Business

| View Comments (22)
Sir John Madejski with Marc Mogull, managing partner of Benson Elliot, and David Camp, chief executive officer of Stanhope plc
Sir John Madejski with Marc Mogull, managing partner of Benson Elliot, and David Camp, chief executive officer of Stanhope plc
advertisement

Station Hill development bought out

By Alan Bunce
January 13, 2011

Reading's Station Hill development has been given “renewed impetus” after Sir John Madejski sold his controlling share in the £400 million project to a joint venture partnership.

His firm, Sackville Properties, has sold a majority share of its subsidiary Sackville Developments (Reading), which owns the site, to a joint venture between property investment fund Benson Elliot Capital Management and developer Stanhope plc.

The new partners are now reassesing the scheme but vow it will get a new lease of life from their involvement. However, Benson Elliot estimated work will not begin for another three years. It has been previously mooted work was potentially on course for next year.

Sackville development director Jon Homan said: “Obviously the last couple of years have been difficult for everybody involved, not just in property but the economy generally so this will give the scheme renewed impetus.”

Mr Homan continued: “We are very excited by the joint venture (JV). It was always our intention to bring in a JV partner.

“What will happen now is there will be a total reassessment of the current scheme and the marketplace generally to formulate a detailed strategy for the best way forward. There may be some changes to the phasing and how it is delivered.

“There is always a long way between outline planning consent and detailed consent. Everybody is a little bit more aware of the need to be flexible with the design. The heady days of the property market of 2005/2006 have gone. There will be a more cautious approach in the timing and phasing.”

He added: “It is the aim of the partnership to work with the local authority and others to bring this forward and make it happen. That will be a credit to all involved.”

Sackville Properties bought the site in 2005 and won planning approval in 2007. But the plan was called in by the-then secretary of state for communities and local government, Hazel Blears.  Sackville then bought Friars Walk and drew up plans for an extended scheme, gaining consent in September 2009.

The 3.25 acre project included office space, flats, shops, restaurants, a bowling alley and a public square.

Sir John said the deal was exciting for the “epicentre of Reading” and very significant people were now involved.

He said: “It’s marvellous news. It means the project goes forward which is what everybody wants. I don’t think it will change much.

“Time will tell but if it does change I am sure the change will be for the better.”

Mr Homan added the scheme was able to attract investment despite the difficult times because it was such a good location. He said: “Outside London I don’t think you will find a better site.”

Marc Mogull, managing partner at Benson Elliot and chairman of the UK Urban Land Institute, was behind the acquisition and redevelopment of Broad Street Mall in 2001 when he was with Doughty Hanson and said he had an existing relationship with the council.

He said: “When you have a vision for urban regeneration, this is a phenominal opportunity. It has all the stakeholder involvement.”

He expects it to be between two-and-a-half to three years before work will start but that, he said will be driven by the market.

“Station Hill will be on the doorstep of everyone who walks out of Reading station. This is the front room. It will be a shame if we cannot make a real effort to push forward,” he said.

He went on: “What we are pleased about is while we may, as time goes on, contemplate bringing in additional funding structures and additional capital, because of the nature of the joint venture, we have not just a significant operational capability but we have enormous amount of funding strength. That’s different from where the plan was a few years ago.”

But he said Sir John’s involvement was essential.

“We never contemplated a solution where Sackville and Sir John were not in a central role,” he said.

Stanhope director Charles Briscoe said the deal would bring fresh impetus and its timing would fit the expected economic recovery.

He said: “This site is extremely well placed to benefit from the recovery.

“Some of the demand will be growth driven but also relocations and there will be some through obselesence of business premises.”

Council leader Cllr Andrew Cumpsty said: “It is an important milestone in this critical development project for the town.”

| View Comments (22)
advertisement

We are no longer accepting comments on this article.

Most recent user comments 15 of 22

1 | 2 | Next Page Show 15 | 25 | 50 per page

   John Madjeski and Sackville sold after a breach of the finance agreement with their Bank (Lloyds). Funny how that has not made it into the local press, albeit was reported by the FT on 11 Jan?! So in essence its been a massive failure for John Madjeski and Lloyds have lost money on it. Lets hope the US investors can make it viable going forward and not build pies in the sky and CGI images which will never be built like the hype to date has led us to believe.
Frank Castle, Reading
13/01/2011 at 17:02 Offensive or Inappropriate?
   Where's the money in empty tower blocks? Restaurants that dont need to be built? It's a design of nonsense. Reading is not, nor will it ever be London, Building their own versions of Canary Wharf and the Gherkin will not magicall bring in people and money to Reading. Cater for the everyday people of Reading. Improve the quality of what is already there to give people a better shopping environment and a better nightlife and you are some way to creating a high profile town on the national scale.
Basil Fawlty, Torquay
13/01/2011 at 15:14 Offensive or Inappropriate?
   Where's the money in that Basil?
JC, Woodley
13/01/2011 at 15:01 Offensive or Inappropriate?
   As a non property developer, these plans are rubbish. Instead of filling the skies with more empty tower blocks taht can never be fully utilised, flatten everything from the Thames Tower to the bottom of Station Hill, build a new bus station, not just a few bus stands, an actual bus station, and build it on the upp road level instead of having it on the hill. Continue with the digging out and create a while new taxi rank / waiting facility underneath the bus station. In the area where the current bus station is, you could still create a public square that they want, and everything will work well.
Basil Fawlty, Torquay
13/01/2011 at 14:54 Offensive or Inappropriate?
   The bus depot land is owned by Redaing Transport, but was sold to them by the council as part of thedeal when they had to move from Mill lane. There is land around the bus depot that the council still owns. And yes the main part of the bus pass funding comes from central goverment but the peak hour bit was paid for by RBC.
hornbeam, reading
13/01/2011 at 14:49 Offensive or Inappropriate?
   Thanks Hornbeam, my comments were framed from reports coming out of the BBC on the severity of the cutbacks to hit the Council. I presume that Government subsidies have been cut as I think I am right to say it is central government that provides bus pass funding.

