|
Title: Shaw Park Developments Post by: Dazzza on Monday, October 16, 2006, 16:58:53 Bit cold off the press in fact it may already be built but thought I’d fire this up if anyone’s interested…
Quote 04/03/05 St Modwen to develop £5million Hungerford canal marina scheme A ten-acre former piggeries site at Hungerford, Berkshire, has been acquired by Shaw Park Developments, a joint venture between St Modwen Properties PLC and the vendor, the Wills Family, to be redeveloped to create a major canal marina and mixed-use scheme on the Kennet & Avon Canal. The canalside site on Bath Road, two miles from the town centre, has detailed planning consent for a 120-berth marina, a hotel, pub/restaurant, a hertiage museum and small business units. Rupert Joseland, St Modwen’s South West regional manager, said: “This is a good opportunity to turn a derelict piggery into an excellent facility on the Kennet & Avon Canal, which has the full support of British Waterways. “The marina and other elements of the scheme, including the hotel and pub/restaurant will provide a destination for both canal and road users. Now that planning permission has been granted, we will be looking to commence works this summer with a marina operator.” http://www.stmodwen.co.uk/news/ne_com294a.html No mention of any stadiums :D Shaw Park developments is the company set up between the Wills’, Bob Holt and Sandy Gray with St Modwen when we attempted to develop on the old Shaw tip a few years ago. According to the accounts ending 2004 we owed approx 2.5 million in secured loans to the company. Putting two and eight together I’d wager the land being developed is presumably the Wills’ land used to secure the loan. Title: Shaw Park Developments Post by: Reg Smeeton on Monday, October 16, 2006, 17:05:55 Good spot Dazzza, wonder why nobody spotted it earlier?
Title: Shaw Park Developments Post by: Piemonte on Monday, October 16, 2006, 18:41:04 Good.
More money for the Wills to pump into STFC, which obviously they are obliged to do floghorse Title: Shaw Park Developments Post by: Sippo on Monday, October 16, 2006, 20:16:54 I still beleive Shaw Tip was and still is the best option. I've never seen it used. They still have the 'tip' sign up where the kebab van parks.
If it were there, peeps could come to mine for a cuppa before the match then walk to the game! :D Title: Shaw Park Developments Post by: STFC Bart on Monday, October 16, 2006, 20:52:17 Will Piemonte the taxman would only get it if they didnt.
They have drip fed this club for years- its well overdue for a total new broom in the boardroom Title: Shaw Park Developments Post by: Iffy's Onion Bhaji on Monday, October 16, 2006, 21:10:04 Quote from: "stfcfan" I still beleive Shaw Tip was and still is the best option. I've never seen it used. They still have the 'tip' sign up where the kebab van parks. If it were there, peeps could come to mine for a cuppa before the match then walk to the game! :D Shaw Tip had its advantages as you have mentioned in that post but the main concern would have been traffic. the roads round the area are only small residential roads and mead way gets busy enough in rush hour on a working day. just think how busy it and the other roads nearby would get if a stadium was there. it just wouldn't be viable. also you can't beat the NIMBYs Title: Shaw Park Developments Post by: Piemonte on Monday, October 16, 2006, 21:12:59 Quote from: "Rich" Quote from: "stfcfan" I still beleive Shaw Tip was and still is the best option. I've never seen it used. They still have the 'tip' sign up where the kebab van parks. If it were there, peeps could come to mine for a cuppa before the match then walk to the game! :D Shaw Tip had its advantages as you have mentioned in that post but the main concern would have been traffic. the roads round the area are only small residential roads and mead way gets busy enough in rush hour on a working day. just think how busy it and the other roads nearby would get if a stadium was there. it just wouldn't be viable. also you can't beat the NIMBYs There are still plans to connect great western way wih the new dual carrigway that goes through prior vale / rabbi meads (thamesdown drive?) I think. That would have solved a lot of the problem. I'd have just walked and got pissed though :) Stupid nimbys :x not that any of this matters at all because its deader than fatburys love life - its more intresting than doing the work I'm supposed to be doing thogh :boring: Title: Shaw Park Developments Post by: TalkTalk on Monday, October 16, 2006, 22:48:35 Quote from: "stfcfan" They still have the 'tip' sign up where the kebab van parks. Not true. There are now two signs. One for the contractors who are finishing the leachate and venting works - which is required by law. The other (very large) sign has been put up by Swindon Borough Council (yes - SBC) says "SHAW FOREST PARK" and also has a map of the park. Quote from: "stfcfan" I still beleive Shaw Tip was and still is the best option. I've never seen it used. Well perhaps if you get your arse up there on Sunday you might like to observe many people enjoying a family day doing stuff and planting more trees. http://www.forestweb.org.uk/ Get your facts right before you post shite, eh? Title: Shaw Park Developments Post by: McLovin on Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 08:11:21 Arf! You've been told!
