I can confirm that there is presently no new/revised planning application in respect of the Sparrows Lane site, and therefore (further to my colleague Neil Willey’s email to you last year) no application to notify you about.
The “invitation only” Local Residents Exhibition, referred to in the pdf attached to your email, has not been arranged by the Council but, I believe, by the football club itself, and appears to be an event to show local people their new plans that appear to be on a larger scale than the scheme that achieved planning permission last year. ( received last Tuesday)
David Gittens Area Planning Manager (East) Directorate of Regeneration, Enterprise and Skills Royal Borough of Greenwich
I imagine this was to inform residents of the potential application, but as this was not a public meeting, ( by invite only) and as plans were not submitted it is hard to come to any informed opinion on what will actually be submitted, let alone built.
By the way Neil Willey is now the Area planning manager, for this sector of the council....... as RBG have now 'swapped' the managers department?.......bit like musical chairs. People will be able to view the plans once they are submitted. This was sent to me last Tuesday.
In essence the plans for the training ground look positive and will underpin an important part of the way forward for CAFC, and the current board, from what I can assume. Of course the devil is in the detail, and no such more than in planning matters.
Ken is correct, of course, that the meeting with residents does not form any part of the formal planing process. It's good practice to share plans for major schemes in advance and gives you an opportunity to try to deal with any misconceptions, but nothing that is said there counts as far as the planners are concerned.
The key change is that the community element of the scheme has been stripped out and isolated from the rest, which is very much contrary to the ethos of the original scheme as that was all about being inclusive and sold to the council on that basis. It's easy to see why this is attractive to the club - it wouldn't have been to the external funders.
This allows them to make additional use of the main building, which is now said to be "very similar" in size to the approved despite the addition of an indoor pitch. Although the club correctly says this was not included in the original scheme, this is because it was already provided by the University of Greenwich on the adjacent site by means of a part-year enclosure. Clearly this is a better facility.
[Edit] The swimming pool put forward by RD at a project meeting last spring is not included - there is some residential accommodation, which may be a planning problem. Whether the club is in fact required to provide it on site to achieve Category One as it claims here needs research.
However, why it should all now cost double the previous scheme is a bit of a mystery to me at first glance.
The main issue with this scheme will be the location of the main building (it looks to me to have been moved to the south) and whether it is more intrusive in the landscape as a consequence, and the addition of another building nearer Sparrows Lane for the community - the overall footprint is now larger than before, but probably not as big as the existing in total, which is important.
The fact this is being presented as two schemes might suggest the consultants think there is a risk of the community hub being turned down on location - although in respect of usage the planners will be more sympathetic to the community element than to the main building. It looks as if the community facilities are significantly reduced, as is the proposed relationship with the University of Greenwich and others.
On the other hand, I doubt if permission would be granted for the main building at all without replacement community facilities.
Overall, I think it will be contentious in planning terms.
It seems the secondary vehicle access to Footscray Road is no longer part of the scheme. The club cannot rely on the existing permission around vehicle movements via Sparrows Lane unless it can show that overall movements there will be no greater than agreed in 2014, presumably because of the removal of much community use (which was 55 per cent of the original scheme). If there is to be no material increase then it is not potential grounds for refusal.
The floodlighting of a new community artificial pitch in a different location is another potential issue.
I was struggling to reconcile these plans with those suggested before ie the pool.
My question remains where is the funding coming from?
Is it that grants and other external funding have been missed/lost or that the club decided to pay for all or at least at higher percentage so as to have more control over design and long term usage.
Or maybe the former forced the latter.
Not clear on the comment on the other thread from @cafcfan about the indoor facility not meeting cat 1 requirements. Where is this specified?
There are bound to be compromises along the way with such projects and changes made due to public and local authority requirements as well as funding issues.
Still remains a huge step forward for the club to have far better and bigger facilities IMHO.
Here's the club's planning statement to the council supporting the application last year:
"The intention is to replace all of the existing buildings across the site with a new integrated ‘hub’ at the heart, used by all stakeholders, community and club reflecting the totally inclusive ethos of the football club. “The project is strategically supported by the Football Association who have reviewed and endorsed a Football Development Plan developed by the club and the main community football partner, Junior Reds Football Club, which runs 57 teams of all ages. “The facility will also be used by other local football clubs, local schools and community groups as the trust will support Charter Standard clubs and help others to achieve this. The Football Foundation and Premier League are also expected to offer significant support to the scheme. “Charlton Athletic Football Club and Charlton Athletic Community Trust work closely with a range of partnership agencies all of whom will be involved in and benefit from the new facility, including Oxleas Mental Health Trust, University of Greenwich, Greenwich Leisure Ltd and Greenwich Community College. “This new shared facility will address the provision of an enhanced level of community programmes delivered in an environment where young people can integrate with professional and youth players alike, providing community facilities to support local club growth – to inspire and aspire."
