Just had a look at the application history. Seems there have been a number of applications over the years which - since a (lapsed ) development was approved in 2000 for 12 units - have all been rejected or revised because Of being deemed over-intensive and not suitable for the area.
Applications for 40 units down to 22 units have all been kicked out. This application is for 21 units, with it seems only 10 parking spaces.
I must've missed something, but why is everyone so convinced now that the end of the valley is nigh? The Council site still says "awaiting decision". Has this been released now?
The applicant looks to be selling their home(last development) to fund this. Check out 8 Orchard Avenue, Belvedere on Zoopla(address given on council website). A 1mm plus home built in Belvedere(yes Belvedere!). Also note Chelsea shirt in pictures of house. From the pictures of the house you can see it's a serious developer! Expect no favours!
If they're selling that place to fund this development I can promise you they're not a serious player. £1.5m won't cover the construction costs.
Serious players use other people's money to fund developments like Lansdowne Mews!
Yeah what about that retired bloke Pete in Thailand, he's just had a win full hasn't he and had many happy memories of the South stand area near this bit of land, even though it wasn't built at the time. What do reckon Offy, would he chuck his winnings in to help buy it back?
If I'd bought the land and had invested £50k in gaining planning permission for this sort of development, then I'd want to double my money!
Easy £500k profit to be made from 17 flats and four semis here.
I don't doubt that you'd want to double your money, but if the planning was very likely then surely the owner of the plot would want more for it. To turn £150k into £300k in a matter of months would surely have a queue around the corner. I could find half a dozen people in fifteen minutes with the cash to fund it without any finance.
I asked if I was missing something because I thought someone might have some insight into how likely the planning was to be approved. If it's turned down (permanently) then the chap has lost £50k plus, which to some extent justifies his reward if he 'wins'.
I just can't see why anyone would sell for £100k when they could spend £50k and quadruple it.
The applicant looks to be selling their home(last development) to fund this. Check out 8 Orchard Avenue, Belvedere on Zoopla(address given on council website). A 1mm plus home built in Belvedere(yes Belvedere!). Also note Chelsea shirt in pictures of house. From the pictures of the house you can see it's a serious developer! Expect no favours!
Satellite that on Google - and street map it. That's a seriously out of place development for the area. Avge property price around 250k and that's been sold for around 1.5mil.
Re the club: I'm confused as to how the the land was sold without anybody else seeming to know about it?
The club obviously knew that it had sold 2 Lansdowne Mews, but this was under the previous administration, specifically Messrs Whitehand and Waggott.
The current adminstration is well aware of the issues for ground redevelopment. However, nobody made the relevant staff aware at the time or subsequently that the sale included the disabled car park, so as far as the club now was concerned it still owned that piece of land. It has recently emerged that this is not the case.
It's worth adding that the sale of the land, rather than the scheme submitted to Greenwich Council, is what compromises the future development of the The Valley.
The planning issues are quite complex and as someone who has five years' experience of sitting on planning committees I have some insight into them. The council will need to judge them on their merits because if they don't their decision will be overruled by the planning inspectorate.
But if the club doesn't have the use of the land it is buggered anyway. The main issue with any development at The Valley is how you get people in and out. The current Lansdowne Mews access is an emergency escape route and it cannot accommodate significantly larger numbers.
Older fans will recall that the club sold off part of the west car park in the mid 90s to stay afloat. Had it retained that land it would have earned many times the capital receipt from car parking revenues.
Just spoke to the case officer: Jessica Lai Case officer tel: 0208 921 5090 Apparently the planning permission has expired, or as was..........( only effective for 3 years) People need to make representation to the council there views and objections. I am sure the club will do, or have already done this, but cannot see any harm in people/supporters writing in to object to this scheme. It does seem to be inappropriate, regardless of the need for housing, social or otherwise. I would have thought that there should be a public enquiry in planning terms for this, to allow all parties to make representation.
Surely the land will be sold back to the club. I guess the issue is about how much the price will be. If planing is refused, and will never be given then the club can take the land back for next to nothing, if planning is granted then the price rises significantly.
I don't doubt that Addickted is correct that the current owner will be happy to sell it back to the club for a price (with planning included). With that being the case it is about how likely the planing is to be granted as to how much the club will have lost out on by selling it and buying it back.
I also suspect that the developer (the current owner or a new one) will not want to build a development that will upset so many football fans. I'm not suggesting that the building work would be delayed or damaged by fans, but in the event that there are alternative options I would imagine that most would steer clear of this development, which will, obviously affect the price.
Surely the land will be sold back to the club. I guess the issue is about how much the price will be. If planing is refused, and will never be given then the club can take the land back for next to nothing, if planning is granted then the price rises significantly.
