Latics scale back the number of flats.

[Guest oa_exile]

Hmmm twist my words why don't you.

 

I was making the point that this has been planned to make a "surplus" and therefore was no planned shortfall that could impact on the clubs finances. I deliberately left out the word "profit" for the exact same reason you have stated above. Education is the key though, not jumping down peoples throats on the defensive.

 

........and OAFC is still bleeding money so the "surplus" would go towards the weekly running costs.

[jimsleftfoot]

........and OAFC is still bleeding money so the "surplus" would go towards the weekly running costs.

 

Very nice - but completley misses my point again.

[Inspiral_Carpet]

Hmmm twist my words why don't you.

 

I was making the point that TTA has correctly planned to make a surplus and so there was no planned shortfall that could impact on the clubs finances. I deliberately left out the word "profit" for the exact same reason you have stated above. Education is the key though, not jumping down peoples throats on the defensive.

 

Steady on there. You posed a point and I answered it with my point of view. Sorry for that!

 

I wasn't accusing you of anything, jumping down your throat nor was I going on the defensive. Just pointing out that what others have said in the past may not be true about TTA's true motives.

 

Apart from that, you've got it spot on as I think we believe the same!

 

[cheshireblue]

Not really surprised they have had a re-think on the number of flats. Working in Manchester I can see the place is absolutely saturated with 2 bedroomed flats for sale / to let. In fact a recent article in the papers suggested there are simply too many of these similar properties about and prices are falling fast. So to sell 600 + of these units in Oldham was always going to be a big ask, I suspect the developers know that as well.

 

I think the new main stand will get built as that is how they are planning to meet their monthly running costs or reduce the monthly loss at any rate but I'm really not sure about the rest of the planned development.

[Guest oa_exile]

Very nice - but completley misses my point again.

 

Sorry Jim but what "Other" point did I miss

 

What my point is that it's all very nice and sweet , build a nice spanky stadium with all the "bells and whistles" and then continue to bleed money week in week out ?

I was trying to support that any "surplus" would go into the day to day running of OAFC.

 

Was just adding a IMO into the discussion points

Edited April 4, 2008 by oa_exile

[nava]

Right boys and girls. Let me just add a few points of information for you so that you don't all go off at the wrong tangent.

 

First of all I can confirm that even before the planning application went before the planning committee (The 1st time in November) the club had been in discussion with housing developers and the subject had been raised about changing any future detailed planning application from 693+ apartments to around 350-400 3 and 4 bed houses. So this piece of "news" is not exactly new to some who have been fairly close to what is going on.

 

The fact of the matter is that an "outline" planning permission, as has been granted to Latics gives a "maximum" number of units that can be built under the planning permission issued. However the eventual developer/builder can submit a "Detailed" application in due course to build a reduced number (but not more) without affecting the terms of the issued consent.

 

Simple maths will give you some answers to how and why this would happen.

 

The planned apartments in the issued consent are 1 and 2 bedroomed and would sell on the open market for between £90K & £120K. So taking as an avearge £105K selling price this would generate a total housing developemnt figure of £73 million. By building say 350 number 3 and 4 bed houses instead that would sell for between £160K and £250K and taking an average selling price of £210K a figure of £73 million would also be produced. The land price the club will receive will not therefore be too much different by buidling 693 apartments or 350 houses.

 

The reason for the outline application and consent being in the form that it was/is, is that it gives greater flexibility when selling the land. Whilst the club probably could not make too many concessions to the residents prior to planning permission being granted, the fact that they can now enter detailed discussions with prospective developers for the sale of the land and the developers can look at the market and see what is selling and what is not before they decide what to build. In the meantime, the club can be confident that although there is currently a slump in the market, they have a very saleable asset and were safe in the knowledge that they could pledge to continue to talk to residents about their concerns, knowing that there was a possible alternative at hand.

 

Hope this helps.

