Objective One Grant

Ian Mc · September 22, 2006

I sent Flo an email basically asking if she could clarify the position on the Objective One grant and also the deadline. This is the reply:-

Dear Mr McHale,

Thank you for your e mail and my apologies for not responding earlier, but I have been out of the city.

The LFC stadium is not receiving any EU funding. What is receiving money is the regeneration of Anfield/Breckfield, as you rightly say. The planning consent for the new stadium has, as part of its conditions, a requirement for this to be part of a regeneration of the area. Without that regeneration, the project falls.

The package is such that in order for it to be achievable a number of hurdles must be crossed. These are to do with building, demolitions etc, which are not within my control, but which will add to the time it will take to deliver the stadium and therefore the regeneration. The European money all has to be spent within the allocated time for the Merseyside pot, and it has to be claimed from Europe. That process must be completed by the end of 2008.

If any projects cannot deliver to that timescale, the money will be lost. It is imperative therefore that all of the available money is allocated to projects that can, and will, spend in the time allowed.

It is for that reason that, in July, the Programme Monitoring Committee for Merseyside - made up of representatives from the universities, private sector, local authorities, voluntary sector, further education and North West Region representatives, as well as government officials - took the decision to have as the day for decision the 28th September, when Projects Committee, which I Chair, meets.

By this date, we must have firm evidence that the project is able to proceed; that firm evidence must be strong enough to enable the next phase - due diligence - to be completed. If that evidence is not provided to Government Office and the Objective 1 Secretariat, the project will not even be considered.

The £9m is not a great deal of money in the great scheme of things, but it attracts a further £9.2m of NWDA cash, £1.7m city council money and possibly a further £5m of EU and NRF monies. These together, help to pay most of the cost of the regeneration of the area, rather than build the stadium. However, without that money, the community facilities and regeneration do not go ahead, and the stadium's planning consent falls.

Liverpool FC can, of course, put in for a fresh planning consent, but will need to start from scratch and may find it difficult to obtain planning consent without the necessary regeneration package.

We would all want the regeneration of this area to take place, but we are in the hands - or feet - of the club. We will do all that we can to make this a viable package, but if the club can't deliver, then it becomes very difficult indeed.

I hope this answers your questions, but, if not, please don't hesitate to get in touch.

Yours sincerely,

Flo

Flo Clucas OBE

Executive Member, Economic Development and Europe,

First Vice President, Liberals and Democrats in Europe Group, European Committee of the Regions and Local Government

Coyler · September 22, 2006

we are in the hands - or feet - of the club.

What a brutal joke.

picks · September 22, 2006

Quite clearly the ball is in the clubs court then.

Coyler · September 22, 2006

Quite clearly the ball is in the clubs court then.

Or "in their feet", to use the popular expression quoted in the letter.

Rich Gobey · September 22, 2006

Or "in their feet", to use the popular expression quoted in the letter.

The ball is in your heel.

or is it under your big toe

Edited September 22, 2006 by Gobez

Gunga Din · September 22, 2006

The ball is in your heel.

or is it under your big toe

i keep my two in a sack

Ian Garro · September 22, 2006

What I find annoying about all this is the Council trying to 'play hardball' with LFC, saying things like 'put up or shut up' and 'without LFC having funding in place, the whole regeneration project falls through'.

Speaking as someone who lived in Anfield for 16 yrs, I'd like to know why the regeneration of an area which is completely on its a***, is solely down to LFC having funding in place. If we fail to come up with the goods, what happens then ?

If the worst happens and we cant raise enough money - and we're forced to look elsewhere to build from scratch, what will happen to that area - once it's no longer Liverpool FC's 'responsibility', and the Council (God forbid) have to look into doing something about it off their own bat ? The Anfield area is dying as it is. Without LFC there, the process will just be accelerated, the area will become a ghost town.

So maybe, instead of 'playing hardball', the City of Liverpool should be bending over backwards to help the Football Club which bears the City's name - and begging them not to go anywhere else.

Edited September 22, 2006 by Ian Garro

R A Softlad · September 22, 2006

i keep my two in a sack

Always wondered what that backpack was for, I just assumed you were doing a JamesA and buying 15 programmes per game.

millsee · September 22, 2006

What I find annoying about all this is the Council trying to 'play hardball' with LFC, saying things like 'put up or shut up' and 'without LFC having funding in place, the whole regeneration project falls through'.

Speaking as someone who lived in Anfield for 16 yrs, I'd like to know why the regeneration of an area which is completely on its a***, is solely down to LFC having funding in place. If we fail to come up with the goods, what happens then ?