What it says now: "As is common with a number of clubs, it is best to separate the operation of the community facilities from those of the academy and professional users. That is what is proposed at Sparrows Lane."
I was struggling to reconcile these plans with those suggested before ie the pool.
My question remains where is the funding coming from?
Is it that grants and other external funding have been missed/lost or that the club decided to pay for all or at least at higher percentage so as to have more control over design and long term usage.
Or maybe the former forced the latter.
Not clear on the comment on the other thread from @cafcfan about the indoor facility not meeting cat 1 requirements. Where is this specified?
There are bound to be compromises along the way with such projects and changes made due to public and local authority requirements as well as funding issues.
Still remains a huge step forward for the club to have far better and bigger facilities IMHO.
You have to remember the context of the original scheme, which was Jimenez and Slater, notwithstanding RD had taken over by the time it was submitted. It was designed to be delivered at no capital cost to the football club whatsoever, which is partly why it was very community focused, but it was never his scheme. Obviously if there had been club money available prior to 2014 it may have looked different, although it also had to overcome the planning obstacles, especially regarding location, bulk and traffic.
The funders were thus not the only people who needed to be impressed by the community aspects. They will have been key to persuading the planning authority because of the difficulty of developing a larger facility on Metropolitan Open Land. This is larger still but with the community benefits scaled down, to say the least. The club will have an idea what the planners think because they had what I take to have been formal pre-planning advice in February. It is, however, a big change of direction from the previous planning statement and the council will see that.
It doesn't say that the indoor facility will not meet requirements - it says it will meet the minimum but not the recommended.
Regarding the (private / grant) funding, does it only matter to us as supporters if....
1. Player(s) are sold to help fund the development 2. The Community Trust are unfairly marginalised from the development
Or are there any other reasons why we should be interested whether the funding comes from grants or Starprix ?
Yes, because regardless of 1) the cost is likely to be attached to the business as debt and interest charged on it, presumably at 3 per cent as with other debt to Staprix. There will be different views of how much this matters and we can't know what RD's ultimate attitude to the debt or ability to recover it will be, but I don't think it can just be ignored or treated as a gift. This has to be balanced against the fact that the facilities would otherwise have been encumbered with some obligations as a result of the grants, which will no longer be the case.
The other question ought to be, is this scheme - if eventually approved - delivering £10m (or whatever) extra value to the club over and above what it would have got from the original?
“The facility will also be used by other local football clubs,
Of course when I originally saw this I thought, that will be great for me personally, as I was a chairman of a local football team, that in fact is playing next door to Sparrows lane this Saturday. (away) and my sons are playing at the other 'partners' pitches :Footscray Rugby club. Not sure that despite being a chartered club, wether it be Erith 147, who pay at STC, Red velvet who play at Eltham Town, or Blackheath Wanderers, any of this team's who hire pitches from that area will be allowed to use these facilities?. I will assume that this means Juniors Reds teams, which are affiliate to CAFC. But as someone who has regular contact with the owners of both the ground owners, and certainly the local mens football teams playing in the Kent premier, and South Alliance who would welcome the use of the 3g pitches for training if nothing else. I am sure there will be a big demand for training on the all weather, as that particular area does suffer from poor weather pitches from December till March, and I am sure junior football clubs would warmly welcome the proposed site. CAFC have an excellent football community history, I hope it continues, and shares both it's excellent coaching, and other football resources. I am sure they will, but would like to know the detail and specific criteria, ? . Who knows perhaps in time we will.........
“The facility will also be used by other local football clubs,
Of course when I originally saw this I thought, that will be great for me personally, as I was a chairman of a local football team, that in fact is playing next door to Sparrows lane this Saturday. (away) and my sons are playing at the other 'partners' pitches :Footscray Rugby club. Not sure that despite being a chartered club, wether it be Erith 147, who pay at STC, Red velvet who play at Eltham Town, or Blackheath Wanderers, any of this team's who hire pitches from that area will be allowed to use these facilities?. I will assume that this means Juniors Reds teams, which are affiliate to CAFC. But as someone who has regular contact with the owners of both the ground owners, and certainly the local mens football teams playing in the Kent premier, and South Alliance who would welcome the use of the 3g pitches for training if nothing else. I am sure there will be a big demand for training on the all weather, as that particular area does suffer from poor weather pitches from December till March, and I am sure junior football clubs would warmly welcome the proposed site. CAFC have an excellent football community history, I hope it continues, and shares both it's excellent coaching, and other football resources. I am sure they will, but would like to know the detail and specific criteria, ? . Who knows perhaps in time we will.........
Regarding the (private / grant) funding, does it only matter to us as supporters if....
1. Player(s) are sold to help fund the development 2. The Community Trust are unfairly marginalised from the development
Or are there any other reasons why we should be interested whether the funding comes from grants or Starprix ?
Yes, because regardless of 1) the cost is likely to be attached to the business as debt and interest charged on it, presumably at 3 per cent as with other debt to Staprix. There will be different views of how much this matters and we can't know what RD's ultimate attitude to the debt or ability to recover it will be, but I don't think it can just be ignored or treated as a gift. This has to be balanced against the fact that the facilities would otherwise have been encumbered with some obligations as a result of the grants, which will no longer be the case.
The other question ought to be, is this scheme - if eventually approved - delivering £10m (or whatever) extra value to the club over and above what it would have got from the original?
I agree with the first para. Money spent is still money spent.
As well as the debt there is also the opportunity cost. If RD is putting another £6m into Sparrows Lane then that is £6m that could have been spent on the Valley, on non-playing staff and staff and fan facilities or something that really matters like the Museum (that's a joke folks, museum has a £0 budget from CAFC and it will stay that way). That money sits outside of FFP.
On the 2nd para. It is very hard to say. Costs were IIRC said to be £4m but all coming from external sources so nothing from CAFC. Now there is talk of £10m but I'm not clear if CAFC (read RD) is paying all of that or just the additional £6m. If £10m is the correct number.
The plans don't seem to show much room for the Community Trust offices. Not that they have much now but I was expecting more. But I'm no expert in reading such plans and as KM said at Bromley Addicks this is a delicate time so maybe they are not giving us the full story so a to not queer the pitch.
Regarding the (private / grant) funding, does it only matter to us as supporters if....
1. Player(s) are sold to help fund the development 2. The Community Trust are unfairly marginalised from the development
Or are there any other reasons why we should be interested whether the funding comes from grants or Starprix ?
Yes, because regardless of 1) the cost is likely to be attached to the business as debt and interest charged on it, presumably at 3 per cent as with other debt to Staprix. There will be different views of how much this matters and we can't know what RD's ultimate attitude to the debt or ability to recover it will be, but I don't think it can just be ignored or treated as a gift. This has to be balanced against the fact that the facilities would otherwise have been encumbered with some obligations as a result of the grants, which will no longer be the case.
The other question ought to be, is this scheme - if eventually approved - delivering £10m (or whatever) extra value to the club over and above what it would have got from the original?
I agree with the first para. Money spent is still money spent.
As well as the debt there is also the opportunity cost. If RD is putting another £6m into Sparrows Lane then that is £6m that could have been spent on the Valley, on non-playing staff and staff and fan facilities or something that really matters like the Museum (that's a joke folks, museum has a £0 budget from CAFC and it will stay that way). That money sits outside of FFP.
On the 2nd para. It is very hard to say. Costs were IIRC said to be £4m but all coming from external sources so nothing from CAFC. Now there is talk of £10m but I'm not clear if CAFC (read RD) is paying all of that or just the additional £6m. If £10m is the correct number.
The plans don't seem to show much room for the Community Trust offices. Not that they have much now but I was expecting more. But I'm no expert in reading such plans and as KM said at Bromley Addicks this is a delicate time so maybe they are not giving us the full story so a to not queer the pitch.
"As part of the redevelopement [sic] process most of the existing buildings that are currently on site will be demolished as part of the combination of projects A and B."
Managed to extract this from the PDF on line. At 'first glance' the plan's look good. But as I say, looking good and final build may well be different, to these details, and the addition for an indoor pitch , and accomodation have been specified for Cat 1 status. Good to see sports science, and an indoor gym.
I see that there is a condition on the time that the floodlights can be used, and the car park may at times be a bit crowded, especially for events, in my opinion, but that could be sorted with perhaps an arrangement with Greenwich University, and Footscray Rugby club, for those situations.
The community offices do look a little minimal, but again that may be adapted, and with hot desking and the mobile communication, staff I am sure will find means and ways......
The financing, and running costs....... well I leave that to the bean counters: From the PDF......
Charlton Athletic is one of the most successful clubs in the country in operating its community programme. Part of the Football in the Community programme operates from the training ground in a dedicated building in the northern part of the site. However, there is a shortage of classroom and general welfare space for the existing programmes and dedicated changing facilities. As is common with a number of clubs, it is best to separate the operation of the community facilities from those of the academy and professional users. That is what is proposed at Sparrows Lane. The community hub building is shown in the southern part of the site basically in the location of the existing informal car park. It will be located approximately 140m away from the backs of houses on Tiverton Road. It will use a new floodlit pitch to the north of the community hub building. This is some 110m away from the nearest houses. The floodlit pitch will be subject to a planning condition that requires the lights to be switched off by 10pm at the latest. The Club is proud of its partnership with the University of Greenwich and it will continue to work closely with the University in relation to the existing community links it has with them. It is also in discussions with local sporting groups such as Footscray rugby club about future co-operation.
The academy/professional building is in two parts. Firstly the changing rooms; class rooms; parents’ lounge; education, administration, welfare and medical facilities (including gymnasium) that are required by the football authorities to enable Charlton Athletic to have Category 1 status. Included within the main building (which is very similar in size to the one the Council approved in 2014) are those facilities that will be checked off by the football authorities against the EPPP to enable the Club to have Category 1 status. The floor plans show the facilities at each level at ground, first and second floor. At second floor there are some recovery/medical treatment rooms and en-suite accommodation for a relatively small number of academy students who would need overnight accommodation on the site. It is a requirement of Category 1 that provision should be made on the site for academy accommodation. The second part is the new indoor pitch. This is a ‘must have’ for Category 1 and was not included in the 2014 scheme. Although the recommended size of an indoor pitch for Category 1 clubs is over 100m x 60m the minimum size is 60 yards by 40 yards with the appropriate surrounds. Charlton has elected to go for the minimum size. In addition to the buildings themselves, there will be car parking to serve the academy first team facility of some 80 spaces. As part of the redevelopement process most of the existing buildings that are currently on site will be demolished as part of the combination of projects A and B. The site layout for project A shows there will be floodlit pitches in the locations shown in dark green. There are already two floodlit pitches on the site and the location of these will be broadly similar on the new layout. You will see from a typical floodlight pitch scheme that the lighting is very much concentrated on the pitch. There will be no ‘spill’ outwards.
Regarding the (private / grant) funding, does it only matter to us as supporters if....
1. Player(s) are sold to help fund the development 2. The Community Trust are unfairly marginalised from the development
Or are there any other reasons why we should be interested whether the funding comes from grants or Starprix ?
Yes, because regardless of 1) the cost is likely to be attached to the business as debt and interest charged on it, presumably at 3 per cent as with other debt to Staprix. There will be different views of how much this matters and we can't know what RD's ultimate attitude to the debt or ability to recover it will be, but I don't think it can just be ignored or treated as a gift. This has to be balanced against the fact that the facilities would otherwise have been encumbered with some obligations as a result of the grants, which will no longer be the case. The other question ought to be, is this scheme - if eventually approved - delivering £10m (or whatever) extra value to the club over and above what it would have got from the original?
Will the new building contribute to getting category 1? And if so how much would that be worth to the club? Also worth factoring in that the new building will probably be good for another 30 years or so longer than the existing building.
Might be wrong here but I seem to remember KM saying at the VIP meeting that RD was now funding the total cost of the redevelopment himself with no external funding. Or maybe he was funding the additional cost?
Regarding the (private / grant) funding, does it only matter to us as supporters if....
1. Player(s) are sold to help fund the development 2. The Community Trust are unfairly marginalised from the development
Or are there any other reasons why we should be interested whether the funding comes from grants or Starprix ?
Yes, because regardless of 1) the cost is likely to be attached to the business as debt and interest charged on it, presumably at 3 per cent as with other debt to Staprix. There will be different views of how much this matters and we can't know what RD's ultimate attitude to the debt or ability to recover it will be, but I don't think it can just be ignored or treated as a gift. This has to be balanced against the fact that the facilities would otherwise have been encumbered with some obligations as a result of the grants, which will no longer be the case. The other question ought to be, is this scheme - if eventually approved - delivering £10m (or whatever) extra value to the club over and above what it would have got from the original?
Will the new building contribute to getting category 1? And if so how much would that be worth to the club? Also worth factoring in that the new building will probably be good for another 30 years or so longer than the existing building.
I think you've misunderstood the basis of the comparison, which is between the new building put forward in 2014 (at no cost to the club) and the new building put forward now. Probably my fault for using the word "original".
The 2014 one was good enough for category one, or so we were told last year. If so that isn't a benefit you can set against the extra spend.
Actually, the financial consequences of category one are mixed. You have to increase your academy operating budget from £1.1m to more than £2.5m - you get more grant, I think it's about half the estimated cost in each case - but you have a bigger funding gap to fill. There is a benefit in terms of player compensation, but that depends on you losing young players in the first place.
One of the key differences seems to be that you play against other category one academies, which I can see is desirable but is hard to value in cash terms.
Regarding the (private / grant) funding, does it only matter to us as supporters if....
1. Player(s) are sold to help fund the development 2. The Community Trust are unfairly marginalised from the development
Or are there any other reasons why we should be interested whether the funding comes from grants or Starprix ?
Yes, because regardless of 1) the cost is likely to be attached to the business as debt and interest charged on it, presumably at 3 per cent as with other debt to Staprix. There will be different views of how much this matters and we can't know what RD's ultimate attitude to the debt or ability to recover it will be, but I don't think it can just be ignored or treated as a gift. This has to be balanced against the fact that the facilities would otherwise have been encumbered with some obligations as a result of the grants, which will no longer be the case. The other question ought to be, is this scheme - if eventually approved - delivering £10m (or whatever) extra value to the club over and above what it would have got from the original?
Will the new building contribute to getting category 1? And if so how much would that be worth to the club? Also worth factoring in that the new building will probably be good for another 30 years or so longer than the existing building.
Yes, but then so would the original one have, we were told. So that isn't a benefit to set against the £10m, necessarily. Actually, the financial consequences of Category One are mixed. You have to increase your operating budget from £1.1m to more than £2.5m - you get more grant, I think it's about half the estimated cost - but you have a bigger funding gap. There is a benefit in terms of player compensation, but that depends on you losing players in the first place.
But, in theory at least, you can hang on to players longer and you're able to sign players younger. Hard to quantify those benefits in purely cash term though but most would say being able to recruit and keep more like Joe Gomez would be good financially and in terms of filling a place on the pitch that otherwise is filled by an player we have to buy or who is of a lesser quality.
Properly resourced both at the front end (recruiting young players) and at the back end (not selling them too early) should give us financial and playing benefits over and above the extra costs of running the academy at Cat 1.
When it happens that wil be worthy of giving great credit to RD even if it was a plan from the early Kevin Cash/Varney era. RD is the one, we hope, who will make it a reality.
Have we missed a trick with funding and grants? Maybe so although Tony Keone (sp?) said that the Premier League funding was still in place (VIP Meeting). Something to ask KM at the next Bromley Addicks meeting.
I am pretty sure he said the funding was still there but with conditions. There unfortunately was no follow up question asking what those conditions were.
Regarding the (private / grant) funding, does it only matter to us as supporters if....
1. Player(s) are sold to help fund the development 2. The Community Trust are unfairly marginalised from the development
Or are there any other reasons why we should be interested whether the funding comes from grants or Starprix ?
Yes, because regardless of 1) the cost is likely to be attached to the business as debt and interest charged on it, presumably at 3 per cent as with other debt to Staprix. There will be different views of how much this matters and we can't know what RD's ultimate attitude to the debt or ability to recover it will be, but I don't think it can just be ignored or treated as a gift. This has to be balanced against the fact that the facilities would otherwise have been encumbered with some obligations as a result of the grants, which will no longer be the case. The other question ought to be, is this scheme - if eventually approved - delivering £10m (or whatever) extra value to the club over and above what it would have got from the original?
Will the new building contribute to getting category 1? And if so how much would that be worth to the club? Also worth factoring in that the new building will probably be good for another 30 years or so longer than the existing building.
Yes, but then so would the original one have, we were told. So that isn't a benefit to set against the £10m, necessarily. Actually, the financial consequences of Category One are mixed. You have to increase your operating budget from £1.1m to more than £2.5m - you get more grant, I think it's about half the estimated cost - but you have a bigger funding gap. There is a benefit in terms of player compensation, but that depends on you losing players in the first place.
But, in theory at least, you can hang on to players longer and you're able to sign players younger. Hard to quantify those benefits in purely cash term though but most would say being able to recruit and keep more like Joe Gomez would be good financially and in terms of filling a place on the pitch that otherwise is filled by an player we have to buy or who is of a lesser quality.
Properly resourced both at the front end (recruiting young players) and at the back end (not selling them too early) should give us financial and playing benefits over and above the extra costs of running the academy at Cat 1.
When it happens that wil be worthy of giving great credit to RD even if it was a plan from the early Kevin Cash/Varney era. RD is the one, we hope, who will make it a reality.
Have we missed a trick with funding and grants? Maybe so although Tony Keone (sp?) said that the Premier League funding was still in place (VIP Meeting). Something to ask KM at the next Bromley Addicks meeting.
The level of Premier League funding was very much based on the inclusiveness of the scheme. That was their interest, in being seen to support the community. In my view there is no way the club would get anything like £1.5m from them on the basis of this scheme, which is the opposite of what they wanted to show they were doing, and I'm sure the club knows that very well.
We can also perhaps see why the University of Greenwich money was diverted into revenue to make up for the lack of an alternative shirt sponsor now.
I believe you can sign nine-year-olds as a category two academy, but would need to check. However, of course we should be aiming for category one and of course the owner will deserve the credit if we get it. It looks a good scheme for the football club, which is the main issue. It's just a very different one in ethos from what was put forward and promoted as desirable by this regime a year ago - contradictory, in fact - and there are still a few questions to be asked about whether it will get permission and the finance. It won't be a good scheme if it can't be built!
publicaccess.royalgreenwich.gov.uk:81/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=_GRNW_DCAPR_80870 Posting on phone so don't know if the link above will work but all the new drawings are there to see now.
sounds like the 'funding' is all coming from RD's pocket
From that article it seems costs up to £15m of it. Not sure how they know that as they haven't given a source.
Does seem a huge jump from £4m to £10 and now £15m
The planning submission suggests that the old plans were not sufficient for Cat 1 Academy status which surprises me.
Either rules have changed, we go it wrong or that is being used as an excuse.
Can't see a negative in having a bigger and better facility though other than where that £10m of £15m debt will sit and a possibly lesser role and facilities for the Community Trust.
Does seem a bit odd to turn down £4m of external funding so I suspect that either it has already been lost (due to time lapsed) or the conditions that came with it weren't to RDs liking.
Hard to see negatives. Also implies that RD is in it for the long haul. That bodes well for me as a training / Academy facility like that is only viable or indeed worth having if you are in the Premier League or at least in the mix at the top of The Championship.
Comments
As you say, it will be a significant statement by RD if it happens.
so how different are these plans to the originals?
The “invitation only” Local Residents Exhibition, referred to in the pdf attached to your email, has not been arranged by the Council but, I believe, by the football club itself, and appears to be an event to show local people their new plans that appear to be on a larger scale than the scheme that achieved planning permission last year. ( received last Tuesday)
David Gittens
Area Planning Manager (East)
Directorate of Regeneration, Enterprise and Skills
Royal Borough of Greenwich
I imagine this was to inform residents of the potential application, but as this was not a public meeting, ( by invite only) and as plans were not submitted it is hard to come to any informed opinion on what will actually be submitted, let alone built.
By the way Neil Willey is now the Area planning manager, for this sector of the council....... as RBG have now 'swapped' the managers department?.......bit like musical chairs. People will be able to view the plans once they are submitted. This was sent to me last Tuesday.
In essence the plans for the training ground look positive and will underpin an important part of the way forward for CAFC, and the current board, from what I can assume. Of course the devil is in the detail, and no such more than in planning matters.
The key change is that the community element of the scheme has been stripped out and isolated from the rest, which is very much contrary to the ethos of the original scheme as that was all about being inclusive and sold to the council on that basis. It's easy to see why this is attractive to the club - it wouldn't have been to the external funders.
This allows them to make additional use of the main building, which is now said to be "very similar" in size to the approved despite the addition of an indoor pitch. Although the club correctly says this was not included in the original scheme, this is because it was already provided by the University of Greenwich on the adjacent site by means of a part-year enclosure. Clearly this is a better facility.
[Edit] The swimming pool put forward by RD at a project meeting last spring is not included - there is some residential accommodation, which may be a planning problem. Whether the club is in fact required to provide it on site to achieve Category One as it claims here needs research.
However, why it should all now cost double the previous scheme is a bit of a mystery to me at first glance.
The main issue with this scheme will be the location of the main building (it looks to me to have been moved to the south) and whether it is more intrusive in the landscape as a consequence, and the addition of another building nearer Sparrows Lane for the community - the overall footprint is now larger than before, but probably not as big as the existing in total, which is important.
The fact this is being presented as two schemes might suggest the consultants think there is a risk of the community hub being turned down on location - although in respect of usage the planners will be more sympathetic to the community element than to the main building. It looks as if the community facilities are significantly reduced, as is the proposed relationship with the University of Greenwich and others.
On the other hand, I doubt if permission would be granted for the main building at all without replacement community facilities.
Overall, I think it will be contentious in planning terms.
It seems the secondary vehicle access to Footscray Road is no longer part of the scheme. The club cannot rely on the existing permission around vehicle movements via Sparrows Lane unless it can show that overall movements there will be no greater than agreed in 2014, presumably because of the removal of much community use (which was 55 per cent of the original scheme). If there is to be no material increase then it is not potential grounds for refusal.
The floodlighting of a new community artificial pitch in a different location is another potential issue.
I was struggling to reconcile these plans with those suggested before ie the pool.
My question remains where is the funding coming from?
Is it that grants and other external funding have been missed/lost or that the club decided to pay for all or at least at higher percentage so as to have more control over design and long term usage.
Or maybe the former forced the latter.
Not clear on the comment on the other thread from @cafcfan about the indoor facility not meeting cat 1 requirements. Where is this specified?
There are bound to be compromises along the way with such projects and changes made due to public and local authority requirements as well as funding issues.
Still remains a huge step forward for the club to have far better and bigger facilities IMHO.
"The intention is to replace all of the existing buildings across the site with a new integrated ‘hub’ at the heart, used by all stakeholders, community and club reflecting the totally inclusive ethos of the football club.
“The project is strategically supported by the Football Association who have reviewed and endorsed a Football Development Plan developed by the club and the main community football partner, Junior Reds Football Club, which runs 57 teams of all ages.
“The facility will also be used by other local football clubs, local schools and community groups as the trust will support Charter Standard clubs and help others to achieve this. The Football Foundation and Premier League are also expected to offer significant support to the scheme.
“Charlton Athletic Football Club and Charlton Athletic Community Trust work closely with a range of partnership agencies all of whom will be involved in and benefit from the new facility, including Oxleas Mental Health Trust, University of Greenwich, Greenwich Leisure Ltd and Greenwich Community College.
“This new shared facility will address the provision of an enhanced level of community programmes delivered in an environment where young people can integrate with professional and youth players alike, providing community facilities to support local club growth – to inspire and aspire."
What it says now: "As is common with a number of clubs, it is best to separate the operation of the community facilities from those of the academy and professional users. That is what is proposed at Sparrows Lane."
1. Player(s) are sold to help fund the development
2. The Community Trust are unfairly marginalised from the development
Or are there any other reasons why we should be interested whether the funding comes from grants or Starprix ?
The funders were thus not the only people who needed to be impressed by the community aspects. They will have been key to persuading the planning authority because of the difficulty of developing a larger facility on Metropolitan Open Land. This is larger still but with the community benefits scaled down, to say the least. The club will have an idea what the planners think because they had what I take to have been formal pre-planning advice in February. It is, however, a big change of direction from the previous planning statement and the council will see that.
It doesn't say that the indoor facility will not meet requirements - it says it will meet the minimum but not the recommended.
The other question ought to be, is this scheme - if eventually approved - delivering £10m (or whatever) extra value to the club over and above what it would have got from the original?
Of course when I originally saw this I thought, that will be great for me personally, as I was a chairman of a local football team, that in fact is playing next door to Sparrows lane this Saturday. (away) and my sons are playing at the other 'partners' pitches :Footscray Rugby club. Not sure that despite being a chartered club, wether it be Erith 147, who pay at STC, Red velvet who play at Eltham Town, or Blackheath Wanderers, any of this team's who hire pitches from that area will be allowed to use these facilities?. I will assume that this means Juniors Reds teams, which are affiliate to CAFC. But as someone who has regular contact with the owners of both the ground owners, and certainly the local mens football teams playing in the Kent premier, and South Alliance who would welcome the use of the 3g pitches for training if nothing else. I am sure there will be a big demand for training on the all weather, as that particular area does suffer from poor weather pitches from December till March, and I am sure junior football clubs would warmly welcome the proposed site. CAFC have an excellent football community history, I hope it continues, and shares both it's excellent coaching, and other football resources. I am sure they will, but would like to know the detail and specific criteria, ? . Who knows perhaps in time we will.........
As well as the debt there is also the opportunity cost. If RD is putting another £6m into Sparrows Lane then that is £6m that could have been spent on the Valley, on non-playing staff and staff and fan facilities or something that really matters like the Museum (that's a joke folks, museum has a £0 budget from CAFC and it will stay that way). That money sits outside of FFP.
On the 2nd para. It is very hard to say. Costs were IIRC said to be £4m but all coming from external sources so nothing from CAFC. Now there is talk of £10m but I'm not clear if CAFC (read RD) is paying all of that or just the additional £6m. If £10m is the correct number.
The plans don't seem to show much room for the Community Trust offices. Not that they have much now but I was expecting more. But I'm no expert in reading such plans and as KM said at Bromley Addicks this is a delicate time so maybe they are not giving us the full story so a to not queer the pitch.
Previously all, I think.
But as I say, looking good and final build may well be different, to these details, and the addition for an indoor pitch , and accomodation have been specified for Cat 1 status. Good to see sports science, and an indoor gym.
I see that there is a condition on the time that the floodlights can be used, and the car park may at times be a bit crowded, especially for events, in my opinion, but that could be sorted with perhaps an arrangement with Greenwich University, and Footscray Rugby club, for those situations.
The community offices do look a little minimal, but again that may be adapted, and with hot desking and the mobile communication, staff I am sure will find means and ways......
