| Croydon Gateway |
Article Index for Croydon |
Website Links For Croydon |
Information AboutCroydon Gateway |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT CROYDON GATEWAY | |
| redevelopment projects in london | |
| buildings and structures in croydon | |
| croydon 2020 | |
|
Stanhope skyscraper. A tower is a feature of both schemes for the Croydon Gateway]] Croydon Gateway is the name given to a project to redevelop a block of land between East Croydon Railway Station and the existing town centre of Croydon in South London . It is part of the major Croydon Vision 2020 regeneration scheme. It has been subject to substantial public debate which has featured in the national media. Croydon is the principal office district in South London, having been rebuilt on a large scale in the 1960s , but much of the office stock is now dated. Croydon Council wishes to reinvigorate the area with new office buildings and new landmark attractions. The "Croydon Gateway" site, a former railway goods yard which has been largely unoccupied since the 1960 s, represents the largest single development opportunity in the district. The Arrowcroft Gateway scheme was included in the Croydon Expo 2007. TWO PROPOSALS There have been two main proposals to develop the site. The Stanhope Schroders Scheme The first plan has been prepared by the developer, Stanhope, who own the land, and their financial backers, Schroders (http://www.croydon-gateway.com); the proposal includes 560 homes with 50% affordable housing, office buildings, a replacement Warehouse Theatre and an urban park. There would be a forty-one storey Skyscraper which is intended to act as the defining feature of Croydon's planned revival. Norman Foster's firm are the principal architects of the scheme. The Arrowcroft / London Borough of Croydon Scheme in the arrowcroft scheme]] The London Borough of Croydon supports an alternative proposal, developed in partnership with property company Arrowcroft (http://www.croydongateway.com/), which would involve the construction of a new state of the art 12,500 seat indoor arena, named the Croydon Arena , as well as a 59,234m2 of offices and 874 homes - including affordable housing. Unlike the Stanhope scheme, this proposal has received the full backing from Croydon Council, but it now must go to a public inquiry after being 'called in' by Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State (now the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. It also requires Compulsory Purchase of the site (a large part of which is now owned by Stanhope). The Council has made a Compulsory Purchase Order to assemble the land required and the objections to which will be considered at the same public inquiry. The public inquiry is due to begin on 18 September 2007. The provision of a new arena is a matter of wide significance. It would be the only large indoor arena in South East England south of central London and thus would serve a wide Catchment Area . Present trends in the demand for live music are claimed to be sufficient to keep the arena in use. In 2004, an appeal by Stanhope to the Office Of The Deputy Prime Minister was dismissed. Subsequently in 2006, Stanhope were able to secure planning permission for their development, which includes a doctor's surgery and a replacement for Croydon's Warehouse Theatre. The Theatres Trust have objected to the Arrowcroft scheme on the grounds that at the time it did not replace the Warehouse Theatre, but in further legal papers submitted in June 2007 Arrowcroft have included space for the Warehouse Theatre, though Arrowcroft have not included the theatre in their actual revised planning application, only as a possible legal agreement (s106). Grave doubts exist about how genuine the Arrowcroft offer is because clauses within the agreement return the capital sum to Arrowcroft if the Warehouse Theatre fail to provide a satisfactory business plan or fill the funding gap. Arrowcroft have also made this offer without any detailed discussions with the theatre on technical requirements. This is to be left to after planning permission is secured and the CPO is confirmed. Sir Stuart Lipton , chairman of Stanhope plc, had also been Chairman of the government's Commission For Architecture And The Built Environment (CABE), effectively the government's architecture champion. The Croydon Gateway controversy indirectly led to Lipton's resignation from CABE. Accusations of CABE taking a soft line on Stanhope's proposals when reviewing the design of both plans forced an investigation into whether a property developer could also act properly as a regulator of his own industry http://society.guardian.co.uk/urbandesign/story/0,11200,1240552,00.html. SITE PROGRESS 2005 Throughout September to November 2005, the last office block located on the site, Wettern House, was slowly demolished under a protective wrapper to protect the rail infrastructure and surrounding buildings. February to April 2006 saw the site cleared of all occupiers (car parks and car rental, etc.) with the exception of the Warehouse Theatre, with new hoardings now marking the boundaries of the main site. Stanhope Schroders now own large parcels of land to the north of the main site as well as office blocks in Croydon's central business district. July and August 2007 saw the company Mace appointed as site managers by Stanhope. Further clearance works (enabling works) are now underway. Final designs of all buildings are being worked up by Foster + partners prior to foundations being dug this Autumn. September 2007 Sees a new branding for the development take shape and all hoardings being brought up to standard ready for the commencement of works. Meanwhile Croydon Council is under significant pressure to agree the final 'technical' planning conditions (such as the lighting scheme, drainage etc) to enable the Stanhope Scheme to commence its construction phase. PLANNING PERMISSION GRANTED TO STANHOPE SCHRODERS On 2nd of June 2006, Stanhope and Schroders were granted formal planning permission for their proposed Gateway scheme. Ms Ruth Kelly, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government endorsed the report of the local planning inspector and granted permission. The planning inspector Keith Durrant said of the scheme: "The appeal scheme can, I conclude, be a landmark development of world class quality and function. In doing so, it can significantly further the objectives of national, strategic and local planning policies that seek to regenerate urban land, and provide a well designed and sustainable mix of land uses that can serve both the commercial and community needs of Croydon. There are no cogent arguments against granting planning permission." The new Conservative administration which took over in Croydon in May 2006 have endorsed the project, which enabled the Compulsory Purchase Order by which the Council will acquire the site to enable its development with Arrowcroft to proceed, to be made in January 2007. The CPO is dealt with separately from the issue of compensation, which will assess the compensation value of the site to be paid, potentially in proceedings in the Lands Tribunal if the order is confirmed. Nevertheless, assumptions must be made about the value of the site, and this is based on the value for development since Stanhope have secured permission. Probably the effect of Stanhope's permission on the value of the site has been small, since there is no doubt that offices are the alternative form of development for this site in any event. There is likely, however, to be a difference between Arrowcroft's and Stanhope's assumptions about the site value. Arrowcroft have the financial backing of Frogmore Real Estate Partners, According to Frogmore "The fund raised £330m of equity and envisages leveraging at 65%, giving a total buying capacity of approximately £1bn" High Court Arrowcroft issued proceedings in the High Court against the decision by the Secretary of State to issue planning permission on the grounds that the inspector misinterpeted the planning policy for the site (A section 288 Challenge). The same information was provided by Arrowcroft to the inspector & Secretary of State prior to the decision being issued and was deemed not to be material to the case. On Thursday 22 February Arrowcroft withdrew their proceedings against the Secretary of State arguing that any planning issues would now be finalised in the CPO hearings. Although Stanhope now have full planning permission, it remains to be seen whether they will in fact make a start on site as it has been widely suggested. If they do and the CPO is confirmed, they risk potentially losing the value of the construction work they undertake. If the CPO is not confirmed, Arrowcroft may face the cost of compensating Stanhope for its costs in the inquiry. REFERENCES EXTERNAL LINKS
|
|
|