public square. Other public spaces would include a new pedestrian-friendly boulevard to be called 96th Avenue in memory of those who lost their lives or were injured in the Hillsborough disaster.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/10383740/Liverpools-Anfield-redevelopment-plans-hit-by-impasse-over-six-neighbouring-properties.html

Unless Bascombe is referring to 6 properties blocking just the re-development of the stadium, whereas The Echo are referring to 30 properties holding up the entire re-development, of both the stadium and the whole area around, not just the ground, then the difference in figures seems odd, especially as the two pieces were published only 2 minutes apart.

barticus:
Not for a share with the bitters...but it's a nice place for lfc...:)

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/architects-reveal-plans-build-shared-7798782

Tes:
Why do the Bitters want 55,000?  They can't sell out a it is. It would literally be 2 for 1. The seats would outnumber the crowd 2 to 1.

Tes:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/anfield-redevelopment-liverpool-owner-john-5139088

An interesting video showing the planned construction stages of the new Main Stand.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version