 

 

Cheers,

 

 

on behalf of

Harry Dowds Green Shirt

 

Because Harry can't log in

Edited April 4, 2008 by nava

[martjs]

Think you will find that some who post on here will debate that

 

Well it depends how you look at it Exile: Some people (doom and gloomers) would argue that it is only accurate for one second of the two times a day and that's hardly worth acknowledgement whereas others (happy clappers) would say it is accurate for the full minute twice a day but that's because they have their 'rose-tinted' glasses on etc, etc. ad infin.....

[neiladamsheadband]

Right boys and girls. Let me just add a few points of information for you so that you don't all go off at the wrong tangent.

 

First of all I can confirm that even before the planning application went before the planning committee (The 1st time in November) the club had been in discussion with housing developers and the subject had been raised about changing any future detailed planning application from 693+ apartments to around 350-400 3 and 4 bed houses. So this piece of "news" is not exactly new to some who have been fairly close to what is going on.

 

The fact of the matter is that an "outline" planning permission, as has been granted to Latics gives a "maximum" number of units that can be built under the planning permission issued. However the eventual developer/builder can submit a "Detailed" application in due course to build a reduced number (but not more) without affecting the terms of the issued consent.

 

Simple maths will give you some answers to how and why this would happen.

 

The planned apartments in the issued consent are 1 and 2 bedroomed and would sell on the open market for between £90K & £120K. So taking as an avearge £105K selling price this would generate a total housing developemnt figure of £73 million. By building say 350 number 3 and 4 bed houses instead that would sell for between £160K and £250K and taking an average selling price of £210K a figure of £73 million would also be produced. The land price the club will receive will not therefore be too much different by buidling 693 apartments or 350 houses.

 

The reason for the outline application and consent being in the form that it was/is, is that it gives greater flexibility when selling the land. Whilst the club probably could not make too many concessions to the residents prior to planning permission being granted, the fact that they can now enter detailed discussions with prospective developers for the sale of the land and the developers can look at the market and see what is selling and what is not before they decide what to build. In the meantime, the club can be confident that although there is currently a slump in the market, they have a very saleable asset and were safe in the knowledge that they could pledge to continue to talk to residents about their concerns, knowing that there was a possible alternative at hand.

 

Hope this helps.

Cheers,

on behalf of

Harry Dowds Green Shirt

 

Because Harry can't log in

 

 

 

there was no way on gods earth i could believe NAVA wrote this - phew thank goodness u put the bit at the end

[Diego_Sideburns]

Right boys and girls. Let me just add a few points of information for you so that you don't all go off at the wrong tangent.

 

First of all I can confirm that even before the planning application went before the planning committee (The 1st time in November) the club had been in discussion with housing developers and the subject had been raised about changing any future detailed planning application from 693+ apartments to around 350-400 3 and 4 bed houses. So this piece of "news" is not exactly new to some who have been fairly close to what is going on.

 

You, on behalf of Harry Dowd's Green Shirt, are saying that this piece of "news" could have been mentioned to the Planning Committee in November and avoided the saga of repeated traffic surveys, two-cars being driven at the same time, 1960s' Russia, etc., not to mention the March we all went on. It could have avoided TTA threatening to throw in the towel and having to be persuaded to stick with the fight to get the Planning Committee to change its decision. It could have avoided Messrs Corney and Blitz holding out for the full 693 residential units, instead of agreeing from the outset to the Committee Members' suggestion that if the number of units to be included in the detailed application was to be reduced to what is now proposed, outline planning permision would have been granted straight away. The possibility of changing the future detailed planning application might have been raised with developers, but I cannot believe that we went thought all that angst for nothing.

 

The question of the Council's requirement for a fixed percentage of the units to be affordable housing has a bearing on the viability of the project. The change in the financial climate surrounding the housing market has necessitated the change to the development plans. I believe that if TTA could have continued with the original plans, they would have done so.

