|
LCR's Stratford City land wanted for Olympics
From the second half of this BBC News online story...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/othe...12/4424510.stm "[Sports Minister Richard] Caborn also said he expects a deal will be struck within a day over a contested strip of land wanted for the Olympic site. London & Continental Railways (LCR) has been involved in a tussle with the London Development Agency over the 180-acre Stratford City site it owns as part of a development consortium. LCR want it for a £4bn development including 4,850 homes, 120 shops and office space. The LDA has other ideas and there has been talk of a compulsory purchase order. It has been argued that the land is essential for access roads and car parking for the Olympics. Caborn said: "The best way here for all parties is to have an agreement and I'm hopeful that will happen in the next 24 hours." The land in question is (presumably) not needed for the operation of the CTRL or associated station. A seperate news piece on RailPeople [1] states that LCR has partnered with two other developers, Chelsfield plc and Stanhope plc, for the 'Stratford City' development. Was LCR given any adjacent land by the government as a result of the CTRL construction, given that the CTRL is a public-private partnership scheme? And why and how has LCR become such a big player in property development? (LCR basically subcontract the UK side of teh Eurostar operation to a seperate company, Inter-Capital & Regional Rail). [1] http://www.railwaypeople.com/rail-pr...opment-17.html |
LCR's Stratford City land wanted for Olympics
Mizter T wrote: From the second half of this BBC News online story... http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/othe...12/4424510.stm "[Sports Minister Richard] Caborn also said he expects a deal will be struck within a day over a contested strip of land wanted for the Olympic site. London & Continental Railways (LCR) has been involved in a tussle with the London Development Agency over the 180-acre Stratford City site it owns as part of a development consortium. LCR want it for a £4bn development including 4,850 homes, 120 shops and office space. The LDA has other ideas and there has been talk of a compulsory purchase order. It has been argued that the land is essential for access roads and car parking for the Olympics. Caborn said: "The best way here for all parties is to have an agreement and I'm hopeful that will happen in the next 24 hours." The land in question is (presumably) not needed for the operation of the CTRL or associated station. A seperate news piece on RailPeople [1] states that LCR has partnered with two other developers, Chelsfield plc and Stanhope plc, for the 'Stratford City' development. Was LCR given any adjacent land by the government as a result of the CTRL construction, given that the CTRL is a public-private partnership scheme? And why and how has LCR become such a big player in property development? (LCR basically subcontract the UK side of teh Eurostar operation to a seperate company, Inter-Capital & Regional Rail). [1] http://www.railwaypeople.com/rail-pr...opment-17.html Anybody know why they can't arrange a lease arrangement with the land owners. They are going to get rock bottom prices because it is semi-derilict industrial land and after the Olympics it will be worth billions. A nice little earner for the people doing the compulsary purchasing. Kevin |
LCR's Stratford City land wanted for Olympics
wrote in message
ups.com... [the Olympic committe want to use some land that L&CR are planning to develop] Anybody know why they can't arrange a lease arrangement with the land owners. They are going to get rock bottom prices because it is semi-derilict industrial land and after the Olympics it will be worth billions. A nice little earner for the people doing the compulsary purchasing. No, L&CR have outline planning permission to build a huge property development at one of Central London's biggest transport hubs. If the Olympic lot are daft enough to compulsory-purchase the land, then the compensation bill will be astronomical... -- John Band astic - delete iastic to reply |
LCR's Stratford City land wanted for Olympics
John Band wrote: wrote in message ups.com... [the Olympic committe want to use some land that L&CR are planning to develop] Anybody know why they can't arrange a lease arrangement with the land owners. They are going to get rock bottom prices because it is semi-derilict industrial land and after the Olympics it will be worth billions. A nice little earner for the people doing the compulsary purchasing. No, L&CR have outline planning permission to build a huge property development at one of Central London's biggest transport hubs. If the Olympic lot are daft enough to compulsory-purchase the land, then the compensation bill will be astronomical... The Olympics do not need the whole of the Stratford City site, just bits on the edges. If L&CR are perhaps already seeking an astronomical amount, for what might be small 'ransom strips' of land, it may be the LDA cannot possibly agree at this stage. An earlier, and more accurate, news report about the row can be found at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/othe...12/4408396.stm Both parties are doing their duty: on the one side to secure maximum return for their shareholders; and on the other to secure best-value for public money. Not necessarily incompatible if they can agree a fair price. Better to negotiate agreement, as Richad Caborn says, and save the time and legal fees. But if they cannot agree it may be that the CPO process is the only way to establish what the fair value for these bits of land should be. 81% of the Olympic site is already in public ownership. The other landowners will naturally hold out for the best price they can get (whether it is purchase or leasehold) - they will perceive the Olympics as rolling in money. This is true to an extent but the Olympic project cannot allow landowners or contractors to walk all over them at this early stage or they will lose any chance of keeping control of the costs. |
