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.
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.
That was posted on here at the time.
lol I should point out it only landed on my desk because someone wanted a scan of it Bloody consultants.
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 usual way this is done is by the owner selling an option to the developer. A smallish fee is paid to the owner who then tries to get planning. If he succeeds then he can either buy the land or share the profits with the owner (depending on the terms of the option).
As Airman says, there's rarely any guarantee of getting planning and its quite an expensive process.
As I have said in a previous thread, the club has missed a trick in letting the East Stand expansion planning permission lapse. It should have been either renewed (before it lapsed) which is a relatively inexpensive application to make or implemented in some small way. The latter would only have required some very minor works but would have had the result of keeping the permission extant (in perpetuity). In both scenarios, one of the material considerations in respect of the current application at Lansdowne Mews would have been whether it would impact on the East Stand proposals as they would be a consented scheme. All hypothetical now of course.
From my understanding there is no reason why this planning application should be refused - and even if it is, the chances are an appeal will be successful, unless the petition is large enough to hold sway (3 objections are not normally considered enough).
The consultation period is over - so pointless making further representations to the Council.
As I have said in a previous thread, the club has missed a trick in letting the East Stand expansion planning permission lapse. It should have been either renewed (before it lapsed) which is a relatively inexpensive application to make or implemented in some small way. The latter would only have required some very minor works but would have had the result of keeping the permission extant (in perpetuity). In both scenarios, one of the material considerations in respect of the current application at Lansdowne Mews would have been whether it would impact on the East Stand proposals as they would be a consented scheme. All hypothetical now of course.
I originally thought this, but if the land that was used for disabled parking was material to the development of the East Stand and that land is no longer available to us it would be irrelevant surely?
Also, regarding implementation of work to keep the permission extant, I was under the impression that work now had to be slightly more than minor but in any case, just how much work could have been carried out with the East Stand in place that would have satisfied the relevant bodies?
Possibly so - depends on the importance of the land to the deliverability of the expansion proposals as opposed to the impact of the proposed flats on the ability to achieve planning permission (which now no longer exists) for the expansion plans in the future. However, implementation of a permission only requires a material start or lawful commencement which can be as simple as digging a trench (probably a bad example). However, in order to be lawful I suppose this would have required discharging all of the pre-commencement planning conditions and some of those would probably have had a significant cost implication in terms of the information that would have needed to have been agreed (consultant's fees, etc). I'd probably over-simplified the issue but the point I was making is that letting the permission lapse makes no sense at all.
I think we also need to consider the possibility that we will never need a much bigger capacity and any cost to save the planning would have been wasted if we never extend the ground.
I think we also need to consider the possibility that we will never need a much bigger capacity and any cost to save the planning would have been wasted if we never extend the ground.
It's certainly a possibility but the last administration thought that to compete in the Premier League we needed to get 40k and the plans were drawn up. Subsequent events made all that planning irrelevant but I dare say the existing owners would come to a similar conclusion and want to increase capacity. Should we ever be fortunate enough to get back to the top table.
I don't doubt it but we were struggling to fill the ground in the last couple of seasons in the Prem. From memory we only achieved sell outs towards the end when we had important games in our relegation battle.
If we could only sell out 27k with Valley Express and very, very competitive season ticket prices I think we are able to assume that 40k would be a struggle.
This is also before we consider a collapse in demand for football in general, like we saw in the 70s and 80s.
I'm not convinced that we will ever be big enough to need a 40k Valley. Liverpool have even struggled to sell out in recent seasons and there is no doubt that they are a much bigger club than us.
I've always thought that 40k was cloud cuckoo land, but some more more modest expansion would be nice. It's easy to say 'we'll need the capacity in the PL' but then the same applies to a lot of clubs, and only 20 at a time can be in the 'promised land'/
I recall that one of the drivers for the East stand extension was to provide segregated executive boxes, as one of the annoyances back in PL days was when the boxes ended up being filled with away fans, and you had this cheering behind you when the away team scored.
