News RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos


News coverage for York, Ryedale, East Yorkshire, Harrogate and Selby.

Popular topics: Community Stadium | Snow | Germany Beck | ftr | Queen's visit | Council tax


York City’s ground Bootham Crescent ‘is only worth £750k’


PLANS to help fund York’s new community stadium by selling off Bootham Crescent for re-development could be scuppered by housing policies, leading industry figures have claimed.

Architect Matthew Laverack and quantity surveyor Paul Cordock say they have calculated that the stadium land might fetch only about £750,000 if new City of York Council affordable housing rules, along with other new building restrictions, are applied.

The Press reported in 2008 that council officials had valued the site at £3.7 million.

Mr Laverack, a strong critic of the affordable policies, said: “Just under three quarters of a million pounds would be a nice tidy sum for one person to win on the lottery, but it is not very much for a football club with debts to pay off and hoping to make a significant contribution to a new stadium which will cost many millions to design and build.

“Unless the council are going to ‘bend the rules’ in favour of the football club and reduce its normal planning demands upon them, the money they may realize from their asset at Bootham Crescent is clearly inadequate to make any significant contribution to a new stadium.”

Mr Laverack said the Bootham Crescent site was 4.2 acres, and viability studies by Fordhams, consultants employed by the council, which had been put forward by the authority to justify its latest affordable housing policies, set out land prices for brownfield sites which varied typically between £140,000 and £205,000 per acre.

“Those are the sort of prices at which York Council say landowners must be prepared to sell their sites in order that 25 per cent of the homes built may be ‘affordable’ social housing.

“Applying those land values to Bootham Cresent the football ground is worth only £588,000 to £861,000. An average would be £724,000.”

Hr and Mr Cordock claim there were other costs pressures driving down the value of the land, including the need for stadium demolition, land contamination and archaeological investigations, the code for Sustainable homes to be followed, and the provision of public open space or payment of substantial sums in lieu to the council.


Council dismisses housing cost claims

YORK council leader Andrew Waller sought to dismiss the critics’ claims.

He said the sale of Bootham Crescent was still up to three years away and it was impossible to forecast prevailing market conditions at that time.

He claimed a coalition Government decision to abolish housing targets meant that in York, development was likely to be concentrated on brownfield sites like Bootham Crescent, and this was likely to enhance the value of such land. He said the authority’s executive would this autumn consider proposals for changes to the percentage of affordable houses required, based on a sliding scale which reflected current market conditions and would be negotiable through the planning process.

Andrew Bowes, managing director for Persimmon Homes Yorkshire, said it had previously raised concerns over affordable housing proposals, claiming basic assumptions underlying the conclusions were made on inaccurate information.

“It will be up to the council to decide how planning policies are applied in the future when planning applications are made in due course for the redevelopment of Bootham Crescent and the new replacement.”

Comments(15)

Boatie says...
10:08am Sat 14 Aug 10

Didn'y know the Leader of the Council was a land valuer.

King Edward says...
12:04pm Sat 14 Aug 10

That's probably more than the brand / team though!

Duck in the hedge says...
2:15pm Sat 14 Aug 10

Surely this must jeopardise the community stadium project ? If the site was valued at £3.7m in 2008 and is now only worth £750,000, where will the £3m shortfall come from ? Why haven't the football club commented on this ? All these unanswered questions....... someone must have the answers ? !!

Duck in the hedge says...
3:32pm Sat 14 Aug 10

Coun Waller's dismissal of the ground's possible valuation of around £750,000 shows a complete misunderstanding of the implications of the council's proposed affordable housing policy. This comes as no surprise, as the council have always dismissed Mr Laverack's views on the policy since he started criticising the previous 50% target. He warned that it would fail even before it was adopted in 2005. He has been proved right as only 5 affordable dwellings have been completed from the 50% policy in five years. The councils consultants Fordhams, in their viability study, can only justify a target of 25% and even this is based on land values which bear no relation to market prices and presumes that landowners will sell at a massive discount. Mr Laverack is as usual spot on with his reading of the problem and as with the failed 50% policy, will no doubt in time be proved right about the 25% policy. Meanwhile the council continue to ignore the experts and make decisions that damage York's housebuilding industry. It remains to be seen whether the community stadium project will follow in the footsteps of other council project blunders, like the Barbican and Hungate....... will they ever learn or listen ? !!