I cannot see under the circumstances that taxpayers should support/fund infrastructure that has been poorly conceived. I am also getting reports that RBC owned some of the land round the station; presumably the bus depot. Does anyone know if that is the case?
Damocles, Reading
13/01/2011 at 13:40 Offensive or Inappropriate?
   further proof that Madjeski doesn't actually give a hoot about the town and is just in it for further wealth
Spanky
13/01/2011 at 13:32 Offensive or Inappropriate?
   Damocles,

Not having a go  but they are not getting rid of bus passes- you just won’t be able to travel in the Morning peak- like most other parts of the country. One could argue that its right to cut this as its very much a local extra.

Another thing to take in to consideration is the extra time it will take busses to move about in the town centre as all this will add to congestion. So will Reading buses have to pay to put more buses on the road? As for friar street being two way- will be interesting how that works on a Friday and Saturday night Past all the pubs near Yates.
hornbeam, reading
13/01/2011 at 12:51 Offensive or Inappropriate?
   "The 3.25 acre project included office space..." They are struggling to fill "The Blade".... More empty buildings then...
ironix
13/01/2011 at 12:43 Offensive or Inappropriate?
   Please put the bus station back to where it was...opposite the railway station. Perhaps 'Cash Converters' could also be incorporated , so people can get their train fare at the same time?
dodger, south oxfordshire
13/01/2011 at 12:06 Offensive or Inappropriate?
   This is bad news for the town, but that is just the start - the north side of the station is being developed with tower blocks too and the plans according to council documents are due for committee consideration in due course.

Who is funding this and importantly who is driving this push of Reading into the quagmire? There needs to be a full inquiry and a complete re-evaluation of the permissions granted. The Government immediately should stop the near £10 million transport funding recently announced for further infrastructure work which includes linking station hill with the station. These developers can afford to do it without taxpayers funds....and the Council should be insisting on it when pensioners are about to lose their bus passes and 300 RBC staff their jobs.

Nothing to smile about here. It's a sell out.

It is an old trick - get planning sell the plot; no-one saw it coming!
Damocles, Reading
13/01/2011 at 11:58 Offensive or Inappropriate?
   Maybe we can now keep our bus terminal by the station. The idea of removing it and scattering all the bus stops down Station Road, Valpy Street, and elsewhere away from the station is completely BONKERS! All over the country, other towns are doing the opposite. Firstly, it will make it much harder to find and reach the bus you want. People don't want to walk miles up and down the road looking for a bus. Secondly, there will be chaos and obstruction as buses try to manoeuvre around each other all the time. Not least, making Friar Street two-way is hazardous. People with small children and shopping will be at risk.
Chris Burden
13/01/2011 at 11:19 Offensive or Inappropriate?
   It is wrong to say that any redevelopment is a good thing. There is a very real risk that we make the same mistakes that we made in the area in the 1970s, and that in 40 years time, we, or or children, will be discussing how to get rid of the 2010s eyesore there.
JonathanB
13/01/2011 at 11:18 Offensive or Inappropriate?
   Cllr Epps,

Quite agree. How on earth can we provide integrated transport with this scheme? If someone who doesn’t live locally comes in by train and wants to use the bus they will have a hell of a job. What amazes me is that the council owns the bus company and they still can’t do joined up thinking.

As for being negative- sorry not so. I’d be positive it was good scheme- it clearly isn’t. If an eye sore is replaced by a development that is not fit for purpose is one supposed to just say it’s a good idea? Ever thought it’s been let to get in this state for a reason? It’s one thing not to build a transport interchange, but quite another to shut station road as well!!! And the north entrance is no substitute. If station road stayed open the council wouldn’t have to waste all the money on rebuilding the town centre roads ( which the developer is not paying for?!)
hornbeam, reading
13/01/2011 at 11:02 Offensive or Inappropriate?
   This is not a surprise at all. All those who backed the Station Hill plans because of Mr Madjeski's involvement, despite the damage it will do to transport interchanges around the Station, should be forming an orderly queue to apologise.

The decision to reassess the scheme is welcome if it will keep Station Hill open to public transport, which would be beneficial for the regeneration as it would keep buses and taxis close to it and the Station, rather than scattering them all across town which is the official position of the Council.
Cllr Gareth Epps, Reading
13/01/2011 at 10:26 Offensive or Inappropriate?
1 | 2 | Next Page Show 15 | 25 | 50 per page

 
Homes / Jobs Search
 
Jobs Homes

Brought to you by

Fish4jobs
Newsletter Sign Up
 
Sign up to the
weekly news
update


Submit
Loading poll, please wait...