Chairman's statement

[Tuesds]

Doesn’t this involve building over the school’s playing fields? Or does the school not use that area? If it does, is it intended that the pupils will instead either use the proposed MUGA cages or walk a lot further and take their chances on Barnet Playing Fields?

Unless I’ve missed something obvious, which admittedly is not unlikely, it seems to me that the land’s current use and ownership (and leasehold ownership) are potentially even bigger obstacles than planning and its designation as green belt, which is a major barrier but possibly surmountable with a fair wind and a lot of hard work.

As we know from 2002, when we got planning permission for a 10,000-seater stadium on the site, regardless of planning status if the owners of the site don’t want it happen, it won’t happen.

[barnetjohn]

Doesn’t this involve building over the school’s playing fields? Or does the school not use that area? If it does, is it intended that the pupils will instead either use the proposed MUGA cages or walk a lot further and take their chances on Barnet Playing Fields?

Unless I’ve missed something obvious, which admittedly is not unlikely, it seems to me that the land’s current use and ownership (and leasehold ownership) are potentially even bigger obstacles than planning and its designation as green belt, which is a major barrier but possibly surmountable with a fair wind and a lot of hard work.

As we know from 2002, when we got planning permission for a 10,000-seater stadium on the site, regardless of planning status if the owners of the site don’t want it happen, it won’t happen.

This is an important question- indeed one cannot build on land one doesn't own or have a long lease on. This was one of the obstacles to the 2002 South Underhill plans that prevented BFC moving forward. Current use I think is only an issue insofar as school might need an alternative playing field.

Would be good for the club to clarify who actually owns the relevant bits of land.

[Tuesds]

Doesn’t this involve building over the school’s playing fields? Or does the school not use that area? If it does, is it intended that the pupils will instead either use the proposed MUGA cages or walk a lot further and take their chances on Barnet Playing Fields?

Unless I’ve missed something obvious, which admittedly is not unlikely, it seems to me that the land’s current use and ownership (and leasehold ownership) are potentially even bigger obstacles than planning and its designation as green belt, which is a major barrier but possibly surmountable with a fair wind and a lot of hard work.

As we know from 2002, when we got planning permission for a 10,000-seater stadium on the site, regardless of planning status if the owners of the site don’t want it happen, it won’t happen.

This is an important question- indeed one cannot build on land one doesn't own or have a long lease on. This was one of the obstacles so South Underhill that prevented BFC moving forward in 2002. Current use I think is only an issue insofar as school might need an alternative playing field.

Would be good for the club to clarify who actually owns the relevant bits of land.

“Current use I think is only an issue insofar as school might need an alternative playing field.”

That seems a pretty big issue to me! I can’t see that there is any possible alternative.

Am concerned that what’s going on here is that Kleanthous is exasperated at having failed to make any progress behind the scenes with the council and others re South Underhill or indeed any feasible site over several years, and in going public has thrown a desperate 4th Down Hail Mary, with little prospect of success.

I hope further communication from the club and other stakeholders prove my pessimism wrong…

[barnetjohn]

Tuesds- what's the issue with land use? I might have misunderstood what you meant here.

[Tuesds]

Tuesds- what's the issue with land use? I might have misunderstood what you meant here.

I mean - and I may be wrong here - that it looks to me like the land is used as the school’s playing fields, and the computer- generated images we have seen show no alternative provision (because there’s no feasible alternative?), nor do Kleanthous’s comments make any reference to replacement/alternative playing fields for the school.

I have no knowledge of how the site is currently used, so I am asking these questions/wondering aloud entirely genuinely and probably very naively.

It seems a pretty big issue, to my uninformed eye. However, it hasn’t been mentioned yet amongst the many, many comments on this, so I’m hoping I’ve misunderstood something and it isn’t the huge problem it seems to be to me!

[becbee]

Surely certain land is currently assigned to the school. Presumably they have on site playing fields which Barnet FC cannot touch. But they can't just lay claim to further land in case they might like /want alternative playing fields.

I thought the lack of playing fields / playing fields being sold off was an issue generally for schools.

[djhdjh]

Tuesds- what's the issue with land use? I might have misunderstood what you meant here.

I mean - and I may be wrong here - that it looks to me like the land is used as the school’s playing fields, and the computer- generated images we have seen show no alternative provision (because there’s no feasible alternative?), nor do Kleanthous’s comments make any reference to replacement/alternative playing fields for the school.

I have no knowledge of how the site is currently used, so I am asking these questions/wondering aloud entirely genuinely and probably very naively.

It seems a pretty big issue, to my uninformed eye. However, it hasn’t been mentioned yet amongst the many, many comments on this, so I’m hoping I’ve misunderstood something and it isn’t the huge problem it seems to be to me!