Fact is we are only really viable in the top flight with this sort of capacity and there is no reason why we couldnt reach it incrementally over time, we met each and every previous expansion capacity, and are still a large club for league 1 at least.
I don't doubt it but we were struggling to fill the ground in the last couple of seasons in the Prem. From memory we only achieved sell outs towards the end when we had important games in our relegation battle.
If we could only sell out 27k with Valley Express and very, very competitive season ticket prices I think we are able to assume that 40k would be a struggle.
This is also before we consider a collapse in demand for football in general, like we saw in the 70s and 80s.
I'm not convinced that we will ever be big enough to need a 40k Valley. Liverpool have even struggled to sell out in recent seasons and there is no doubt that they are a much bigger club than us.
Well the averages I quoted earlier in the thread don't support that proposition. Our average attendance was consistent throughout our premiership years, in our last 5 seasons our averages ranged from 26.2k to 26.4k, so the difference between our best season and our relegation season was only 200 people, little more than a rounding error in overall attendance. Now the ground may have appeared emptier in the relegation season as empty season ticket seats still count towards average attendance, but over the season roughly the same number of seats were sold each year.
On attendances in the PL, it would always be a stretch to average 40k, but it's pretty easy to see how you could reach 40k for some matches and therefore average 30-35k. Over time you would need to build the home support further, but this isn't difficult to do in the PL as we have shown in the past. Really we only scratched the surface with a small team of people, because there wasn't the available capacity. There is much more than can be done. A big consideration is the potential for more away fans. I also accept that extra seats can potentially reduce the ST base.
Some people seem to be missing the point that the lapsed east stand application and the new one for 2 Lansdowne Mews directly conflict because the east stand one involves using the land at 2 Lansdowne Mews and could not have been implemented without 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!
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!
I've just checked a development of 21 we are planning to build and cost is under £1.7m excluding land, so it is do-able.
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 been down to sort out my season ticket, and while there, poked my nose into the site......... Couple of points. There is a letter addressed to 'whom it may concern' in regard to a locked container, stating that it owns the land adjacent to the mews, where the club have marked out 14 bays, for disabled supporters. The notice also claims that CAFC owns the land. this was dated december 2011, and gave a deadline of 20 Jan 2012. This would appear to confirm what you claim airman. What confuses me is that the Notice of planning for the proposed development is attached to the Charlton gates further along, by the Sam Bartram gates dated the 11th May 2011 ( In that notice it claims 'any person wishing to make representations has until the 01/06/2011). yet when I spoke to the case officer she claimed 'no decision' had been made, and that you could write into the council with your views, which contradicts the notice.....
I am only stating what is there, and in all this 'process' would like to know is it still possible to make a representation/s to the council.
I have no idea why this notice is not on the site intended, perhaps it was but is not today.
That said, in my opinion, the site at present would present quite a difficulty with access, which of course is what the Airman has stated above.
I post the above, to be constructive, and perhaps someone can clarify the position.
In my experience it is still possible to make representations after the deadline in written notices until the point when the planning officers write their report. So if the planning officer Ken spoke to says they would still take representations, then I'd suggest anyone who wants to sends them in - especially people living in the borough as these carry more weight.
You need to object on the grounds of the specific application, not anything hypothetical.
In my experience it is still possible to make representations after the deadline in written notices until the point when the planning officers write their report. So if the planning officer Ken spoke to says they would still take representations, then I'd suggest anyone who wants to sends them in - especially people living in the borough as these carry more weight.
You need to object on the grounds of the specific application, not anything hypothetical.
Apparently so Weegie......
Down there am tommorow opposite the town hall, in Wellington street. Been digging out, my books and so far........
The Layout and Siting, both in itself and relation to adjoining buildings, spaces and views, is inappropriate and unsympathetic to the appearance and character of the local environment.
Insufficient parking space will adversely affect the amenity of surrounding properties through roadside parking on this narrow lane/busy junction etc, and possible loss of disabled parking bays for an established use .i.e. Charlton.