I don't doubt that Addickted is correct that the current owner will be happy to sell it back to the club for a price (with planning included). With that being the case it is about how likely the planing is to be granted as to how much the club will have lost out on by selling it and buying it back.
You can never say that planning will "never" be given, as every application has to be treated on its merits. The developer can keep going until they find a scheme that overcomes the material planning considerations on which any refusal is based.
not sure if previous mentioned but i would presume that greenwich council would rather have us move to the peninsular anyway. firstly because the area at the valley could make for alot of housing/flats that can be taxed. secondly because they have been trying to find a use for that land near the dome for years. they would hand the land over reassembly cheap to us, we build some horrendous new O2 stadium, in an area that you can’t park or get to easily to watch premiership football.
Just spoke to the case officer: Jessica Lai Case officer tel: 0208 921 5090 Apparently the planning permission has expired, or as was..........( only effective for 3 years) People need to make representation to the council there views and objections. I am sure the club will do, or have already done this, but cannot see any harm in people/supporters writing in to object to this scheme. It does seem to be inappropriate, regardless of the need for housing, social or otherwise. I would have thought that there should be a public enquiry in planning terms for this, to allow all parties to make representation.
You want supporters of the club to write in who do not live in the vicinity and say no to this as the Club want to expand?
You can never say that planning will "never" be given, as every application has to be treated on its merits. The developer can keep going until they find a scheme that overcomes the material planning considerations on which any refusal is based.
Yeah, I understand that. I probably didn't explain myself clearly. What I was getting at is the point at which the speculator gives up applying and accepts that it is a lost cause. Clearly I have no idea how likely the outcomes are, but surely there is a point where the cost of applying again makes it a worthless exercise. Unless the council gives guidance, which does happen in some areas, the application could be made again and again and each time different objections could be raised.
However, yes, there is never a final no, but there is a point at which one has to stop asking - especially if each time costs money.
True, the freeholder of the land in Landsowne Lane (backing onto the Mews) gave up submitting planning applications to build an 8 bedroom house (bedsits) eventually after 3 knock backs. It was a piece of land to the right of the big white house as you are looking down on the Valley. The council turned him down 3 times and hasn't applied since 2003 i think.
The ultimate fall-back position would be to reinstate 2 Lansdowne Mews as was, which may not even need consent and would be impossible to turn down. This would have the same effect on the club and I suggest would still make a profit for the developer.
The ultimate fall-back position would be to reinstate 2 Lansdowne Mews as was, which may not even need consent and would be impossible to turn down. This would have the same effect on the club and I suggest would still make a profit for the developer.
If that's the case (and I don't doubt you) why would the plot have been sold to a developer for less than the value of the house minus the costs of 'developing' it? If it was, it was under priced, at worst, and a fantastic opportunity at best as any new planning would increase the value.
Just spoke to the case officer: Jessica Lai Case officer tel: 0208 921 5090 Apparently the planning permission has expired, or as was..........( only effective for 3 years) People need to make representation to the council there views and objections. I am sure the club will do, or have already done this, but cannot see any harm in people/supporters writing in to object to this scheme. It does seem to be inappropriate, regardless of the need for housing, social or otherwise. I would have thought that there should be a public enquiry in planning terms for this, to allow all parties to make representation.
You want supporters of the club to write in who do not live in the vicinity and say no to this as the Club want to expand?
No curb_it, I just passed on a suggestion by the planning officer. Which would give everybody the opportunity to discuss the matter in an open a transparent way, which would of course involve the club, the residents, and any other interested parties. Or is it that people on a football forum website cannot express a view, or an opinion. Living in the vicinity is not the only criteria, by the way in planning matters. What is the matter curb_it, I seem to have upset you.
You surely can express an opinion and no you certainly haven't upset me... but i find it an odd suggestion that someone who lives in, say Bexley, objects to a block of flats being built in Charlton. What other criteria is there?
If the local residents had issues about planning applications, it wouldn't be about flats it would be about the expansion of the Valley.
The ultimate fall-back position would be to reinstate 2 Lansdowne Mews as was, which may not even need consent and would be impossible to turn down. This would have the same effect on the club and I suggest would still make a profit for the developer.
If that's the case (and I don't doubt you) why would the plot have been sold to a developer for less than the value of the house minus the costs of 'developing' it? If it was, it was under priced, at worst, and a fantastic opportunity at best as any new planning would increase the value.
I have given my views as to the competence of the previous administration in the past.
You surely can express an opinion and no you certainly haven't upset me... but i find it an odd suggestion that someone who lives in, say Bexley, objects to a block of flats being built in Charlton. What other criteria is there?