If the worst happens and we cant raise enough money - and we're forced to look elsewhere to build from scratch, what will happen to that area - once it's no longer Liverpool FC's 'responsibility', and the Council (God forbid) have to look into doing something about it off their own bat ? The Anfield area is dying as it is. Without LFC there, the process will just be accelerated, the area will become a ghost town.

So maybe, instead of 'playing hardball', the City of Liverpool should be bending over backwards to help the Football Club which bears the City's name - and begging them not to go anywhere else.

The reason it is down to LFC is that the grants have to be matched by an equivalent contribution from somewhere in the private sector.

Anyone can see that the only source of this private sector contribution is the club. They hold all the cards. You are quite correct in your assumption that if the club pulls out, the area goes to nothing.

The begging is more than likely going on out of the media's eye. There would be political difficulties if the council were seen to be bending over to accommodate the club.

If nothing happens by 28th September, I would put a mortgage-sized bet on there being some kind of "extension" to the deadline.

fyds · September 22, 2006

What I find annoying about all this is the Council trying to 'play hardball' with LFC, saying things like 'put up or shut up' and 'without LFC having funding in place, the whole regeneration project falls through'.

Speaking as someone who lived in Anfield for 16 yrs, I'd like to know why the regeneration of an area which is completely on its a***, is solely down to LFC having funding in place. If we fail to come up with the goods, what happens then ?

If the worst happens and we cant raise enough money - and we're forced to look elsewhere to build from scratch, what will happen to that area - once it's no longer Liverpool FC's 'responsibility', and the Council (God forbid) have to look into doing something about it off their own bat ? The Anfield area is dying as it is. Without LFC there, the process will just be accelerated, the area will become a ghost town.

So maybe, instead of 'playing hardball', the City of Liverpool should be bending over backwards to help the Football Club which bears the City's name - and begging them not to go anywhere else.

You have it in a nutshell. The council is generally not playing hardball - certain people on it are. The council in general want this plan to go ahead as they know without it the Breckfield/Anfield regeneration such as it may be, would be entirely down to them as that letter makes clear, though perhaps unintentionally. The club know this and realise in a way, it is they that have the whip hand if the council want to avoid looking like a bunch of infighting, maladministering berks.

The club will have the money so she should stop her programme of disinformation and focus on the job in hand.

Edited September 22, 2006 by fyds

RaoulD · September 22, 2006

I'm not sure that the planning consent for the stadium is invalidated if the regeneration does not go ahead. As far as I can see the development conditions included the requirement of a S.106 Agreement which has been entered into.

The problem appears to be in the funding of the regeneration project. The City Council needs the EDRF funding to pay for the work, the funding will only be given if it is part of a project which has private funding matching the public funds. The European funds are clawed back if not spent in the time allocated, but in order to even qualify for the EDRF the project and the stadium have been linked together in the application by the City Council for the grant.

Under the terms of the S.106 Agreement LFC have agreed with the Council not to commence development until LFC provides evidence to the Council (not the objective one committee) that funding is in place for the regeneration work (note this is not evidence of funds to build the stadium). This is no doubt a consequence of the application by the Council for EDRF funding being piggy backed on LFC's private development

It is therefore the Council's application for EDRF funding that requires evidence of LFC's funding for the stadium and has nothing to do with the conditions attached to the planning application. The objective one committee have imposed the deadline on the basis that it needs to issue a match funding certificate for the EDRF grant before the monies can be released. This would in turn allow LFC to satisfy the condition in the S.106 Agreement enabling it to proceed with the development without a breach of the S.106 Agreement. If the EDRF funding is lost alternative funding needs to be found for the regeneration project to the satsifaction of the City Council.

In summary the doomsday scenario painted by Clucas is inaccurate, particularly as regards the need to reapply for planning consent.

fyds · September 22, 2006

Is right - she knows that and is looking to pass the buck as the current delays are of the councils making as illustrated nicely in your piece.

millsee · September 22, 2006

I'm not sure that the planning consent for the stadium is invalidated if the regeneration does not go ahead. As far as I can see the development conditions included the requirement of a S.106 Agreement which has been entered into.

The problem appears to be in the funding of the regeneration project. The City Council needs the EDRF funding to pay for the work, the funding will only be given if it is part of a project which has private funding matching the public funds. The European funds are clawed back if not spent in the time allocated, but in order to even qualify for the EDRF the project and the stadium have been linked together in the application by the City Council for the grant.

Under the terms of the S.106 Agreement LFC have agreed with the Council not to commence development until LFC provides evidence to the Council (not the objective one committee) that funding is in place for the regeneration work (note this is not evidence of funds to build the stadium). This is no doubt a consequence of the application by the Council for EDRF funding being piggy backed on LFC's private development

I'm not sure this is strictly correct.

