Newbury - Housing Estate?

V

Venusian

At the Start
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
1,265
Greg Wood in the Guardian today writes a doom-laden article about the likely takeover of Newbury racecourse by what are effectively property developers.

When they talk about "racing continuing for the foreseeable furture", what they really mean is "we intend to close the track and build on it".

John Porter will soon be turning in his grave, I fear.

Here's a link to the article...

http://sport.guardian.co.uk/horseracing/co...2252576,00.html
 
This has been going on for a while Ven - at the moment the current board are desperately doing their best to veto the takeover by GPG. FWIW GPG are also stringently denying all suggestions that they have any ideas to shut the racecourse now or int he future. As I said, for what that's worth....
 
The one big thing that I hope Newbury has going for it (in terms of its future I mean, as a track I agree that it has loads to offer and would be a big loss to the sport) is that I cannot see the Lambourn trainers allowing the place to be closed. They actually seem to have a great deal more clout than you'd think - remember they had a lot to do with the eventual shelving of the appalling plans to build an AW track at the course. MP for Newbury, Richard Benyon, is also not going to approve of any plans to build on the racecourse either! It brings a lot of jobs and wealth to the area, not least now that the other sugar daddy, Vodafone, seems to be discovering that their coffers are not as bottomless as they thought they were!
 
Not a lot the MP can do about it I'm afraid, though such a controversial scheme would almost certainly end up with the Secretary of State for the Environment, provided the Newbury planners don't throw it out first.

The local plan will almost certainly have a race-course as a D2 lesiure and assembley use. In the first case they'd have to get a change of use to C3 residential, and if the Council took the decision that such a use was inconsistent with the local plan, could defeat it thus. There is an economic development and environmental argument that might be capable of being made under the 'power of well-being' as contained in the Local Government Act 2000, which might be invoked. I've never heard of well-being powers being used thus (as a defensive measure) and I'm not sure whether they can, but my own take on it fwiw, is that it probably applies.

It's a shame that they haven't listed the Grandstand as a grade 1 building. Anyone can approach English Heritage and ask them to consider it. The other thing to do, would be to get Brian Hartigan to buy up a randsome strip that has access to the railway line. Surely there must be some restrictive covenants on the land? Mind you Eastleigh District Council have won a test case against some allotment holders last year and the covenants were deemed to be over-ruled by the T&CP act, when they tried to invoke them as grounds for throwing out the application.

Now there's a few courses I wouldn't mind turning into housing estates, but Newbury wouldn't be one. I'd have thought Kempton would be about the most vulnerable and enticing. I suspect it's the proximity of the railway station to London that's interesting them.

My best guess is they won't get it through
 
Isn't Kempton owned by the sport in some form? Didn't David Robinson sell it to the Jockey Club for £1, or was that another course?
 
Warbler - the grandstand at Newbury are all modern and pretty much brand new! How can they be listed as Grade 1 buildings? The oldest stand is no more than 20 years old, in fact it's more like 16/17 years old. Actually the Hampshire stand may retain some of the original footings or the original building but I'm not so sure it does. The bank of boxes above the Royal Box is fairly old, but that is only as wide as the Royal Box - would that be enough to be granted Grade 1 status?

The MP can at least have some say in the matter and bring pressure to any planning decisions and/or local government decisions though surely?

There are plans afoot to build some houses on a part of the racecourse anyway, about that I know little more bar that those plans do not involve the closure of the track.
 
You can list modern buildings as grade 1 or 2 provided that they're considered to be of significant architectual merit, though in truth Newbury's grandstand is very much a formula rather than a unique design of character.

It's not unheard of for a local MP to interfere with council business (we used to have a shocker for it) who extended his campaign to running his mother (now dead) as a candidate, as well as a host of mates and forming a block vote within the labour party. By and large however, any MP interference is normally resented and can do more damage than good. It will all depend on the political composition of Newbury District Council, and the politcal allegience of the MP. To a lesser extent, it can also depend on the personal relationship and aspirations that the leader of Newbury District holds for themselves. If they aspire to be an MP, then the current MP can help facilitate this, so a degree of back scratching goes on (assuming they're in the same party). Any MP caught trying to bring undue influence on a decision over which they hold no democratic mandate, actually risks quite serious sanction, though they can of course campaign and make public their position, as well as call meetings between the parties to express their constituents concerns etc

It's technically possible for the RDA to intervene, but I'd frankly be amazed if SEEDA would even consider it, yet alone invoke their reserve powers. To do so would be too controversial, and they certainly wouldn't want to risks testing it over Newbury race-course.

