New Stadium Details And Discussions

[tottenmal]

One thing's for sure it's gonna be fecking mahoosive. The first row of the top tier is as high as the roof on the current stadium. Can't wait meself.

Has anyone ever posted the max height and compared it to the haemorrhoids?

I've tried finding any kind of blueprints or diagrams, similar to the ones below but for the current White Hart Lane (long shot I know) and the emirates stadium but I can't find any anywhere. If anybody has stumbled across any drawing I'd be more than happy to try and overlay a comparison of the size of the stands etc.

Anyway here are the stand cut outs for NWHL. You've probably all seen them all anyway, but I like looking at the little people on them and realising how massive it'll be.

South Stand

North Stand

South Stand Facing the West Stand

East Stand facing the North Stand

 

[Lilbaz]

I've tried finding any kind of blueprints or diagrams, similar to the ones below but for the current White Hart Lane (long shot I know) and the emirates stadium but I can't find any anywhere. If anybody has stumbled across any drawing I'd be more than happy to try and overlay a comparison of the size of the stands etc.

Anyway here are the stand cut outs for NWHL. You've probably all seen them all anyway, but I like looking at the little people on them and realising how massive it'll be.

South Stand
View attachment 22817

North Stand
View attachment 22818

South Stand Facing the West Stand
View attachment 22820

East Stand facing the North Stand
View attachment 22819

Someone posted the height on ssc. Can't remember what it was (54m maybe?), not going to trawl through pages though.

 

[wishkah]

this is the type of solid journalism I can get behind!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...make-them-bigger-and-better-than-Arsenal.html

 

[therhinospeaks]

NWHL is about 55 metres.....Emirates is 40

 

[tottenmal]

So I've done a bit of looking, and it's quite hard to find old pictures and documents of the Emirates, simply because most website don't store pictures for over 10 years.

I was able to find an old picture of off google containing a cross section of the emirates, so I did a bit of comparing.

Now, 41.466m is the total height of the stadium with the eaves reaching a height of 34.190m. This is in comparison to NWHL at 59.14m for the top of the roof, and 55.6m for the eaves.

When I went to try and overlay the two cross sections, it became obvious as to why this was. Trying to fit a 1000 more people into a stadium with a single tier stand at one end means that the 3 other stand are going to have to be steeper and taller overall than the emirates.

Sadly the picture I found didn't have the pitch or goals to use as a reference point in getting the sizes precise. What I find cool though is that even if I line up the arsenal seats (even though we all know theirs are much further back) to the same distance from the pitch as ours. The stands at new WHL are much steeper and closer, which I think will help make it much more intimidating, both in person and on camera.

And if I move the arsenal seats back 2 and a half rows, as sadly without a reference point my photoshop ability won't let me be anymore precise. You end up with a difference more like this.

 

[Hoopspur]

The concerns quoted in the article aren't unreasonably NIMBYish. Of course, the obvious reply to all of them is that existing central and local government planning policies are already required to take into account every one of the issues mentioned: accessibility, transport, local shopping, scale and character of the existing neighbourhood, pressure on local services such as schools and medical facilities - the lot.

The whole point of the Community Infrastructure Levy is to ensure that new development contributes financially to local provisions for transport, education, medical care, etc., in proportion to its size (CIL is charged per square metre of new/additional floor area). Any new development increases pressure on local facilities and London is growing, so it isn't a valid argument to prevent new development on the basis that the existing facilities cannot cope - the council has the power to collect the money to improve those facilities.

But there is also pressure on councils to meet targets for new housing, especially affordable housing, and there is sod-all funding available to deliver those targets. So it's no surprise that council officers and councillors sometimes bend over to accommodate over-scaled, over-ambitious new development, especially when it represents inward investment and makes no demand on their own financial resources.

The decision will depend on how highly Haringey value delivering housing numbers and sucking up to THFC, compared to how they value keeping constituents in the affected ward happy. Politics will be a factor, as much as policy.