Kleanthous's statement refers to two multi-use games areas and a formal pitch for training and playing purposes on Barnet Playing Fields. I was assuming that these facilities would be available to the school and wider community. Whether that's enough I don't know but it does suggest that the issue has been thought about.

[Anthony]

Tuesds- what's the issue with land use? I might have misunderstood what you meant here.

I mean - and I may be wrong here - that it looks to me like the land is used as the school’s playing fields, and the computer- generated images we have seen show no alternative provision (because there’s no feasible alternative?), nor do Kleanthous’s comments make any reference to replacement/alternative playing fields for the school.

I have no knowledge of how the site is currently used, so I am asking these questions/wondering aloud entirely genuinely and probably very naively.

It seems a pretty big issue, to my uninformed eye. However, it hasn’t been mentioned yet amongst the many, many comments on this, so I’m hoping I’ve misunderstood something and it isn’t the huge problem it seems to be to me!

Kleanthous's statement refers to two multi-use games areas and a formal pitch for training and playing purposes on Barnet Playing Fields. I was assuming that these facilities would be available to the school and wider community. Whether that's enough I don't know but it does suggest that the issue has been thought about.

I would imagine taking money for the playing fields to be given access to some other playing fields (presumably dispensing with maintenance responsibilities and costs too) a short walk away would be too good an offer for a school to refuse - particularly if it also enhanced links with the clubs community outreach scheme (which don't seem to happen in Barnet much these days)

[thebeekeeper]

Am concerned that what’s going on here is that Kleanthous is exasperated at having failed to make any progress behind the scenes with the council and others re South Underhill or indeed any feasible site over several years, and in going public has thrown a desperate 4th Down Hail Mary, with little prospect of success.

I hope further communication from the club and other stakeholders prove my pessimism wrong…

This did cross my mind, especially following the Standard article, but having given it some further thought I'm not sure it makes much sense.

TK is pretty frugal with money when it comes to Barnet - we know that there have been issues over the years with small things like food for players, overnight travel etc.

So I find it quite unlikely that he's going to throw a considerable amount of money at plans being drawn up / submitted, WSP's services (which I presume aren't cheap) etc, without thinking that there is a realistic prospect of success. That doesn't make much sense from a financial perspective!

It may be that there is significance in choosing to make the plans public now, though I have no idea what that is.

My suspicion is that there's a deal to be done here. After some back and forth between the council and WSP in the pre-planning process, I could imagine some significantly revised plans being submitted, perhaps with a stadium on the smaller end size-wise, more facilities that fit the council's agenda (and will please residents) on the site etc.

As has previously been pointed out, councils are so squeezed at the moment that I'm not sure they can look a gift horse in the mouth when it comes to an injection of private money.

[EastBarnetFan]

I assume the 5-a-side pitches behind the stadium in the computer mock up and the astro pitch to the south would become available to the school.

The drop off point is a great addition and would genuinely be useful for all parties concerned to alleviate traffic in the area. That's the kind of thing to win over local residents.

From the clubs perspective, free brand awareness with loads of football-mad kids going through the ground every day. I'm sure there will be plenty of opportunities for free tickets etc. Danegrove school giving me and my pals free tickets to a game as a kid was how I learned about the club and here I am today.

[Tuesds]

If we need the school/the council/the DFE & Secretary of State* to accept the loss of a school playing field and its substitution by shared use by the school, with the general public, of a public park 200m(?) away I think we need to recognise that is a massive obstacle to our plans.

*others will know more about this than me, but any school land transactions involving playing fields require an application to the DFE and in most cases specific consent from the Secretary of State for Education (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/submit-a-sc ... n-proposal)

This is all on the assumption that the old cricket club land is currently used exclusively as the school’s playing field. Is that correct?

[Gavbee]

It’s a good job we have so many people here flagging up all the potential issues isn’t it!

TK has been working on this for 4 years. Yes we don’t know the ins and outs yet but we have been promised more details soon. This obstacles being discussed are probably issues TK has addressed 3 or so years ago. The guy isn’t going to announce something like this without being confident that it is going to happen. He isn’t going to say we’re coming on intending to build on land he doesn’t own or knows he can’t build on is he.

For sure there likely will be a battle to get this through. However, a lot of the potential problems here will have in my opinion been sorted or at least in principle. Let’s just wait and see the full details when the next update comes along.

[thebeekeeper]

This is all on the assumption that the old cricket club land is currently used exclusively as the school’s playing field. Is that correct?

It would be good to get this clarified - looking at pictures / google maps it appears that the school site ends roughly where Underhill Stadium did, at Priory Grove. Happy to be corrected if that's wrong though!

[Spanker Ridley]

It would interesting to know if TK and/or planning consultants have engaged with the school. A joint application would appear to have more chance of success than an application from the football club.

[Norfolk & Chance]

It would interesting to know if TK and/or planning consultants have engaged with the school. A joint application would appear to have more chance of success than an application from the football club.

Very good point Spanker.