LCR's Stratford City land wanted for Olympics
"umpston" wrote Better to negotiate agreement, as Richad Caborn says, and save the time and legal fees. But if they cannot agree it may be that the CPO process is the only way to establish what the fair value for these bits of land should be. If they cannot agree by negotiation, they can avoid the CPO process by agreeing to appoint an arbitrator to come up with a fair price, or possibly by appointing a mediator to help them copme to an agreement. As well as LCR, there are a lot of small businesses on the Olympic site, some of which own their premises, and others own leases. They all have to be bought out, and for some of them finding suitable alternative premises, or even moving or replacing equipment, presents a real difficulty. Peter |
LCR's Stratford City land wanted for Olympics
Peter Masson wrote: "umpston" wrote Better to negotiate agreement, as Richad Caborn says, and save the time and legal fees. But if they cannot agree it may be that the CPO process is the only way to establish what the fair value for these bits of land should be. If they cannot agree by negotiation, they can avoid the CPO process by agreeing to appoint an arbitrator to come up with a fair price, or possibly by appointing a mediator to help them copme to an agreement. As well as LCR, there are a lot of small businesses on the Olympic site, some of which own their premises, and others own leases. They all have to be bought out, and for some of them finding suitable alternative premises, or even moving or replacing equipment, presents a real difficulty. I agree - I am a customer of one of the businesses there and have previously made the suggestion of building a new industrial estate at the edge of the Olympic zone for them to move to. Thre is plenty of room. I am also a supporter of the Olympic project - but Stratford will still need other jobs and services after the Olympics have come and gone. An imaginative and sustainable redevelopment of the area should, in my view, include industrial units to provide employment and affordable homes for the workers to live in as well as all the up-market shops and flats. |
LCR's Stratford City land wanted for Olympics
|
LCR's Stratford City land wanted for Olympics
Ian Johnston wrote: On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 15:13:10 UTC, wrote: They are going to get rock bottom prices because it is semi-derilict industrial land and after the Olympics it will be worth billions. After the Olympics it will be semi-derelict industrial land again. Great safe prophecies of our time: 1) The London Olympics will be a complete screwup, many times over budget, 2) The supposed regeneration of depreived areas won't happen. Ian You could be so wrong Ian - I certainly hope so. |
LCR's Stratford City land wanted for Olympics
"umpston" wrote:
Ian Johnston wrote: On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 15:13:10 UTC, wrote: They are going to get rock bottom prices because it is semi-derilict industrial land and after the Olympics it will be worth billions. After the Olympics it will be semi-derelict industrial land again. Great safe prophecies of our time: 1) The London Olympics will be a complete screwup, many times over budget, 2) The supposed regeneration of depreived areas won't happen. Ian You could be so wrong Ian - I certainly hope so. Unfortunately, Ian is very likely to be right. The trade unions will make sure that the work doesn't get finished on time unless their members are paid massive "bonuses", and the costs will skyrocket. Every landowner will screw the Olympic organisation for every million they can get. The money set aside for regeneration will have to be raided to pay for all of the above. |
LCR's Stratford City land wanted for Olympics
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 17:37:09 UTC, Tony Polson
wrote: "umpston" wrote: You could be so wrong Ian - I certainly hope so. Unfortunately, Ian is very likely to be right. Erm, thanks, I think. The trade unions will make sure that the work doesn't get finished on time unless their members are paid massive "bonuses", and the costs will skyrocket. Every landowner will screw the Olympic organisation for every million they can get. The money set aside for regeneration will have to be raided to pay for all of the above. But above all, does anyone really believe in this regeneration hype in the first place? I mean, if you really wanted to stimulate ecomic recovery somewhere, would you give it a) a nice new industrial estate with tax/rate breaks for incoming companies or b) a velodrome? And if you want a velodrome, do you put it in a) a pleasant convenient location that people might want to go to or b) a festering hell hole? Look at the history of Garden Festivals (have they been given up now?) Gateshead, Liverpool, Glasgow and the one in south Wales (Swansea?) were all supposed to leave revitalised communities behind them and all left areas of wasteland where redevelopment, where it happened, took years. Some of the Glasgow site is still derelict, twenty years on. For that matter, look at the Monster of Greenwich. I think we can safely assume that the people who ran the Olympic bid did very nicely out of it. I think we can assume that the people who run the games project will do very nicely out of it. And I think we can safely assume that the people who live on or near the sites will be ****ed over before and during the games and left to rot afterwards. Ian "Pollyanna" J |
