So 31 years before something happens.
Stadium News, part 793
- Thread starter gkmacca
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
[article=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/liverpool/10383740/Liverpools-Anfield-redevelopment-plans-hit-by-impasse-over-six-neighbouring-properties.html]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.[/article]
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.[/article]
Except none of the six properties have anyone living in them.
As one lives abroad I'd even dare to say at least that one most likely bought the properties with exactly this in mind. As many of these houses could be bought a few years back for less than 10k it's a gamble that's paid off in the main & I bet they're just holding out for as much as they can get.
Tbf in their situation I'd be doing exactly the same thing, the club have been pretty underhand in this since the start so I don't blame them, especially if any of them bought the properties before the club began to buy up the area & let it rot, reducing prices massively.
Yep, it's clearly investors who've got this, it's pathetic profiteering.
Like I said, if any owned the properties before the club started buying them on masse then I have no problem with them doing this though, the club have behaved in a much worse manner throughout the last two decades.
When I was there during the Palace game I noticed that many of the houses there seemed vacant and were boarded up.
The club must be offering those who still live adjacent to Stadium a price above market value and I don't see why they'd want to stay.
Doesn't look like the safest neighbourhood imo.
The club must be offering those who still live adjacent to Stadium a price above market value and I don't see why they'd want to stay.
Doesn't look like the safest neighbourhood imo.
The previous Labour government brought in something called the Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder programme. In pursuance of this programme, local government compulsorily purchased streets of terraced housing and re-housed the occupants. This resulted in the streets around the stadium at Anfield being "tinned-up" i.e. gas and electricity cut off and the windows covered over with metal sheets.
The idea of the programme was that the houses were to be demolished and replaced by shiny new developments, but as a result of the recession, the economic drivers were not there, and those empty, deserted houses are still standing. Redevelopment is, however slowly happening and some new development has taken place including some housing, a college and a health centre.
Ah. Good to know
- Status