I do agree with you as it happens. Actually I know this area (reasonably) well'ish'. I can actually understand the concerns regarding dwarfing the terrace houses etc, but there is a large area of vacant property/land that needs redevelopment, or at the very least new business moving in. I for one cannot believe a new development of housing would be at the detriment of the general area. Maybe very short term, and I agree these properties will demand an infrastructure to support what has been built. It is quite adjacent to New River which could do with a 'little' sprucing up. I think Haringey (and even Enfield/local newspaper) will be more than happy to work with this and I'm sure any support will have been considered. It will ultimately be a prime site for redevelopment within the Tottenham area and something that will happen anyway - whether Spurs or otherwise. What other options can Haringey come up with for the massive additional demand otherwise? - there's only so much brown field land available in the borough. By the way I live in Haringey.

 

[Ledleys Knee]

Thanks for that info Ledley's Knee - which deadline is that?

The 6 weeks since final sign off. The listed buildings can come down on Monday unless the SoS actively intervenes.

 

[worcestersauce]

The 6 weeks since final sign off. The listed buildings can come down on Monday unless the SoS actively intervenes.

Unless he is intent on causing us as much consternation as he can I doubt he would have left it until the last minute to intervene, I'm confident that if the SoS was going to intervene he'd have done so by now.
No news is good news.

 

[davidmatzdorf]

The whole point of the Community Infrastructure Levy is to ensure that new development contributes financially to local provisions for transport, education, medical care, etc., in proportion to its size (CIL is charged per square metre of new/additional floor area). Any new development increases pressure on local facilities and London is growing, so it isn't a valid argument to prevent new development on the basis that the existing facilities cannot cope - the council has the power to collect the money to improve those facilities.

In light of the fact that this development is to provide off-site affordable housing for the NDP, I really should have added that affordable housing is eligible for 100% relief from CIL.

 

[HotspurSam]

Thanks Ledley, but there hasn't been a 'final' sign off yet for the six weeks to even start as far as I'm aware. The Haringey site still says decision pending and there is no decision notice added to the application documents after the S106 docs.
The S106 does state the Council are 'covenanted' to wait until SoS advises if he is to call in or not before granting final permission. Surely it is from the formal publication of that decision that the 6 weeks start for any one to appeal for a judicial Review. Isn't it only then that the bulldozers can move in.
if the SoS decides not to call-in, whenever that is, is there a waiting period for public bodies to appeal his decision. I asked the Dept that question 2 weeks ago but haven't received a reply. Is there a time period in which he has to make a decision to call-in or not? Some forms are saying 3 weeks but that is not mentioned in any of the Govt Leaflets or guidelines that I can see.
One good thing though, is that the NDP is listed as having been called-in, so small mercies.
I think he is probably in correspondence asking for clarification on certain points or seeking additional info before making his decision. I do think though there is still some way to go before the wrecking ball can swing.
Mind you, I'm just getting all very confused.com by it all now.

 

[Nigel Spinal]

Thanks Ledley, but there hasn't been a 'final' sign off yet for the six weeks to even start as far as I'm aware. The Haringey site still says decision pending and there is no decision notice added to the application documents after the S106 docs.
The S106 does state the Council are 'covenanted' to wait until SoS advises if he is to call in or not before granting final permission. Surely it is from the formal publication of that decision that the 6 weeks start for any one to appeal for a judicial Review. Isn't it only then that the bulldozers can move in.
if the SoS decides not to call-in, whenever that is, is there a waiting period for public bodies to appeal his decision. I asked the Dept that question 2 weeks ago but haven't received a reply. Is there a time period in which he has to make a decision to call-in or not? Some forms are saying 3 weeks but that is not mentioned in any of the Govt Leaflets or guidelines that I can see.
One good thing though, is that the NDP is listed as having been called-in, so small mercies.
I think he is probably in correspondence asking for clarification on certain points or seeking additional info before making his decision. I do think though there is still some way to go before the wrecking ball can swing.
Mind you, I'm just getting all very confused.com by it all now.

I was also pretty sure the 6 week appeal period was from when the S106 got signed off on 7 March, which does take us to 18 April.

I think Monday is the day Greg Clark finally rubber stamps it?