LCR's Stratford City land wanted for Olympics
On 12/11/05 17:37, "Tony Polson" wrote:
Great safe prophecies of our time: 1) The London Olympics will be a complete screwup, many times over budget, 2) The supposed regeneration of depreived areas won't happen. Ian You could be so wrong Ian - I certainly hope so. Unfortunately, Ian is very likely to be right. The trade unions will make sure that the work doesn't get finished on time unless their members are paid massive "bonuses", and the costs will skyrocket. Every landowner will screw the Olympic organisation for every million they can get. The money set aside for regeneration will have to be raided to pay for all of the above. My company does a lot of transport planning and strategy work with TfL and the widespread feeling within TfL (and outside) is that the whole Olympic thing is a gravy train just waiting to be jumped on. There are now many interrelated projects regarded as *essential* to the Olympics where money is being hosed around with gay abandon... One day the truth will come out and it won't be pretty |
LCR's Stratford City land wanted for Olympics
On 12/11/05 18:03, "Ian Johnston" wrote:
Look at the history of Garden Festivals (have they been given up now?) Gateshead, Liverpool, Glasgow and the one in south Wales (Swansea?) Ebbw Vale. Now largely a business park although some remnants of the garden festival are (well, as of 2 years ago) still visible up the hill |
LCR's Stratford City land wanted for Olympics
"Ian Johnston" wrote:
But above all, does anyone really believe in this regeneration hype in the first place? Only the buggers who spout it, including the politicians and those who led the Olympic bid. I mean, if you really wanted to stimulate ecomic recovery somewhere, would you give it a) a nice new industrial estate with tax/rate breaks for incoming companies or b) a velodrome? And if you want a velodrome, do you put it in a) a pleasant convenient location that people might want to go to or b) a festering hell hole? Look at the history of Garden Festivals (have they been given up now?) Gateshead, Liverpool, Glasgow and the one in south Wales (Swansea?) were all supposed to leave revitalised communities behind them and all left areas of wasteland where redevelopment, where it happened, took years. Some of the Glasgow site is still derelict, twenty years on. For that matter, look at the Monster of Greenwich. I think we can safely assume that the people who ran the Olympic bid did very nicely out of it. I think we can assume that the people who run the games project will do very nicely out of it. And I think we can safely assume that the people who live on or near the sites will be ****ed over before and during the games and left to rot afterwards. Agree 100%. If I was allowed to state more than 100%, I would choose the highest available figure. ;-) London 2012 will be a landmark exercise in institutional corruption at its very best (i.e. worst). |
LCR's Stratford City land wanted for Olympics
On 12/11/05 22:26, "Tony Polson" wrote:
London 2012 will be a landmark exercise in institutional corruption at its very best (i.e. worst). So, so true... |
LCR's Stratford City land wanted for Olympics
Stimpy wrote:
My company does a lot of transport planning and strategy work with TfL and the widespread feeling within TfL (and outside) is that the whole Olympic thing is a gravy train just waiting to be jumped on. There are now many interrelated projects regarded as *essential* to the Olympics where money is being hosed around with gay abandon... One day the truth will come out and it won't be pretty Nothing linked to "New" Labour is remotely pretty. :-( |
LCR's Stratford City land wanted for Olympics
On 12/11/05 22:45, "Tony Polson" wrote:
Stimpy wrote: My company does a lot of transport planning and strategy work with TfL and the widespread feeling within TfL (and outside) is that the whole Olympic thing is a gravy train just waiting to be jumped on. There are now many interrelated projects regarded as *essential* to the Olympics where money is being hosed around with gay abandon... One day the truth will come out and it won't be pretty Nothing linked to "New" Labour is remotely pretty. :-( The vibe within TfL is that if you can, by whatever means, associate your project with the Olympics and talk it up to the point where it becomes 'essential', then budgetary constraints seem to evaporate away. The *really* sad thing is that it's obvious which way things are going and we, like many other companies, are faced with a choice - do we turn down lucrative contracts on the grounds that money is being spent unnecessarily or do we just jump on the gravy train? Business is business :-) |
