"Roland Perry" wrote in message

In message , at 12:04:39 on Thu, 1 Dec
2011, Jim Chisholm remarked:
Battersea Power Station is going into receivership, with its £5.5bn
development scheme in tatters, two days after George Osborne and
Boris Johnson posed in hardhats to announce an enterprise zone and
tube extension to the listed building.

Given the timing, we can only assume that there was something extra
required (in terms of handouts from George/Boris) to save the project,
and what they offered was not deemed adequate and was therefore the
'last straw'.

I think it's more complicated than that. This project was controlled by
indebted Irish property magnates, who have finally run out of credit.
The project may actually have more of a future without them (and without
the power station, too).
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ba01cc9e-1...#axzz1fHuHjBRw

In message , at 13:07:07 on
Thu, 1 Dec 2011, Recliner remarked:
Battersea Power Station is going into receivership, with its £5.5bn
development scheme in tatters, two days after George Osborne and
Boris Johnson posed in hardhats to announce an enterprise zone and
tube extension to the listed building.

Given the timing, we can only assume that there was something extra
required (in terms of handouts from George/Boris) to save the project,
and what they offered was not deemed adequate and was therefore the
'last straw'.

I think it's more complicated than that. This project was controlled by
indebted Irish property magnates, who have finally run out of credit.
The project may actually have more of a future without them (and without
the power station, too).
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ba01cc9e-1...#axzz1fHuHjBRw

But the timing suggests that the latest George/Boris offer was too
little to late, and that's what's tipped the creditors into action.

Or perhaps it's a co-incidence and just a 30th November thing (having
given that as a deadline for whatever).

ps Please don't post links to things behind paywalls.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message

In message , at 13:07:07 on
Thu, 1 Dec 2011, Recliner remarked:
Battersea Power Station is going into receivership, with its £5.5bn
development scheme in tatters, two days after George Osborne and
Boris Johnson posed in hardhats to announce an enterprise zone and
tube extension to the listed building.

Given the timing, we can only assume that there was something extra
required (in terms of handouts from George/Boris) to save the
project, and what they offered was not deemed adequate and was
therefore the 'last straw'.

I think it's more complicated than that. This project was controlled
by indebted Irish property magnates, who have finally run out of
credit. The project may actually have more of a future without them
(and without the power station, too).
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ba01cc9e-1...#axzz1fHuHjBRw

But the timing suggests that the latest George/Boris offer was too
little to late, and that's what's tipped the creditors into action.

Or perhaps it's a co-incidence and just a 30th November thing (having
given that as a deadline for whatever).

I suspect this action was already underway -- these things don't happen
overnight. It's been building up for at least a few weeks.


ps Please don't post links to things behind paywalls.

Ah, sorry, I got into it via Google, which gets you past the paywall.
Here's what it says in part:
"Lenders to Battersea Power Station have moved to take control of the
building, drawing an end to months of speculation about plans for the
derelict London landmark.

Lloyds and Ireland's National Asset Management Agency will on Thursday
notify Battersea Power Station Shareholder Vehicle (BPSSV), the holding
company behind the Grade II listed building, that they intend take the
site into receivership.

The move follows months of talk about a possible takeover of the
riverside site, which includes the disused power station and large areas
of waste land on the 38-acre plot.

Real Estate Opportunities, the majority owner of BPSSV, has been seeking
a partner to help develop the site, which it bought for £400m five years
ago. Recent rumours have included takeover bids from Roman Abramovich's
Chelsea Football Club and a £262m offer from Malaysian property
developer SP Setia to take over the senior debt.

However, Lloyds and Nama, the Irish bad bank, which hold almost equal
shares of a total £325m of debt on the site, are understood to have
tired with REO's failure to find a buyer.

The lenders will hope to take control of the sale process after
appointing administrators at the end of next week. According to people
familiar with the situation, Lloyds and Nama then plan to run an
open-market auction process to try and offload the development.