The Council could try and negotiate (or impose) a prohibitive section 106 on the developer. That is to say that they work out how many families move into the area, and the demands that they will put on the infrastructure. The developer is then required to build a new school, hospital, new roads, make available a new piece of open green space etc However, this will be a prestige location and the net residual will probably be sufficient for the development to go ahead. All housing planning policies have a stipulation in them today about the percentage of any development that is deemed to be "affordable". It might be interesting to see what Newbury's is? Developers hate it, as their margins aren't as high on 'affordable' units. If the percentage is high, then a combination of lower yields and a prohibitive 106 might squeeze them into looking elsewhere.

The final option, (and I do like this one) is that you and any other people you can beat up, stand for election as independent pro race-course candidates. If you can whip up fear amongst the voters and get them to support you (burning local issues can do this) then you will be the ones saying no to the developers. Elections in May I should think, you need a proposer, or seconder and 10 signatures from people in the ward you're contesting to be submitted to the town clerk, under the representation of the peoples act norty

Good Luck - :D Vote Dom - save the race-course (and bring back fox-hunting, hanging and God knows what else) well strictly speaking you wouldn't have authority to do the latter two, but you would have control of their planning committee if enough of you won.
 
It would appear that the council (West Berkshire District) is conservative by 20 votes from the Libs. Benyon as a Tory will doubtless have some relationship with councillors.

The deicsion to sell some of the land for housing presents something of a double edged sword though, as it sets a planning precedent and the developers would doubtless seek to invoke this in support of their application. I'll see if I can dig their local plan out and see what the planning policy is.

....Nope, not available on line £65 in the post

and I meant to add that 'highways' is the repsonsibility of the County Council, so caravaners could breath a sigh of relief
 
We had a thread on this the last time the course was up for development iirc.

The Newbury Board is fighting this tooth and claw, but they made a rod for their own backs by including housing development in the last set of plans they drew up themselves, which gave people ideas.

The area around the course is small narrow streets of low level housing and lots of tin shack mini-industrial estate. Due to its proximity to Heathrow, motorways, London, and miles of open and very beautiful countryside, the area has very high property values, and the racecourse would of course be a goldmine in that respect if it were closed.

The current bid is entirely opportunist and as correctly implied above is based on the bidders hoping to extend the area already agreed for housing - and no doubt in the not too distant future, closing down the course altogether for 'development'.

The bidders have made a direct appeal to shareholders, and they are the ones who will be decisive. If they accept the offer on the table, we are in trouble. Meanwhile the entire local community is right behind the Board in resisting the offer.

It's correct that that that the local racing community [with the vociferous support of the annual members] was decisive in the Board's decision a couple of years ago not to proceed with the a/w track, but this is a threat from outside, and will be harder to resist.

If more people turned up outside the big days, to go racing, that would be a help :rolleyes:
Some Fridays are very poorly attended
 
PS the Lib Dems lost the last elections [national and local] on the hunting issue
the current MP can be relied on to support the racecourse in the current crisis - and it is a crisis - but shareholders are key in this situation, at least in the first instance

One thing militating against largescale development of this part if Newbury is the chronic traffic congestion. that side of the railway [an on the immediate other side in fact] there are almost no roads, so largescale housing development would require an enormous infusion of funds for infrastructure. Without Council or possibly even Govt support, it's a very longterm speculation at best
 
And it is building on what must surely be deemed a greenfield site. Not just any site either. Surely that is quite a hurdle for any developer to overcome?

It will all depend on the political composition of Newbury District Council, and the politcal allegience of the MP. To a lesser extent, it can also depend on the personal relationship and aspirations that the leader of Newbury District holds for themselves. If they aspire to be an MP, then the current MP can help facilitate this, so a degree of back scratching goes on (assuming they're in the same party). Any MP caught trying to bring undue influence on a decision over which they hold no democratic mandate
Click to expand...
:brows:

Well ..whatever that means in essence....in a nutshell I think it would be pretty difficult and probably suicidal for any local MP and certainly council to be party to the destruction of the one asset that puts Newbury on the map
 
I think there's a plan afoot already to build a new road into the racecourse to improve access for racegoers.
 
