Culture, Planning and Transport.

[afleitch]

Welcome to the Culture, Planning and Transport Committee, Mr Anders MacPherson chairing (coz he got in first)

The brief of this Committee is to concern ourselves with;

Sport and Leisure
The Arts
Strategic Planning
Transport

I would be grateful if Members could sign in as soon as possible. His Majesty has been petitioned on the following, prior to the new session of Parliament in no particular order;

1.Whether to allocate or secure funding to modernise and increase the capacity of the National Stadium from 20,000 to 45,000.
2.Where to site the proposed Ballet and Opera House.
3. Whether to nominate an Antillian city to bid for European City of Culture.
4. Whether to recommend the funding of an undersea link between Antillia and Pitfarris.
5. Whether to recommend the privatisation or part privatisation of Antillian Rail.
6. Whether to recommend the de-regulation of the nationalised bus network to allow for competition.
7. Whether to recommend the construction of a by-pass around St Mark's to decrease congestion.
8. Where to site Economic Development Zones if mandated.
9. Where to designate as National Parks or Environmentally Protected areas.

These will be adressed appropriately through discussion. Should any proposal be of merit relevant bills can be drafted within this Committee.

Yours,

Mr Anders MacPherson

[afleitch]

A taster

Order CPT001

Members,

As you may be aware, the Antillian Olympic Committee, the Antillian Athletics Federation and the Football Association of Antillia have pressed successive governments to finance an upgrade to the facilities of the National Stadium in St Marks and to increase capacity. This year, St Mark's City (who have authority over local Planning Stage 1 applications) were presented with several options out of which two were recommended to be taken forward;

1. Refurbishment of existing stadium with 'vertical expansion' increasing capacity to 45,000
2. Demolition of existing stadium (retaining the listed 1920's Modernist themed Main Stand) with subsequent sale of the land and the construction of a new stadium at the Old Docks.

The estimated cost of Proposal 1, is some 100 million Euros. This retains the footprint of the existing stadium with excavation downwards and reconfiguration of the stands upwards to double capacity.

Proponents: Antillian Olympic Committee, Antillian Athletics Federation, Antillian Heritage.

The estimated cost of Proposal 2, is some 90 million Euros. The sale of the land of the old stadium (which is quite a significant footprint in the city)should generate 15 million Euros. The cost of the land at the Old Docks is estimated at 20 million Euros. While the scheme employs 'facade retention' of the listed Main Stand, this is opposed by Antillian Heritage. There is also some concern that under current economic circumstances, the land around the old stadium may not be sold leading to an 'eyesore.'

Proponents: Football Association of Antillia, Rugby Football Association of Antillian, Docklands Redevelopment Corporation.

The Committee should be aware that the government owns the current stadium as a national asset. It will be for this Committee to recommend which proposal is to be taken forward or to reject both proposals. The Committee may also propose the full or part sale of the National Stadium, or seek sponsorship for commercial purposes as a cost saving measure.

Initital thoughts please.

[afleitch]

David Valentine

How old is the current stadium?

The land on which the current stadium stands was gifted in 1882. The current stadium dates from 1928, that is to say the main stand. The three other stands were built around the same time but heavily modernised in the 1980's and early 1990's

It might also stave off disaster at the DRC; we all know it's on the brink of collapse because the foreign developers needed for it to do what it was set up to do... well... where are they now?

Quite true. The site earmarked for a possible stadium was cleared four years ago and remains vacant. The only other redevelopments are The Quay Shopping Centre, completed this year and the well established National Museum of Antillia, the flagship project when the DRC was launched. Both were investments involving a significant degree of public funding and both ate very little into the footprint of the DRC plan.

[afleitch]

I don't know the specifics - though the Chairman will - but as far as the general problem is concerned, my understanding is that an upgrade is essential because of safety concerns; at least one stand at the stadium is a fire hazard and there are also asbestos issues. There's also the fact that the upgrade in the late 1980s and early 1990s was badly done, with inferior materials and poor design. The company responsible was ESB, which, as we all know, collapsed as a result of a fraud investigation a few years later. Its entire ownership and half its Board went to prison as a result, along with four City Councillors, three officers at the St Marks Public Works Department and a former MP. It's that... rather embarrassing... background that makes this issue so sensitive and is why this committee needs to take a firm grip of the situation.

On the matter of sports infrastructure as regeneration, there are numerous examples in Great Britain, some more successful than others.

Indeed. Much of the work in the late 80's was cosmetic with asbestos in the South Stand simply covered over (securely I may add; this is the preferred treatment for such situations) on site as removal was too expensive. Terracing was also replaced with seating reducing the capacity from 40,000 to just 25,000. At present the stadium is a classic athletics stadium but is used for international football and rugby matches. They have came out strongly for a new stadium as at present seating is configured around the athletics track which is not optimum for spectators. The new stadium while still containing an athletics track can have removeable seating which will make it more attractive to any football or rugby team who wishes to have the stadium as their permanent residence (as well as remaining the home of the national side) and make it more attractive to host larger non-sports related stadium events.

Mr De Wilde, the stadium is seated in the Princes' Park area of the city. As you know this is a very well established and upmarket middle class part of the city well served by transport links. Should the stadium be vacated I imagine even in current circumstances this will be prime real estate. Locals are concerned about what would replace the stadium. The land is officially zoned as 'Parks/Sports' and will remain that way if the stadium is demolished. This Committee may be dealing with the potential rezoning of this area at a later date. It could even continue to be utilised as sports grounds. Not that I care greatly for either sport, but the city is crying out for tennis courts and a basic cricket field.

Mr De Bruijn, I can assure you as a football fan; of the Auldburgh Academicals of course, the closest we Pitfarrians have to a 'national team', the loss of the stadium will be emotional for many. These things happen. Worth nothing of course that when Arsenal F.C in England left their ground at Highbury, apartments were built around a central 'pitch' garden



A very fitting tribute to tradition in my view.