A large number of property developers, investors and sports and
entertainment companies have cast an eye over the power station since it
was decommissioned almost 30 years ago. Ideas for the building, with its
quartet chimneys that are established punctuation marks on the London
skyline, and surrounding land have included upmarket flats, offices and
a theme park.

REO itself had planned to turn Battersea Power Station into a huge
office and residential scheme and, at the end of last year, valued the
site at £498m, assuming planning permission was granted.

However, the high costs of installing infrastructure to Battersea have,
thus far, stymied redevelopment. As well as the complications of working
around a large listed building, any successful venture on the site would
almost certainly be predicated on the construction of a tube line, which
would cost hundreds of millions of pounds."



Also see
http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...rail-link.html

In message , at 14:45:09 on
Thu, 1 Dec 2011, Recliner remarked:

any successful venture on the site would almost certainly be predicated
on the construction of a tube line, which would cost hundreds of
millions of pounds."

Maybe it turned out that too much of that cost would be laid on the
developer?
--
Roland Perry

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at 14:45:09 on
Thu, 1 Dec 2011, Recliner remarked:

any successful venture on the site would almost certainly be predicated
on the construction of a tube line, which would cost hundreds of
millions of pounds."

Maybe it turned out that too much of that cost would be laid on the
developer?

I thought the tube line was to be financed by other Nine Elms area
developments?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 11:25:01
on Thu, 1 Dec 2011, remarked:
any successful venture on the site would almost certainly be predicated
on the construction of a tube line, which would cost hundreds of
millions of pounds."

Maybe it turned out that too much of that cost would be laid on the
developer?

I thought the tube line was to be financed by other Nine Elms area
developments?

If you have the details, do tell.
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
wrote:
In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at 14:45:09 on
Thu, 1 Dec 2011, Recliner remarked:

any successful venture on the site would almost certainly be predicated
on the construction of a tube line, which would cost hundreds of
millions of pounds."

Maybe it turned out that too much of that cost would be laid on the
developer?

I thought the tube line was to be financed by other Nine Elms area
developments?

I don't think there's much chance of a contribution from the new US Embassy :-(

Nick
--
Serendipity: http://www.leverton.org/blosxom (last update 29th March 2010)
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996

In message , at 21:07:24 on Thu, 1 Dec 2011,
Nick Leverton remarked:
any successful venture on the site would almost certainly be predicated
on the construction of a tube line, which would cost hundreds of
millions of pounds."

Maybe it turned out that too much of that cost would be laid on the
developer?

I thought the tube line was to be financed by other Nine Elms area
developments?

I don't think there's much chance of a contribution from the new US Embassy :-(

Boris was reported to be looking for £2.5m from the Embassy project,
which is small change and neither here nor there in the grand scheme of
things.

On the other hand, the Battersea Power Station project is supposed to be
grossing £5.5bn, which is almost 20x the loan they are currently
floundering with.
--
Roland Perry

In article , (Nick Leverton)
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at 14:45:09 on
Thu, 1 Dec 2011, Recliner remarked:

any successful venture on the site would almost certainly be
predicated on the construction of a tube line, which would cost
hundreds of millions of pounds."

Maybe it turned out that too much of that cost would be laid on the
developer?

I thought the tube line was to be financed by other Nine Elms area
developments?

I don't think there's much chance of a contribution from the new US
Embassy :-(

Have you been along Nine Elms Lane recently? It's a true "empire on which
the concrete never sets", as my father used to dub the South Bank.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Thu, 01 Dec 2011 19:53:11 +0000
Paul Corfield wrote:
I'm still bemused as to why a tube line is needed when miles of
railway on 3 key TOCs passes right by the site. Can't a proper rail
interchange be constructed for far less cost than a tube line?

I imagine given the choice most people would prefer to get a tube direct
into central london than have to get a mainline train and change at
victoria or waterloo. Imagine you're standing at Vauxhall and want to get
to the west end - do you hop on a victoria line to oxford circus or wait
20 mins for a mainline train to go a mile to victoria then get on it?
Its a no brainer.

B2003