If the local residents had issues about planning applications, it wouldn't be about flats it would be about the expansion of the Valley.
Because I was born in Charlton , and lived in Coxmount road while at Sherrington school. There are other reasons , but I am sure you will think I am just using it as a platform for self esteem. Ironically, I use the name because I used to phone in to...... Charlton Live, the first instance being about moving from the Valley to Greenwich Peninsular....... Glad I have not upset you.
This just landed on my desk at work, "" Scepticism about a second arena close to the O2 and questions about how this would be funded. Concern from Charlton Athletic FC regarding the possible future use of the arena. "" This was from the end of February this year and is about the Master Plan for Greenwich Peninsula West.
So it seems that the current administration are not looking to move.
Comments
Applications for 40 units down to 22 units have all been kicked out. This application is for 21 units, with it seems only 10 parking spaces.
I must've missed something, but why is everyone so convinced now that the end of the valley is nigh? The Council site still says "awaiting decision". Has this been released now?
Serious players use other people's money to fund developments like Lansdowne Mews!
Land will be worth a lot more with permission - then you sell.
;-)
If he was genuine he'd have his winnings on the 2 dog at Crayford to help us out.
I asked if I was missing something because I thought someone might have some insight into how likely the planning was to be approved. If it's turned down (permanently) then the chap has lost £50k plus, which to some extent justifies his reward if he 'wins'.
I just can't see why anyone would sell for £100k when they could spend £50k and quadruple it.
Re the club: I'm confused as to how the the land was sold without anybody else seeming to know about it?
The current adminstration is well aware of the issues for ground redevelopment. However, nobody made the relevant staff aware at the time or subsequently that the sale included the disabled car park, so as far as the club now was concerned it still owned that piece of land. It has recently emerged that this is not the case.
It's worth adding that the sale of the land, rather than the scheme submitted to Greenwich Council, is what compromises the future development of the The Valley.
The planning issues are quite complex and as someone who has five years' experience of sitting on planning committees I have some insight into them. The council will need to judge them on their merits because if they don't their decision will be overruled by the planning inspectorate.
But if the club doesn't have the use of the land it is buggered anyway. The main issue with any development at The Valley is how you get people in and out. The current Lansdowne Mews access is an emergency escape route and it cannot accommodate significantly larger numbers.
Older fans will recall that the club sold off part of the west car park in the mid 90s to stay afloat. Had it retained that land it would have earned many times the capital receipt from car parking revenues.
Any idea when it was sold?
Case officer tel: 0208 921 5090
Apparently the planning permission has expired, or as was..........( only effective for 3 years)
People need to make representation to the council there views and objections.
I am sure the club will do, or have already done this, but cannot see any harm in people/supporters writing in to object to this scheme.
It does seem to be inappropriate, regardless of the need for housing, social or otherwise.
I would have thought that there should be a public enquiry in planning terms for this, to allow all parties to make representation.
;-)
I don't doubt that Addickted is correct that the current owner will be happy to sell it back to the club for a price (with planning included). With that being the case it is about how likely the planing is to be granted as to how much the club will have lost out on by selling it and buying it back.
I also suspect that the developer (the current owner or a new one) will not want to build a development that will upset so many football fans. I'm not suggesting that the building work would be delayed or damaged by fans, but in the event that there are alternative options I would imagine that most would steer clear of this development, which will, obviously affect the price.
Mock me all you like but if the Club progresses on the playing side The Valley is gone. It might take a few years but the end result is inevitable.
If that makes me a depressive fine but I've never been an ostrich.
EDIT: No intention to single you out Covered End just the way the new quote system shows things.
However, yes, there is never a final no, but there is a point at which one has to stop asking - especially if each time costs money.
Which would give everybody the opportunity to discuss the matter in an open a transparent way, which would of course involve the club, the residents, and any other interested parties. Or is it that people on a football forum website cannot express a view, or an opinion.
Living in the vicinity is not the only criteria, by the way in planning matters. What is the matter curb_it, I seem to have upset you.
If the local residents had issues about planning applications, it wouldn't be about flats it would be about the expansion of the Valley.
There are other reasons , but I am sure you will think I am just using it as a platform for self esteem.
Ironically, I use the name because I used to phone in to...... Charlton Live, the first instance being about moving from the Valley to Greenwich Peninsular....... Glad I have not upset you.
"" Scepticism about a second arena close to the O2 and questions about how this would be funded. Concern from Charlton Athletic FC regarding the possible future use of the arena. ""
This was from the end of February this year and is about the Master Plan for Greenwich Peninsula West.
So it seems that the current administration are not looking to move.