S106 issues are absolutely standard with major projects. Spuds did it quicker presumably as they are richer and just paid whatever haringey demanded? Otherwise I don't understand your innately anti local govt fury at the standard.

I also note you comment on sainsbury's by way of footnote whereas it is cited as the main obstacle.

Neither side have revealed how much. All we have (unless others are ITK) is Parish saying "millions and millions".

This club takes care of the pennies which given our not too distant financial past is a good thing.

That said there is only so long you can hold out before the money at issue is surpassed by the loss of revenue.

Yes, time is a factor in the financial situation.

I can only imagine that sainsburys are using the land as a ransom strip, and that if it was only a few million pounds between the parties then Parish would have coughed up by now, if only because time is a factor.

It seems the sooner the stand is finished, the sooner our income from it increases. Given the projected figures (cost vs income) for the project overall, the income from the stand must be significant to justify the cost of building it. If its that much of an earner, only a major unreasonable cost would hold it up.

Also, consider the Americans. Parish sold them half the club specifically so they would pay for the academy and stand. They bought in specifically to invest in the bricks and mortar side of the club to increase the value of their investment before, presumably, cashing in. Any investment of that type is allowed outside of FFP constraints, so if a few million quid for sainsburys was all it took, they'd perhaps have just paid it already.

All of this is of course just my reading of it from the outside.

Fulham cracking on with their ground improvements. They have a wealthy backer with a genuine interest who is happy to put the funds in. They also have ambition we seem to lack. They may get relegated again this year, but they will be back, eventually replacing the likes of Palace in the division.

Makes good sense though.

In comparing the planning application documents with the Land Registry it seems that the section of land Palace need from Sainsbury's is something like I've sketched on the attached. It seems to work out at about 15-20 parking spaces Sainsbury's would lose. Not without value, but enough to see why Parish would baulk at paying 'millions and millions' as he put it. Sainsburys, for their part, did release a statement saying they were happy to talk with the club and sell the land for fair market rate. Either way, it's too small an issue to remain as a serious obstacle for long.

As is common, Croydon Council has a published schedule of Section 106 charges and Community Infrastructure Levy rates. That document has been scrutinised through a public consultation process before being accepted by an independent inspector. The Council can't just impose random, or unreasonable demand on a developer even if it wanted to. Every demand must be justified fully.

In this case the Section 106 legal agreement is not only standard practise, but is entirely reasonable, if not slightly generous to Palace. Outside of the replacement houses, the sum total of the requirements is unlikely to exceed £1m, or to put it in context, a month's worth of Benetke and Sakho. Perhaps those two could build the cycle lane?

It is in allowing the demolition of the Council-owned houses in Wooderson Close that the Council has been most accommodating though. Losing these houses is a very significant issue for the Council, both as the planning authority and as the landlord.

Housing shortages have resulted in the Government instructing Council planning departments to approve applications that boost overall housing numbers, in line with often unrealistic regional targets. They must approve proposals for new houses that they would previously have said no to, and say no to the loss of houses at all costs.

As a landlord, the Council has a duty of care to its tenants, who in turn had what appeared a relatively assured tenancy. Croydon is now telling them they have to go. Presumably they will be offered alternative housing but that could be miles away, even outside of the Borough.

The actual implications of this are hard to know. Perhaps the tenants are largely transient with no particular attachment to the houses and the neighbourhood. For all we know however, there may be kids that now need to move schools, people who need to change their jobs, neighbours and friends for decades now scattered from each other. No small thing if so.

In that context, you can imagine how much of a headache it is to justify the loss of the houses next door to the new stand. Croydon Council could have held out for a massively inflated price, demanded two-for-one replacements elsewhere, or simply said no. They didn't though, they just asked that the same number of houses be replaced, that the Council not be out of pocket for the rent they would have received between times, and that the tenants be given some small compensation for having their homes flattened (I think it's about £6k).

I can see why Parish publicly thanked the Council for its support, and the speed of its positive response to the planning application.

Edited by TheBigToePunt (10 Feb 2021 2.56pm)

Attachment: Selhurst Sainsburys.pdf (800.49Kb)