The S106 Agreement is a bilateral agreement between the Council and the Club. I haven't seen the actual agreement but it is common to make the actual regeneration a condition on granting permission. That puts the obligation on the Club to carry out the works - payment, grants, etc is irrelevant in this instance.

Alternatively, (although I don't think this has been the case here) the club could be obliged to make a sum of money available for another body (the council?) to carry out the regeneration works. This would be the better option for the club.

Don't get confused in thinking the permission is subject to a S106. The S106 IS the permission, subject to conditions including the regeneration.

Not starting work before the regeneration is complete is a standard condition known as a "grampian style" clondition and perfectly valid in law. This means that the club can't get out of this by starting the stadium and procrastinating for years on stmping up for the regen package.

Finally, the O1 committee, NWDA, EFC, etc have nothing to do with the planning permission. That is a matter purely between the council and the club.

Tim · September 22, 2006

It would be interesting to know what she thinks of how long it took the NWDA to do the financial appraisal for the grant applied for by LCC. According to reports at the time the NWDA had the application for over 12 months before even looking at it.

There's alot of people in a number of sections of government/government sponsored programmes that have questions to answer over this.

RaoulD · September 22, 2006

I'm not sure this is strictly correct.

The S106 Agreement is a bilateral agreement between the Council and the Club. I haven't seen the actual agreement but it is common to make the actual regeneration a condition on granting permission. That puts the obligation on the Club to carry out the works - payment, grants, etc is irrelevant in this instance.

Alternatively, (although I don't think this has been the case here) the club could be obliged to make a sum of money available for another body (the council?) to carry out the regeneration works. This would be the better option for the club.

Don't get confused in thinking the permission is subject to a S106. The S106 IS the permission, subject to conditions including the regeneration.

Not starting work before the regeneration is complete is a standard condition known as a "grampian style" clondition and perfectly valid in law. This means that the club can't get out of this by starting the stadium and procrastinating for years on stmping up for the regen package.

Finally, the O1 committee, NWDA, EFC, etc have nothing to do with the planning permission. That is a matter purely between the council and the club.

Unlike you, I have seen the 106 Agreement, the conditions, the minutes of the planning committee etc. The regeneration project was not part of the planning application and the planning authority did not therefore make the development of the stadium conditional upon it. In order to ensure that the funding for the regeneration was secure the planning authority imposed the condition of a Section 106 planning obligation on LFC. Clause 4.1 of the 106 Agreement contains the covenant by LFC not to commence the development of the stadium until the funding for the regeneration projects has been secured to the satisfaction of the Council. You are quite right that the s.106 is a bilateral agreement between the Council and LFC but it is not the planning consent. There is as far as I can see no Grampian condition either in the consent or the 106 obligation.

millsee · September 22, 2006

Unlike you, I have seen the 106 Agreement, the conditions, the minutes of the planning committee etc. ..

Clause 4.1 of the 106 Agreement contains the covenant by LFC not to commence the development of the stadium until the funding for the regeneration projects has been secured to the satisfaction of the Council.

Fair enough.

All I can say then, is that LFC must have some pretty s***-hot planning lawyers.

(Actually, they do. I've worked with them )

Andy Mac · September 22, 2006

I sent Flo an email basically asking if she could clarify the position on the Objective One grant and also the deadline. This is the reply:-
Dear Mr McHale,

Thank you for your e mail and my apologies for not responding earlier, but I have been out of the city.

The LFC stadium is not receiving any EU funding. What is receiving money is the regeneration of Anfield/Breckfield, as you rightly say. The planning consent for the new stadium has, as part of its conditions, a requirement for this to be part of a regeneration of the area. Without that regeneration, the project falls.

The package is such that in order for it to be achievable a number of hurdles must be crossed. These are to do with building, demolitions etc, which are not within my control, but which will add to the time it will take to deliver the stadium and therefore the regeneration. The European money all has to be spent within the allocated time for the Merseyside pot, and it has to be claimed from Europe. That process must be completed by the end of 2008.

If any projects cannot deliver to that timescale, the money will be lost. It is imperative therefore that all of the available money is allocated to projects that can, and will, spend in the time allowed.

It is for that reason that, in July, the Programme Monitoring Committee for Merseyside - made up of representatives from the universities, private sector, local authorities, voluntary sector, further education and North West Region representatives, as well as government officials - took the decision to have as the day for decision the 28th September, when Projects Committee, which I Chair, meets.

By this date, we must have firm evidence that the project is able to proceed; that firm evidence must be strong enough to enable the next phase - due diligence - to be completed. If that evidence is not provided to Government Office and the Objective 1 Secretariat, the project will not even be considered.

The £9m is not a great deal of money in the great scheme of things, but it attracts a further £9.2m of NWDA cash, £1.7m city council money and possibly a further £5m of EU and NRF monies. These together, help to pay most of the cost of the regeneration of the area, rather than build the stadium. However, without that money, the community facilities and regeneration do not go ahead, and the stadium's planning consent falls.