Yes road improvement/access is part of the current plan, but I'm pretty sure the amount of housing envisaged by these bidders would need much more infrastructure. the congestion problems in the immediate are are chronic already, without any extra housing
 
A lot of the plans are also bound to factor in that there have been a lot of housing estates/developments including several blocks of flats (not all low rise!!) built in the area immediately surrounding the track over the last 10/15 years that command large prices, it now being a fairly smart part of town to live. Many young professionals have been buying the flats and houses on the Hambridge Road and the roads coming off it. Basically, it is a prime and popular part of town to build properties on.
 
I don't live in Newbury town, Colin!

Several of my friends own properties in the immediate area surrounding the racecourse though.
 
GPG's Newbury Racecourse takeover bid fails
05/02/2008 22:06
LONDON (Reuters) - Newbury Racecourse’s top shareholder, Guinness Peat Group , failed in its hostile takeover bid on Tuesday, after fellow shareholders failed to back its 34.6 million pound offer.

Newbury, home to steeplechasing’s Hennessy Cognac Gold Cup and the Juddmonte Lockinge Stakes flat race, twice rejected bids from GPG which has built up over a 27 percent stake.

GPG went hostile with its bid but failed to get the necessary 50 percent backing from shareholders after only 5.55 percent of the other shareholders accepted its offer.

GPG has complained that Newbury management is planning to sell off 50 acres of the racecourse to a housing developer on the cheap and has called for the plans to be put to shareholders as well as for greater representation on the racecourse’s board.

(Reporting by Marc Jones; Editing by David Holmes)
 
Some of the property surrounding Newbury racecourse is pretty awful to be honest. My Dad and a few friends work at the racecourse and are shareholders so I have had seen most of the paperwork and the "offers" that have been on the table. It's been a bit of a rollercoaster ride and lots of emergency shareholder meetings have been held.

I will be there to see Denman on Saturday and to celebrate! :clap:
 
Do you mean the property plans, Kathy? I have several friends who live within minutes walk of the racecourse and it has now become a fairly upmarket place to live, full of pretty decent places for young professionals - smart apartments or nicely refurbished terraced houses.
 
Guiness Peat called another - supposedly final - Extraordinary Shareholder Meeting earlier this week [Weds iirc] to seek another vote on their takeover bid for the racecourse. They were comprehensively routed, and so amazed by this that they issued a statement to that effect :eek:


Big vote of confidence for Newbury Board

Published: 20/03/2008 (Sport) By Howard Wright

THE board of Newbury racecourse was given a substantial vote of confidence yesterday, when shareholders voted almost two to one to defeat an attempt to remove three directors, including chairman Sir David Sieff, from the board, and to demand a vote on a £45 million redevelopment scheme.

A voting turn out of around 88 per cent delighted Sieff and fellow at-risk directors Nicholas Jones and Brian Stewart-Brown, and caught the opposing camp of majority shareholder the Guinness Peat Group by surprise.

Sieff said: "The amount of votes demonstrates Newbury shareholders are, by and large, extremely loyal and want us to carry on doing what we have been doing, which is put on quality racing and build up a successful leisure and conference facility."

For GPG, which called the extraordinary meeting after failing in a hostile takeover bid, UK executive director Blake Nixon said: "The more people who voted, the more difficult it was going to be for us, but I'm still surprised at the level of turnout, and at the support for the board."

Around 40 corporate and individual shareholders attended the meeting and on the resolutions to remove Sieff, Jones and Stewart-Brown, the three GPG representatives, wielding 910,000 shares, or nearly 30 per cent of the total issue, stood out in their support. GPG was defeated on a show of hands, in line with proxy voting. Percentage opposition among proxies dipped slightly on a fourth resolution, to add a second GPG nominee to the board.

On the final issue, in which GPG called for shareholders to be allowed to vote on the proposal to enter into a joint venture with David Wilson Homes to fund redevelopment, the proxy no-vote settled at around 60.8 per cent.

Despite an apparent overwhelming defeat on the show of hands, GPG's Nixon prolonged the exercise by calling for a poll to be taken on the last resolution, with 1.645m no-votes beating 1.057m in favour.

Sieff said: "I'm very satisfied with the outcome, but not the whole process, which has been costly, tiring and incredibly time-consuming. I feel most sorry for the racecourse executives and their team, who have had to cope with this at the same time as developing the business. They have been marvellous."

Sieff said that the board and executives would now resume the process of developing the joint-venture scheme, but added: "We have to be aware of the views of GPG, which remains our biggest shareholder - we'll have to find a way to reconciliation."
 
Back
Top