LCR's Stratford City land wanted for Olympics
In article , Stimpy
writes On 12/11/05 17:37, "Tony Polson" wrote: Great safe prophecies of our time: 1) The London Olympics will be a complete screwup, many times over budget, 2) The supposed regeneration of depreived areas won't happen. Ian You could be so wrong Ian - I certainly hope so. Unfortunately, Ian is very likely to be right. The trade unions will make sure that the work doesn't get finished on time unless their members are paid massive "bonuses", and the costs will skyrocket. Every landowner will screw the Olympic organisation for every million they can get. The money set aside for regeneration will have to be raided to pay for all of the above. My company does a lot of transport planning and strategy work with TfL and the widespread feeling within TfL (and outside) is that the whole Olympic thing is a gravy train just waiting to be jumped on. There are now many interrelated projects regarded as *essential* to the Olympics where money is being hosed around with gay abandon... One day the truth will come out and it won't be pretty With any luck, they will find that the only way to fund it all is to appropriate the money now pencilled in for the West London Tram. -- Thoss |
LCR's Stratford City land wanted for Olympics
Stimpy wrote:
The vibe within TfL is that if you can, by whatever means, associate your project with the Olympics and talk it up to the point where it becomes 'essential', then budgetary constraints seem to evaporate away. The *really* sad thing is that it's obvious which way things are going and we, like many other companies, are faced with a choice - do we turn down lucrative contracts on the grounds that money is being spent unnecessarily or do we just jump on the gravy train? Simple. You jump on the gravy train, otherwise someone else will. Business is business :-) Exactly. ;-) |
LCR's Stratford City land wanted for Olympics
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005, Stimpy wrote:
Stimpy wrote: My company does a lot of transport planning and strategy work with TfL and the widespread feeling within TfL (and outside) is that the whole Olympic thing is a gravy train just waiting to be jumped on. The vibe within TfL is that if you can, by whatever means, associate your project with the Olympics and talk it up to the point where it becomes 'essential', then budgetary constraints seem to evaporate away. The *really* sad thing is that it's obvious which way things are going and we, like many other companies, are faced with a choice - do we turn down lucrative contracts on the grounds that money is being spent unnecessarily or do we just jump on the gravy train? Well, you ought to at least bear in mind that once the landowners have been bought off, it's likely to be downgraded to a gravy tram. Or, horror of horrors, a gravy trolleybus. tom -- limited to concepts that are meta, generic, abstract and philosophical -- IEEE SUO WG |
LCR's Stratford City land wanted for Olympics
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005, Tony Polson wrote:
"Ian Johnston" wrote: I think we can safely assume that the people who ran the Olympic bid did very nicely out of it. I think we can assume that the people who run the games project will do very nicely out of it. And I think we can safely assume that the people who live on or near the sites will be ****ed over before and during the games and left to rot afterwards. London 2012 will be a landmark exercise in institutional corruption at its very best (i.e. worst). Oh, i don't know - bear in mind that it'll be in competition with the world-class institutional corruption seen in every previous Olympics project. Are you really saying institutional corruption is something the British are world-beaters at? And if so, can we make it an event in the Games? tom -- limited to concepts that are meta, generic, abstract and philosophical -- IEEE SUO WG |
LCR's Stratford City land wanted for Olympics
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005, Ian Johnston wrote:
But above all, does anyone really believe in this regeneration hype in the first place? I mean, if you really wanted to stimulate ecomic recovery somewhere, would you give it a) a nice new industrial estate with tax/rate breaks for incoming companies or b) a velodrome? Ah, but that's not what's happening. The Olympics are a smokescreen - the Olympics per se will have bugger all regenerative effect. What might well do something is the millions of pounds that are going straight into regeneration projects in the area - projects which were planned and approved *long before* we got the Olympics. There probably will be regeneration around Stratford, but it won't be because of the Olympics. Not that any politician will admit that, now or in the future. tom -- limited to concepts that are meta, generic, abstract and philosophical -- IEEE SUO WG |
LCR's Stratford City land wanted for Olympics
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 18:09:28 UTC, Tom Anderson
wrote: Well, you ought to at least bear in mind that once the landowners have been bought off, it's likely to be downgraded to a gravy tram. Or, horror of horrors, a gravy trolleybus. Worst of all - gawp 'elp us - a gravy Parry People Mover ... Ian |
LCR's Stratford City land wanted for Olympics
In message dzZo7CxomoOm-pn2-CiMewQj38k8K@localhost, Ian Johnston