 

[basespur]

Thanks Ledley, but there hasn't been a 'final' sign off yet for the six weeks to even start as far as I'm aware. The Haringey site still says decision pending and there is no decision notice added to the application documents after the S106 docs.
The S106 does state the Council are 'covenanted' to wait until SoS advises if he is to call in or not before granting final permission. Surely it is from the formal publication of that decision that the 6 weeks start for any one to appeal for a judicial Review. Isn't it only then that the bulldozers can move in.
if the SoS decides not to call-in, whenever that is, is there a waiting period for public bodies to appeal his decision. I asked the Dept that question 2 weeks ago but haven't received a reply. Is there a time period in which he has to make a decision to call-in or not? Some forms are saying 3 weeks but that is not mentioned in any of the Govt Leaflets or guidelines that I can see.
One good thing though, is that the NDP is listed as having been called-in, so small mercies.
I think he is probably in correspondence asking for clarification on certain points or seeking additional info before making his decision. I do think though there is still some way to go before the wrecking ball can swing.
Mind you, I'm just getting all very confused.com by it all now.

I've also been trying to find out the various time limits. My reading of this is that the SoS has 21 days to decide whether to call in the planning application. The unknown is when the 21 days started, but as you say the S106 states that the council will wait for the SoS before granting permission. You would hope the council brought this to his attention shortly after that date (7th March) and that the 21 days started around then.
Importantly anyone can ask the SoS to consider calling in an application and so if someone wanted him to call it in you'd assume they would have requested this already. Also the SoS may put a temporary stop on the local planning authority issuing a planning permission or listed building consent whilst he or she is deciding whether to call it in. I assume we would know if this had happened.
If the SoS decides that he is not going to call-in the application then the council can grant permission. If he does call it in and then grants permission this decision is final and can't be appealed, you can't raise a further appeal against the decision of the planning inspectorate or SoS. As far as I can tell there is also no right of appeal for a planning consent. The only challenge at this point is a judicial review. With a judicial review the court will not decide whether the decision was the right one, but simply if it is legally valid given the procedural requirements for fair decisions and the need for rationality in their reasoning.
So assuming that the SoS doesn't call this in you'd have to hope that's the end of it and we get permission rubber stamped. I think it's unlikely anyone would request a judicial review.

 

[Nigel Spinal]

I've also been trying to find out the various time limits. My reading of this is that the SoS has 21 days to decide whether to call in the planning application. The unknown is when the 21 days started, but as you say the S106 states that the council will wait for the SoS before granting permission. You would hope the council brought this to his attention shortly after that date (7th March) and that the 21 days started around then.
Importantly anyone can ask the SoS to consider calling in an application and so if someone wanted him to call it in you'd assume they would have requested this already. Also the SoS may put a temporary stop on the local planning authority issuing a planning permission or listed building consent whilst he or she is deciding whether to call it in. I assume we would know if this had happened.
If the SoS decides that he is not going to call-in the application then the council can grant permission. If he does call it in and then grants permission this decision is final and can't be appealed, you can't raise a further appeal against the decision of the planning inspectorate or SoS. As far as I can tell there is also no right of appeal for a planning consent. The only challenge at this point is a judicial review. With a judicial review the court will not decide whether the decision was the right one, but simply if it is legally valid given the procedural requirements for fair decisions and the need for rationality in their reasoning.
So assuming that the SoS doesn't call this in you'd have to hope that's the end of it and we get permission rubber stamped. I think it's unlikely anyone would request a judicial review.

I don't think Historic England can call for a judicial review against the SoS, as they are part of his department, and they'd need to challenge his competence.

 

[Nigel Spinal]

Boom

 

[tommyt]

Boom

What exactly?

 

[HotspurSam]

Beat me to it guys (used my screen shot from other post - but who cares - Yay!)

 

[HotspurSam]

Bugger - gone back to 'pending'. Someone jumped the gun. Hopefully just waiting for decision letter for publication

 

[davidmatzdorf]

That's odd. When I just checked directly on the Haringey planning register, the decision date is still missing:

http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=284412

 

[Nigel Spinal]

What exactly?

Planning permission granted! The 6 week appeal window has expired and the SoS has signed it off

All systems go!

 

[davidmatzdorf]

Planning permission granted! The 6 week appeal window has expired and the SoS has signed it off

All systems go!

Not so sure about that. The confirmation date has been removed from the council's website page.