We all know that Shaw Forest isn't needed, considering we have Lydiard on our doorsteps already... :wink: Title: Shaw Park Developments Post by: Batch on Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 08:19:48 Quote from: "TalkTalk" Well perhaps if you get your arse up there on Sunday you might like to observe many people enjoying a family day doing stuff and planting more trees. http://www.forestweb.org.uk/ Get your facts right before you post shite, eh? NIMBY alert NIMBY Alert :D Title: Shaw Park Developments Post by: Piemonte on Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 08:21:06 Quote from: "Dave Blackcurrant" Arf! You've been told! We all know that Shaw Forest isn't needed, considering we have Lydiard on our doorsteps already... :wink: Its true, theres no need for a wink. Its the most pointless project ever, it will never be nice up there - its always going to be trees on a tip - regardless of how many well meaning tree huggers are up there trying to increase their house prices. And I say that as a west Swindon resident, not someone who is especially bitter at STFC not having a new stadium built there :| Title: Shaw Park Developments Post by: Cookie on Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 08:33:22 Shaw Tip was closed about 18 months ago due to the prohibitive costs of new Environmental legislations. The current park, open to the public, is situated on the old Peatmoor Tip (which closed in the 80s). Landscaping work is still ongoing at Peatmoor and landscaping work on Shaw will start shortly.
The council holds landscape plans for the area and I think it will be a lovely park once finished (although I would have preferred the footy stadium :wink: ). Title: Shaw Park Developments Post by: RobertT on Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 08:44:41 There was of course the small matter that the Council had already promised the land and was in no position to suggest it for a Stadium, and the traffic issue was a real one having worked in that area.
The CG is the best option if done correctly. I thought Shaw Park Development had been wound-up, might be wrong, suggesting the investment vehicle had changed (which is what it was, a way to protect funds from being consumed by the club) Title: Shaw Park Developments Post by: TalkTalk on Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 08:49:38 Quote from: "RobertT" I thought Shaw Park Development had been wound-up, might be wrong, suggesting the investment vehicle had changed (which is what it was, a way to protect funds from being consumed by the club) Shaw Park Developments Ltd is still very much alive and kicking, Rob. Knowing what St Modwen have done elsewhere in the past there was no way they were going to walk away from their investment with STFC. The Hungerford K&A marina scheme is an ideal way to realise that, particularly if it isSSW's land that has been used (or was it more security for St M?). Good spot Dazzza. Swindon Town Properties Limited (as in Front Garden stadium) has been wound up. Title: Shaw Park Developments Post by: McLovin on Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 09:15:35 Th CG isn't going to work (i don't think). The Triangle out on the Front Garden (or anywhere there) is the perfect place, but alas not to be.
Title: Shaw Park Developments Post by: TalkTalk on Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 09:43:45 Quote from: "Dave Blackcurrant" Th CG isn't going to work (i don't think). Why is that, Blackcurrant? Title: Shaw Park Developments Post by: Sippo on Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 09:49:05 Quote from: "TalkTalk" Get your facts right before you post shite, eh? Get you!! I was posting my thoughts. It was my opinion. I have occasionally walked up that way with my dog on many a morning and have never seen anyone up that way. I beleive that the roads could've been improved to handle the traffic. I don't beleive I was posting shite. It doesn't matter now anyhow as its a lost cause, still doesn't mean it was the right decision not to develop that land. Title: Shaw Park Developments Post by: McLovin on Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 09:49:53 I think that there is not enough space to really make a stadium that will be very profitable all year round and drive the club forward like the Mad Stad, KC, Liberty etc. I'm just of the opinion we need a lot more space than is on offer to make something that also looks the part rather than a 'bodge-job' trying to cram in affordable housing/hotel/casino/whatever to a small area.
Title: Shaw Park Developments Post by: Cookie on Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 10:24:18 I think the CG is the best location for a football ground. I hate out of town football stadia and like walking to the the ground after a couple of beers. Most out of town stadium are miles from a decent boozer.
Title: Shaw Park Developments Post by: Bushey Boy on Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 10:45:38 the problem is most of the general public in swindon are very opposed to development. The shaw development made me laugh a lot due to the fact that most of the protestors lived in abbey meads or shaw which until a few years back were actually green sites themselves (dont take offence talk talk).
Its similar to the new swindon company development in the town centre, most people are saying oh its a disater to lose half the town for many months, lose the car parks, the older buildings. The fact is with development brings money into the local economy, jobs, investment and most of all a better standard of living. By doing nothing our town will stand still and in 20 years time teh swindon public will want an inquiry into why the local council stood still and did nothing. The main problem the club will have in developing swindon is the general perception of the football club by many residents. Title: Shaw Park Developments Post by: Piemonte on Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 11:08:27 Good points Ash.