writes On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 18:09:28 UTC, Tom Anderson wrote: Well, you ought to at least bear in mind that once the landowners have been bought off, it's likely to be downgraded to a gravy tram. Or, horror of horrors, a gravy trolleybus. Worst of all - gawp 'elp us - a gravy Parry People Mover ... A Gravy RM. would be nice....... -- Ian Jelf, MITG Birmingham, UK Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk |
LCR's Stratford City land wanted for Olympics
In message
Ian Jelf wrote: In message dzZo7CxomoOm-pn2-CiMewQj38k8K@localhost, Ian Johnston writes On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 18:09:28 UTC, Tom Anderson wrote: Well, you ought to at least bear in mind that once the landowners have been bought off, it's likely to be downgraded to a gravy tram. Or, horror of horrors, a gravy trolleybus. Worst of all - gawp 'elp us - a gravy Parry People Mover ... A Gravy RM. would be nice....... Pass the money further down the bus please... -- Graeme Wall This address is not read, substitute trains for rail. Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html |
LCR's Stratford City land wanted for Olympics
Ian Johnston wrote:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 18:09:28 UTC, Tom Anderson wrote: Well, you ought to at least bear in mind that once the landowners have been bought off, it's likely to be downgraded to a gravy tram. Or, horror of horrors, a gravy trolleybus. Worst of all - gawp 'elp us - a gravy Parry People Mover ... You've overlooked the possibility of the gravy Guided Bus. The great solution to all our transport problems, don't you know. Robin |
LCR's Stratford City land wanted for Olympics
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, R.C. Payne wrote:
Ian Johnston wrote: Worst of all - gawp 'elp us - a gravy Parry People Mover ... You've overlooked the possibility of the gravy Guided Bus. The great solution to all our transport problems, don't you know. Travel by water instead - get aboard the gravy boat. SCNR. |
LCR's Stratford City land wanted for Olympics
Ian Jelf wrote:
A Gravy RM. would be nice....... Perhaps someone should put in a bid to the Heritage Lottery Fund (or whatever it's called now) to run a fleet of Routemasters between the Olympic Village and the venues. ;-) |
LCR's Stratford City land wanted for Olympics
"R.C. Payne" wrote in message
... You've overlooked the possibility of the gravy Guided Bus. The great solution to all our transport problems, don't you know. A guided bus system doesn't seem so wonderful when you live in a town infested for about 5 years by the roadworks to build it! Especially when it only serves under 5% of the population. |
LCR's Stratford City land wanted for Olympics
In message
Tony Polson wrote: Ian Jelf wrote: A Gravy RM. would be nice....... Perhaps someone should put in a bid to the Heritage Lottery Fund (or whatever it's called now) to run a fleet of Routemasters between the Olympic Village and the venues. ;-) That's the first sensible suggestion I've heard about the whole debacle. -- Graeme Wall This address is not read, substitute trains for rail. Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html |
LCR's Stratford City land wanted for Olympics
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005, Ian Johnston wrote:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 18:09:28 UTC, Tom Anderson wrote: Well, you ought to at least bear in mind that once the landowners have been bought off, it's likely to be downgraded to a gravy tram. Or, horror of horrors, a gravy trolleybus. Worst of all - gawp 'elp us - a gravy Parry People Mover ... You try getting that past Her Majesty's Gravy Railway Inspectorate! tom -- if you can't beat them, build them |
LCR's Stratford City land wanted for Olympics
In message , Tony Polson
writes Ian Jelf wrote: A Gravy RM. would be nice....... Perhaps someone should put in a bid to the Heritage Lottery Fund (or whatever it's called now) to run a fleet of Routemasters between the Olympic Village and the venues. But not presumably during the Paralympics? Ducks for cover -- Ian Jelf, MITG Birmingham, UK Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk |
LCR's Stratford City land wanted for Olympics
Ian Jelf wrote:
In message , Tony Polson writes Ian Jelf wrote: A Gravy RM. would be nice....... Perhaps someone should put in a bid to the Heritage Lottery Fund (or whatever it's called now) to run a fleet of Routemasters between the Olympic Village and the venues. But not presumably during the Paralympics? Well, it was very tongue-in-cheek! Ducks for cover Wise man. Where did you say you live? ;-) |
LCR's Stratford City land wanted for Olympics
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 14:08:19 UTC, "R.C. Payne"
wrote: Ian Johnston wrote: Worst of all - gawp 'elp us - a gravy Parry People Mover ... You've overlooked the possibility of the gravy Guided Bus. The great solution to all our transport problems, don't you know. Shouldn't it be on the Thames, so we could have a gravy b... No. I can't say it. I'll just get me coat. Ian |
LCR's Stratford City land wanted for Olympics
"Ian Johnston" wrote:
Shouldn't it be on the Thames, so we could have a gravy b... No. I can't say it. Because Alan Flavell already did? ;-) |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:37 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk