[cite]Posted By: Salad[/cite]Does anyone know why it was rejected? I didn't see the programme.
Apologies if this is covered by a thread I missed.
arguement over the usage of the 9 flats in the East Stand (no Goonerhater not the Jimmy Seed Stand). Council want it to be people associated with Charlton but the club don't.
It's not been rejected. The council imposed a condition on the proposed flats in the corner which dictated that the people living in them had to be connected to the club and appears to have refused an application to delete this condition. From my own experience of sitting on Bexley's planning committee I would think the condition is unenforceable and too vaguely drawn, plus I doubt the council can justify it to satisfy planning law, so I would think an inspector would set it aside on appeal. In any event, it doesn't of itself prevent the club building the stand or the flats, it just potentially affects their ability to rent the flats out.
[cite]Posted By: Salad[/cite]Does anyone know why it was rejected? I didn't see the programme.
Apologies if this is covered by a thread I missed.
arguement over the usage of the 9 flats in the East Stand (no Goonerhater not the Jimmy Seed Stand). Council want it to be people associated with Charlton but the club don't.
It's on the OS if you want to read it.
How vague is that? "people associated with the club" Surely by renting the flats from the club, technically, they would be "associated with the club".
Surely, from the council point of view, they would have been better to have it open to anyone?
[cite]Posted By: Salad[/cite]Does anyone know why it was rejected? I didn't see the programme.
Apologies if this is covered by a thread I missed.
arguement over the usage of the 9 flats in the East Stand (no Goonerhater not the Jimmy Seed Stand). Council want it to be people associated with Charlton but the club don't.
It's on the OS if you want to read it.
How vague is that? "people associated with the club" Surely by renting the flats from the club, technically, they would be "associated with the club".
Surely, from the council point of view, they would have been better to have it open to anyone?
Exactly. If we made them Red card holders would that be an association? It's a silly condition but it would effect the club's ability to rent out the flats or sell the leasehold.
Not sure why the council are sticking to this. Originally Charlton put it in the planning application but then changed it but the council aren't happy.
I personally would be happy with the vagueness of the safeguard. Charlton could now insist that to rent the flats, you have to be a member of the club, which with the Red Card scheme is free membership.
You can't get anymore connected with the club than a club member, can you ?
I'd like to see the legal justification being put forward, but I am guessing the council knows the condition will be thrown out by an inspector because their planning officers aren't stupid even of the councillors have a limited grasp of planning law. It suggests to me they don't want to be seen to remove it themselves.
I don't see why the club doesn't just ignore the condition and challenge the council to enforce it. They wouldn't be able to do so.
[cite]Posted By: InspectorSands[/cite]There's a couple of houses in Lansdowne Mews (where that little building is?) used by the club at the moment, isn't there?
If you look at '9 o'clock' on that picture you can see the flats.
As Airman Brown says, the planning conditions of the flats only being made available to residents 'associated with the Club' means absolutely nothing and is totally unenforceable by the Councils Planners. I can't believe we're going to the environment secretary on this.
The money from selling these properties goes some way towards the construction costs of the next stage of The Valley Development.
Bloody Labour Councillors - they're all the same ;-)
[cite]Posted By: nolly[/cite]its not going to happen for time anyway,dont see the point of it all at moment.
Major building project have long run up times so even if the club aren't going to build tomorrow you still want to make sure you have all the permissions etc etc in place so you are ready to go when we find a few bob down the back of the sofa.
The flats and their income just make the whole project a little more viable.
[cite]Posted By: Addickted[/cite]If you look at '9 o'clock' on that picture you can see the flats.
That's what I thought. Seems the most likely place for some flats.
[cite]Posted By: nolly[/cite]its not going to happen for time anyway, don't see the point of it all at moment.
Jezzzus. Don't think all the groundwork should be done, and red tape cut, well in advance so that when conditions are right we can get the project underway? Thank heavens you chose not to invest your millions into the club nolly...
Comments
arguement over the usage of the 9 flats in the East Stand (no Goonerhater not the Jimmy Seed Stand). Council want it to be people associated with Charlton but the club don't.
It's on the OS if you want to read it.
How vague is that? "people associated with the club" Surely by renting the flats from the club, technically, they would be "associated with the club".
Surely, from the council point of view, they would have been better to have it open to anyone?
Exactly. If we made them Red card holders would that be an association? It's a silly condition but it would effect the club's ability to rent out the flats or sell the leasehold.
Not sure why the council are sticking to this. Originally Charlton put it in the planning application but then changed it but the council aren't happy.
You can't get anymore connected with the club than a club member, can you ?
I don't see why the club doesn't just ignore the condition and challenge the council to enforce it. They wouldn't be able to do so.
The whole development is fairly academic at the moement anyway, isn't it?
OS story
On a lighter note: at if you had a flat in that stand you`d have no reason to complain about the noise.
"Ducks for cover"
As Airman Brown says, the planning conditions of the flats only being made available to residents 'associated with the Club' means absolutely nothing and is totally unenforceable by the Councils Planners. I can't believe we're going to the environment secretary on this.
The money from selling these properties goes some way towards the construction costs of the next stage of The Valley Development.
Bloody Labour Councillors - they're all the same ;-)
Major building project have long run up times so even if the club aren't going to build tomorrow you still want to make sure you have all the permissions etc etc in place so you are ready to go when we find a few bob down the back of the sofa.
The flats and their income just make the whole project a little more viable.
That's what I thought. Seems the most likely place for some flats.
Jezzzus. Don't think all the groundwork should be done, and red tape cut, well in advance so that when conditions are right we can get the project underway? Thank heavens you chose not to invest your millions into the club nolly...
Why the feck cant the Council cut to the chase and build next to the Dome !!!
LOL Pete Did you ever watch a TV show called "the X files". you would have liked it.
Probably cost more than the llanera draw thingy.