Title: Shaw Park Developments Post by: Dazzza on Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 11:28:18 The other strange thing that I came across is that our parent company had given a loan of just under a million in 2004 back to the Shaw development company.
Presumably as it’s listed as a loan it’s not a repayment of any of the money leant directly to the club. Title: Shaw Park Developments Post by: Northern Red on Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 12:04:20 Quote from: "Bushey Boy" The main problem the club will have in developing swindon is the general perception of the football club by many residents. This is why a multi-purpose development was put forward. Those who don't care about football club want: Rugby, Concert Venues, sports facilities for personal use My Dad's a prime example: Moans about the club "its not a priority for Swindon" etc. But in the same breath moans that he drives to Gloucester for Rugby and Swindon lacks a proper concert venue. Title: Shaw Park Developments Post by: TalkTalk on Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 12:07:49 Quote from: "Bushey Boy" The shaw development made me laugh a lot due to the fact that most of the protestors lived in abbey meads or shaw which until a few years back were actually green sites themselves (dont take offence talk talk). No offence taken Ash. However, all of Swindon was green fields if you back far enough. Everybody in Swindon (unless you live in the core of Old Town) lives in a house built on green space since the mid-1800's. Penhill, Covingham, Nythe, Walcot, Toothill, Freshbrook et al are all post-second world war. As in fifty-ish years ago they were home to cattle, sheep and crops. It's a pointless argument, tbh. Title: Shaw Park Developments Post by: Bushey Boy on Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 13:21:42 very true, I blame my father as he is a former developer (waiting for the heckles etc) and he bult most of liden/covingham back in the day. I think your meaning its a silly argument as everyone would then be wrong as most live in new builds (in teh last 30 odd years).
I live in westlea which was 1980 so I cant moan. To get teh development going though you need to do as northern red said. We must use it more than 23 occasions of the year. Title: Shaw Park Developments Post by: RobertT on Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 13:51:35 Hence the proposals worked on by the Trust and friends, which rely on income generation from the sq footage of developed space around the current ground - office, retail, residential.
Title: Shaw Park Developments Post by: Bushey Boy on Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 13:58:50 the site is a good size but to gain the best return on investment the county ground is teh wrong place. Front garden is ideal but the council would be in huge trouble for it. The best place would be behind the gipsy site inbetween junction 16 and wootton bassett. Its up for sale at the moemnt and is double teh size of the county ground. Also j16 of m4 so no away fan trouble (have to work on train links)
Title: Shaw Park Developments Post by: pauld on Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 14:55:37 But costs £1.5m per sq acre apparently. And flies in the face of local, regional and national govt policy on reducing trip count, reuse of brownfield sites, would not make best use of existing transport infrastructure etc
PS My house is over 100 years old, so does that mean I can have a go at all you new-build people? :D Title: Shaw Park Developments Post by: Piemonte on Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 14:58:45 Rich bastard Paul - you get the moral high ground :D
Title: Shaw Park Developments Post by: pauld on Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 15:33:17 Erm, just cos it's old doesn't mean it's posh. Bit tatty actually. Although, that's mainly since we've been living there :oops:
Title: Shaw Park Developments Post by: Iffy's Onion Bhaji on Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 21:47:39 surely somewhere like Bassett or Wroughton is being considered as a "plan b" by the club. Bassett would be the best option. although out of town it is only a few minutes down the road from junction 16 so no trouble to get to for away fans. also isnt it Wiltshire County Council and not SBC at Bassett?
Title: Shaw Park Developments Post by: RobertT on Wednesday, October 18, 2006, 08:47:38 Bassett would be highly unlikely, they are having enough fits over a proposed expansion to the golf club and went nuts when we chose a bit of land near them for a park and ride. Also, you still have the issue of land cost, which we can't afford and makes it much less suitable for a developer to worry about building stadiums - as any development would need some other development to fund it.
CG is pretty much the only site left, has the necessary space to make it financially viable, and involves the lowest cost. It also receives local backing if carried out in the correct manner - as it can be made to boost the local community without taking away green space. Title: Shaw Park Developments Post by: DribblingSissy on Wednesday, October 18, 2006, 10:34:12 Quote from: "RobertT" Bassett would be highly unlikely, they are having enough fits over a proposed expansion to the golf club and went nuts when we chose a bit of land near them for a park and ride. Also, you still have the issue of land cost, which we can't afford and makes it much less suitable for a developer to worry about building stadiums - as any development would need some other development to fund it. CG is pretty much the only site left, has the necessary space to make it financially viable, and involves the lowest cost. It also receives local backing if carried out in the correct manner - as it can be made to boost the local community without taking away green space. Surely we cant afford anything can we? overspend and all....so what do we care of the land costs more if we are going to have to tbe drip fed any potential new ground by the council?......especially if the only way they'd ever do it is if there were several other uses for the ground other than STFC so the extra costs of land would have very little impact on us directly would it? From what I understand of how these things work that is (very limited!) |