| ARSENAL NEWS REVIEW | |||
|
Residents and resident Arsenal fans air views on stadium proposals Topics in this report [author's comments in brackets]
One resident said that Arsenal can end up with a better stadium, the residents can have a better environment, Islington can have a better transport system - and there will be more jobs. Unfortunately he had one proviso - that Islington Council weren't involved, adding that going to the Council is like walking into an Escher print. Between 300-400 people turned up at Highbury Grove School to hear Islington Council principal planner Graham Harrington outline the draft planning briefs for the proposed new stadium at Ashburton Grove, and the existing site at Highbury. Definitions/residents concerns Some residents thought that the new stadium move was a fait accomplir; others wanted far more detail, definition and parameters in the brief. Phrases such as 'multi-use' concerned them. What does it actually mean? One asked does it mean we'll get Crufts there? Currently only food retailing is excluded from the brief. Harrington said that Arsenal hadn't yet decided on the extra uses the stadium. Other residents were concerned about the term 'residential amenity'. How is that defined? Others wanted specifics defined, such as decibel levels. [Considering the Euro legislators don't know what the levels and modelling parameters are yet, that is going be hard]. Within residential amenity comes the environmental aspects such as noise, light, litter, parking, congestion etc; - which were general concerns etc; Graham Harrington said these are being dealt with in the current environmental studies, and the forthcoming environmental impact statement. That will define significant impacts of the development. Arsenal have employed specialist consultants - for environment, noise, air, ecology, landscape - along with architects HOK + LOB, who have worked on a stadium 'footprint'. Harrington stressed that it was early days, but the team are at work, for example digging boreholes to assess land contamination. One resident said that local Estate Agents had marked her house down by £30,000 because of the plans. However one Arsenal supporting resident said that property had been cheaper when it was bought, owing to the proximity of the football ground, anyway. One resident said that Manchester United's ground held 60,000 plus on 100 acres, and that Arsenal were trying to do the same on 23 acres. But one Arsenal supporting resident said that he could remember when crowds at Highbury were 55,000-60,000 and there were no problems. Jobs David Knight of the local business association suggested that the land should be given over to a tech park, which could create 5000 jobs. Some said that other alternatives hadn't been debated. However Graham Harrington said that that there was nothing to stop 'associated development'. He added that floorspace was relatively low cost owing to the proximity to the North London Waste Authority transfer station. And that demand for space wasn't that high - there are vacant spaces at the moment. It emerged that those councillors with an interest in Arsenal - ie regular attenders or season ticket holders wouldn't be allowed to vote on the brief or subsequent planning application. [Liverpool councillors were censured recently for maladministration in a Court of Appeal judgement, for not declaring an interest - in relation to a whole street of houses being demolished to make way for a stand. Islington Council lawyers have taken note, no doubt. See the recent Planning Magazine and this week's Local Government Chronicle, p2. It doesn't make clear whether the decision is an Obiter Dicta (discussion)or a Ratio Defidendi (legal precedent).] Mr Harrington said that the Council wouldn't use Compulsory Purchase Powers - that is up to the secretary of state for the environment, nor was it a forgone conclusion that any application would go to a public inquiry. He said Islington Council preferred to deal with it themselves. But the Government Office for London will still exist, post Mayor and they can call in an application. Chris Ashby of the Green Party claimed that the brief breaches the current Unitary Development Plan, in relation to industrial use and nature conservation land. Mr Harrington said the issues and implications would be looked into. [With the current raft of legislation coming on to the statute book, and revisions to Planning Policy Guidance Notes, the UDP is set to change anyway]. Islington Friends of the Earth said there weren't any traffic reduction targets in the brief and said that it was something councillors had expressed concern about at an earlier meeting this year. [Incidentally the government has watered down its road traffic reduction act which had required the government to set targets and reduce absolute traffic levels. If you don't believe me then read: Tackling congestion and pollution: The Government's first report under the Road Traffic reduction (National Targets) Act 1998.] One resident suggested that the platforms on Holloway station which he said would take the brunt of the extra supporters should be widened, like at The Angel tube recently. Even though there are plans to put an extra entrance into Arsenal tube, and extend the use of Drayton Park, several residents, including Arsenal fans had concerns about crowd movement outside the stadium. [That should be taken care of in the relevant legislation, such as the Safety of Sports Grounds Act, and massing control techniques, which will in some ways be designed into the stadium and its surrounds]. Miscellaneous It emerged that Kings Cross is a less favoured option because of the uncertainties surrounding the Channel Tunnel link which won't go ahead until 2008. The model of Southampton Football Club was brought up as good practice on several occasions. And Islington Council said they were looking at the way the club worked with the local council and residents there. The future of the current Arsenal stadium was debated briefly. The concept of affordable housing, appeared to go down well. And is an important socio-economic factor, within the overall mix. [One councillor is keen on the concept of key worker housing - low cost accomodation for relatively low paid key workers like nurses, who can't own houses where they work because of the property prices.] The Council will take a view on the planning brief by 17 April. Comment: Some web sites are seeing this as a football match - residents opposed v Arsenal supporters for. It is far more complex than that - there are some residents who want Arsenal to leave the borough (appearing to be in a minority), residents who want Arsenal to stay, resident Arsenal supporters who have some reservations about the move (again appearing to be a minority), and resident Arsenal supporters who fully back the move. At the end of the day the Council has to listen to the arguments and debate whether they are in line with the current direction of planning policy and the UDP. And decide on the economic, environmental and social benefits of the move to Ashburton Grove vis a vis the perceived economic, environmental and social disbenefits to the Council and its residents as a whole. ANR still sticks to its original view that there are win-win solutions here.
*This website, has a weekly column in the Highbury & Islington Express.
Home |Previous News |Features | Comment |Interact | Search |Links |
|||