The financing, and running costs....... well I leave that to the bean counters:
From the PDF......
Charlton Athletic is one of the most successful clubs in the country in
operating its community programme. Part of the Football in the Community
programme operates from the training ground in a dedicated building in the
northern part of the site. However, there is a shortage of classroom and
general welfare space for the existing programmes and dedicated changing
facilities.
As is common with a number of clubs, it is best to separate the operation
of the community facilities from those of the academy and professional
users. That is what is proposed at Sparrows Lane. The community hub
building is shown in the southern part of the site basically in the location of
the existing informal car park. It will be located approximately 140m away
from the backs of houses on Tiverton Road. It will use a new floodlit pitch
to the north of the community hub building. This is some 110m away from
the nearest houses. The floodlit pitch will be subject to a planning
condition that requires the lights to be switched off by 10pm at the latest.
The Club is proud of its partnership with the University of Greenwich and it
will continue to work closely with the University in relation to the existing
community links it has with them. It is also in discussions with local
sporting groups such as Footscray rugby club about future co-operation.
The academy/professional building is in two parts. Firstly the changing rooms;
class rooms; parents’ lounge; education, administration, welfare and medical
facilities (including gymnasium) that are required by the football authorities to
enable Charlton Athletic to have Category 1 status. Included within the main
building (which is very similar in size to the one the Council approved in 2014) are
those facilities that will be checked off by the football authorities against the EPPP
to enable the Club to have Category 1 status.
The floor plans show the facilities at each level at ground, first and second floor. At
second floor there are some recovery/medical treatment rooms and en-suite
accommodation for a relatively small number of academy students who would need
overnight accommodation on the site. It is a requirement of Category 1 that
provision should be made on the site for academy accommodation.
The second part is the new indoor pitch. This is a ‘must have’ for Category 1 and
was not included in the 2014 scheme. Although the recommended size of an
indoor pitch for Category 1 clubs is over 100m x 60m the minimum size is 60 yards
by 40 yards with the appropriate surrounds. Charlton has elected to go for the
minimum size.
In addition to the buildings themselves, there will be car parking to serve the
academy first team facility of some 80 spaces.
As part of the redevelopement process most of the existing buildings that are
currently on site will be demolished as part of the combination of projects A and B.
The site layout for project A shows there will be floodlit pitches in the locations
shown in dark green. There are already two floodlit pitches on the site and the
location of these will be broadly similar on the new layout. You will see from a
typical floodlight pitch scheme that the lighting is very much concentrated on the
pitch. There will be no ‘spill’ outwards.
The 2014 one was good enough for category one, or so we were told last year. If so that isn't a benefit you can set against the extra spend.
Actually, the financial consequences of category one are mixed. You have to increase your academy operating budget from £1.1m to more than £2.5m - you get more grant, I think it's about half the estimated cost in each case - but you have a bigger funding gap to fill. There is a benefit in terms of player compensation, but that depends on you losing young players in the first place.
One of the key differences seems to be that you play against other category one academies, which I can see is desirable but is hard to value in cash terms.
Properly resourced both at the front end (recruiting young players) and at the back end (not selling them too early) should give us financial and playing benefits over and above the extra costs of running the academy at Cat 1.
When it happens that wil be worthy of giving great credit to RD even if it was a plan from the early Kevin Cash/Varney era. RD is the one, we hope, who will make it a reality.
Have we missed a trick with funding and grants? Maybe so although Tony Keone (sp?) said that the Premier League funding was still in place (VIP Meeting). Something to ask KM at the next Bromley Addicks meeting.
We can also perhaps see why the University of Greenwich money was diverted into revenue to make up for the lack of an alternative shirt sponsor now.
I believe you can sign nine-year-olds as a category two academy, but would need to check. However, of course we should be aiming for category one and of course the owner will deserve the credit if we get it. It looks a good scheme for the football club, which is the main issue. It's just a very different one in ethos from what was put forward and promoted as desirable by this regime a year ago - contradictory, in fact - and there are still a few questions to be asked about whether it will get permission and the finance. It won't be a good scheme if it can't be built!
Posting on phone so don't know if the link above will work but all the new drawings are there to see now.
Cheers PBS
Does seem a huge jump from £4m to £10 and now £15m
The planning submission suggests that the old plans were not sufficient for Cat 1 Academy status which surprises me.
Either rules have changed, we go it wrong or that is being used as an excuse.
Can't see a negative in having a bigger and better facility though other than where that £10m of £15m debt will sit and a possibly lesser role and facilities for the Community Trust.
Does seem a bit odd to turn down £4m of external funding so I suspect that either it has already been lost (due to time lapsed) or the conditions that came with it weren't to RDs liking.