[laticsrblue]

I think this was a plan B which TTA didn't want to mention, in case the NIMBYs jumped at it and persuaded the planning committee to enforce it. Which would have removed any flexibility to the development.

As it is, TTA have many options from shoe horning in the max number of cheaper flats to spreading out more expensive spacious detached houses and any combination thereof.

 

I'm sure their will still be the curved corner block of flats built overlooking the pitch on the corner between the Chaddy and the NSM stands, as I have put down a deposit for the penthouse

 

BTW in an interview, I remember Corney saying that they expected to make £70,000 per unit. I suppose that is after the developers take their cut.

Edited April 5, 2008 by laticsrblue

[boundaryblue80]

Less flats, more 3/4 bed houses. Much 'more in keeping with the surrounding area'. Wonder if this will please our Mr Hewitt or whether he'll still have his knickers in a twist?

What.....you mean no late night wild parties will be being thrown after all?

[Diego_Sideburns]

I think this was a plan B which TTA didn't want to mention, in case the NIMBYs jumped at it and persuaded the planning committee to enforce it. Which would have removed any flexibility to the development.

 

It's easy to say that now, but at the time TTA did not appreciate that they could re-submit the outline application, and they thought it was the end of the world! They wouldn't have reacted as they did if it was simply a matter of producing Plan B as an alternative at the November meeting. Blitz was only persuaded to carry on with drawing up a revised outline application after seeing the strength of support produced by the march from the Civic Centre to BP. When pressed at the November and December meetings, Corney and Hill, respectively, stated that it was the 693 units or nothing.

 

Also TTA stated that the Planning Committee's delay of one month, on top of the delays by the Highways Agency, would have a detrimental effect on the scheme, because prices were increasing all the time. Now we're being asked to believe that Plan B could have been produced early in the discussions, avoiding all the fears about the 693 units, in which case the Highways Agency would not have had to look at the proposals again, plus another independent traffic survey, and the original timetable could have been adhered to.

 

Whatever alternative bottom line development had been discussed with prospective developers, it could not have reached a stage where it was a viable alternative. The inference that the newly announced Plan B is 'old news', because it was available prior to the November meeting, beggars belief! How do you think Bashforth and his fellow Councillors, the Council's officers, who stood their ground in support of the 693 units, and the NIMBYs would feel if they thought this claim that Plan B was 'old news' was true?

 

Let's accept the revised proposals as the latest thinking and hope that the section 106 Agreement and detailed planning permission can be concluded to avoid further delay to the scheme.

 

BTW in an interview, I remember Corney saying that they expected to make £70,000 per unit. I suppose that is after the developers take their cut.

 

The money they make per unit is to pay for the stadium redevelopment. £70,000 x 693 units = £48,510,000 but £80,000,000 (at 2007 prices) is needed for the redevelopment. The Council's requirement that a percentage of the residential units has to be 'affordable housing' also has a bearing on the viability of the scheme.

 

Whichever way you look at it, there is less chance of making a profit in the current economic climate than there was before, when it was stated that making a profit was not the objective.

[BP1960]

Less flats, more 3/4 bed houses. Much 'more in keeping with the surrounding area'. Wonder if this will please our Mr Hewitt or whether he'll still have his knickers in a twist?

 

Yes, where's all the extra kids going to play ?

[al_bro]

Corney said at the Monday forum he reckoned the council messing around for so long and dragging their heels like they have meant the land had lost some of its value. The stage we're at now we really should have been at a year back.

Had it been a year ago the land would have been valued at what they expected. Unfortunately for us the credit crunch has occurred. Houses are no longer selling, therefore developers will be in no rush to buy new land. I should think most of them have enough land to build on for now until the market picks up again. No developer wants empty houses standing therem, they want to sell them as quick;y as possible for as high a price as possible. No-one knows how long the market will be depressed for. It could be quite a while. Couldn't have happened at a worse time for the club.