Liverpool FC can, of course, put in for a fresh planning consent, but will need to start from scratch and may find it difficult to obtain planning consent without the necessary regeneration package.

We would all want the regeneration of this area to take place, but we are in the hands - or feet - of the club. We will do all that we can to make this a viable package, but if the club can't deliver, then it becomes very difficult indeed.

I hope this answers your questions, but, if not, please don't hesitate to get in touch.

Yours sincerely,

Flo
Flo Clucas OBE
Executive Member, Economic Development and Europe,
First Vice President, Liberals and Democrats in Europe Group, European Committee of the Regions and Local Government

Did you know that Breckfield/Anfield is the most deprived ward in England

I know someone who works for the central government department responsible for planning, regeneration and NRF monies (DCLG) Let's just say, some pretty strong assurances have been given by the club that funding for the stadium will be in place and you can bet that DCLG / Liverpool city council will want to get moving on a plan that improves the most deprived ward

Did someone on here say they saw out Chief Exec in London last week?

September 22, 2006

What I find annoying about all this is the Council trying to 'play hardball' with LFC, saying things like 'put up or shut up' and 'without LFC having funding in place, the whole regeneration project falls through'.

Speaking as someone who lived in Anfield for 16 yrs, I'd like to know why the regeneration of an area which is completely on its a***, is solely down to LFC having funding in place. If we fail to come up with the goods, what happens then ?

If the worst happens and we cant raise enough money - and we're forced to look elsewhere to build from scratch, what will happen to that area - once it's no longer Liverpool FC's 'responsibility', and the Council (God forbid) have to look into doing something about it off their own bat ? The Anfield area is dying as it is. Without LFC there, the process will just be accelerated, the area will become a ghost town.

So maybe, instead of 'playing hardball', the City of Liverpool should be bending over backwards to help the Football Club which bears the City's name - and begging them not to go anywhere else.

I think the point is that all of the public money has been allocated on the understanding that the club will lever in many millions of private sector resources to complement the public sector resources. The City aren't playing hardball with the club. The club committed to this as part of the process of getting Planning Permission. It really is in the hands of the club to deliver what they promised. If not, then the 'leverage' ratio - IE how many millions of private per million of public money - is not as promised and the public funding is not allocated.

Falconhoof · September 22, 2006

Did someone on here say they saw out Chief Exec in London last week?

He was in Saville row collecting a new shirt and tie combination

Andy Mac · September 22, 2006

http://www.ynwa.tv/forum/index.php?showtopic=116114&hl=

fyds · September 22, 2006

Unlike you, I have seen the 106 Agreement, the conditions, the minutes of the planning committee etc. The regeneration project was not part of the planning application and the planning authority did not therefore make the development of the stadium conditional upon it. In order to ensure that the funding for the regeneration was secure the planning authority imposed the condition of a Section 106 planning obligation on LFC. Clause 4.1 of the 106 Agreement contains the covenant by LFC not to commence the development of the stadium until the funding for the regeneration projects has been secured to the satisfaction of the Council. You are quite right that the s.106 is a bilateral agreement between the Council and LFC but it is not the planning consent. There is as far as I can see no Grampian condition either in the consent or the 106 obligation.

I'd heard this in some detail from a number of reliable people, both fans and contractors - but it's bloody good to have someone come on having first hand evidence. Grateful to you mate.

It would be interesting to know what she thinks of how long it took the NWDA to do the financial appraisal for the grant applied for by LCC. According to reports at the time the NWDA had the application for over 12 months before even looking at it.

There's alot of people in a number of sections of government/government sponsored programmes that have questions to answer over this.

Ah! I had an ongoing dialogue with the then head of the NWDA (the c*nt's name escapes me now) about this and his relationship to Everton in part via his ex Preston friends among others, and at the time posted chunks of it on this site - he never gave a straight answer and of course has since left his post. His indignance was comical 'I think it's a sorry state of affairs that I should be asked such questions' etc - I told him both as LFC fans and people who give a toss about the city it was our duty to ask some questions. he kept the communication up for a couple of weeks before going quiet. Very unsatisfactory.

Sign In

Objective One Grant

Recommended Posts

Ian Mc

Coyler

picks

Coyler

Rich Gobey

Gunga Din

Ian Garro

R A Softlad

millsee

fyds

RaoulD

fyds

millsee

Tim

RaoulD

millsee

Andy Mac

Guest Phil Eel

Falconhoof

Andy Mac

fyds

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recently Browsing 0 members

Forum menu

On this day in history

On this day in Liverpool history

Browse

Activity

My Activity Streams

Marketplace