Garrowby Turnoff says...
6:39pm Sat 14 Aug 10

Bootham Crescent. Its memories, its sentimental value and its history as the home of our local team is incalculable. Regardless of its valuation as a building site, £100million wouldn't pay for half the pleasure given to the hordes of City fans and away supporters who have entered its portals.
.
But, it’s time to move on...

daveycfc655 says...
7:51pm Sat 14 Aug 10

remember all the money we york fans raised to get the roof of the longhurst stand done,its such a shame its come to this,where city have to find a new home. york council should rethink the cotst of the new council office.and use the money saved to help the build of the new stadium for the benifit of the comunity of york .

Yosser Hughes says...
8:20pm Sat 14 Aug 10

The ground is only worth £750k, and that is from proffessional people who know wat they are talking about, yet arrogant Waller thinks he is an expert in every field and knows best. Well wake up Mr Waller because YET AGAIN you are wrong.

Also, the ground is worth £750k, which is quite a lot in comparison to the York City playing squad, which is worth roughly £75.

Malcolm says...
10:52pm Sat 14 Aug 10

Sorry, this sounds like people playing politics to me.

redr says...
4:02pm Sun 15 Aug 10

So let’s see at between 140 & 205K per acre and let’s say 14 plots per acre that works out at between 10-15K per plot. Then let’s double it for the cost of clearing the site and call it 30k per plot. On top of that we need to add the price of new build materials, labour, design and legal fees. According to the BBC that should be about another 90k. So all done and dusted for 120k per three bedroomed detached property. Of course the builders want a profit lets say 25% bringing the sale price in at a tidy 150k. Where do I put my name down? It’s funny how when builders and architects want to buy land they tell you it’s worthless yet when they want to sell it it’s a different story. Greed pure greed.

Duck in the hedge says...
5:59pm Sun 15 Aug 10

If only it was simple as redr, york thinks it is, then every man and his dog would be having a go.

The reality is that housebuilding is at an all-time low, and many firms have gone out of business. York firms have been hit harder than most because the council set an unrealistic affordable housing target of 50%. Despite been told it was too high, they stood by the policy for years, and now the Fordham study has shown that only 25% is viable (on brownfield sites) and even this is based on artificially low land values. This shows that the council got their sums seriously wrong, but they have not admitted it, or apologised to the firms that they have put out of business, and the tradesmen that have lost their jobs. The changes they are proposing do not go far enough, particularly the 40% target they are demanding for greenfield sites, as they have used artificially low land values to justify the targets.

If redr wants to know about greed, then ask the council....... they know a thing or two about that !!!!!

Beagleboy says...
6:05pm Sun 15 Aug 10

No point arguing the toss on this one. I very much doubt we will even have a football ckub in the next 3/4 years after yesterdays result.

redr says...
6:34pm Sun 15 Aug 10

Duck in the hedge wrote:
If only it was simple as redr, york thinks it is, then every man and his dog would be having a go. The reality is that housebuilding is at an all-time low, and many firms have gone out of business. York firms have been hit harder than most because the council set an unrealistic affordable housing target of 50%. Despite been told it was too high, they stood by the policy for years, and now the Fordham study has shown that only 25% is viable (on brownfield sites) and even this is based on artificially low land values. This shows that the council got their sums seriously wrong, but they have not admitted it, or apologised to the firms that they have put out of business, and the tradesmen that have lost their jobs. The changes they are proposing do not go far enough, particularly the 40% target they are demanding for greenfield sites, as they have used artificially low land values to justify the targets. If redr wants to know about greed, then ask the council....... they know a thing or two about that !!!!!
I was thinking more about the builder over £300 for two hours work earlier this year. Pure greed.

antonius maximus says...
8:33am Mon 16 Aug 10

Trust York Council to mess it up. As has been said on here many times they are out to close YCFC down all together.

caliwag says...
9:03am Mon 16 Aug 10

Err...if that's all it's worth, just leave it as a football ground.

meme says...
9:36am Mon 16 Aug 10

No body knows exactly what its worth today but what is certainly true is that it is worth significantly less than 2 years ago due to the affordable policy of CoYC and the new code for sustainable homes
it is also true that the densities of developement that CoYC wanted in past ie apartments are now not viable and therefore there will be significantly less numbers of homes on this site and therefore less value.
This is not greed from the devlopers this is practicality. if we need more homes in York why are CoYC doing there best to make them unviable?
There is only one long term solution to the housing crisis and that is build more homes....Precisely the oppsite to what is going on now.
I cannot understand why CoYC refuse to listen to the views of the people who have to deliver these homes. They say they do but then just ignore what they are told
At the end of the day developers want to develop profitably, CoYC want to see the City prosper and the people of York want homes so why oh why cannot heads be banged together and some sense be heard by all


Most popular


Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »

Local Businesses