The mass, bulk and proximity of the rear elevation would present an overbearing and intrusive element to those neighbours at the rear of the property. The proposal could lead to vehicles overhanging the adopted highway verge/road to the detriment of other road users.
The proposed extension by reason of it’s siting, would result in an unacceptable loss of privacy, adversely affecting the amenities enjoyed by the occupiers of the adjacent dwelling houses
The proposed development, by reason of it’s size and siting, represents and un-neighbourly form of development that would have an adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties by reason of an overbearing effect.
I don't know anything about planning, but I wonder is there any danger of arguments used against this proposed development (like Ken's above) being dredged up and used again against future development applications that the club might make? I'm just wondering how cautious/gung-ho we should be.
If this application is approved, then that becomes meaningless anyway, Stig. As far as I understand, each application is dealt with on its own merits, so those arguments would only be used on a future application if people submitted them at the time.
Good point Stig, but that is the nature of the beast really. I will have to study the plans in detail, which is why I am going there. Personally speaking, I am more comfortable in planning applications in regard to conservation areas, and listed buildings.
Good point Stig, but that is the nature of the beast really. I will have to study the plans in detail, which is why I am going there. Personally speaking, I am more comfortable in planning applications in regard to conservation areas, and listed buildings.
Ken - am I right in thinking that you don't actually have to own the land to put in an application? I seem to have dredged up from my memory that anyone can slap in an application for anywhere? (Maybe a tower block in Buck House's garden!) Do we know who actually owns the land? Is it not also quite tricky to get applications for in-fill sites rejected?
In my experience it is still possible to make representations after the deadline in written notices until the point when the planning officers write their report. So if the planning officer Ken spoke to says they would still take representations, then I'd suggest anyone who wants to sends them in - especially people living in the borough as these carry more weight.
You need to object on the grounds of the specific application, not anything hypothetical.
Apparently so Weegie......
Down there am tommorow opposite the town hall, in Wellington street. Been digging out, my books and so far........
The Layout and Siting, both in itself and relation to adjoining buildings, spaces and views, is inappropriate and unsympathetic to the appearance and character of the local environment.
Insufficient parking space will adversely affect the amenity of surrounding properties through roadside parking on this narrow lane/busy junction etc, and possible loss of disabled parking bays for an established use .i.e. Charlton.
The mass, bulk and proximity of the rear elevation would present an overbearing and intrusive element to those neighbours at the rear of the property. The proposal could lead to vehicles overhanging the adopted highway verge/road to the detriment of other road users.
The proposed extension by reason of it’s siting, would result in an unacceptable loss of privacy, adversely affecting the amenities enjoyed by the occupiers of the adjacent dwelling houses
The proposed development, by reason of it’s size and siting, represents and un-neighbourly form of development that would have an adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties by reason of an overbearing effect.
Just by way of background I'm a planning lawyer. My firm doesn't look kindly on any sort of moonlighting so need to be careful to be general.
The above is the kind of thing what anyone wishing to make an objection should focus. Appearance, adverse effects on amenity (including daylight issues), quantity of parking spaces, impact on highways, failure to comply with affordanble housing percentages - that kind of thing.
In many cases, the developer and the Council can deal with policy objection via a planning obligation or condition. For example, concerns about overloading nearby streets on parking can be dealt with by requiring that future residents of teh development are informed that they won't get a parking permit (if the area is a CPZ). Nevertheless, the more restrictions that can be imposed on a development, the less likely it is to remain financially viable.
Ideally any objection will cross-reference to policies within Greenwich's development plan document and the London Plan. This makes it easier for planning officers to consider possible issues.
Another good area to attack is rights to light, something smaller developers sometimes overlook. Impacts on light is both a planning issue and a property issue. If neighbouring properties who have a right of light by prescription (20 years) are affected then in certain circumstances they can prevent the development from taking place. Usually they are paid off by the developer but it is not unknown for owners to dig their feet in and stop development from taking place or making teh developer change the proposals (in some cases they have actually had to remove parts of a development).
Comments
Arsenal to come back closer to its natural home?
palarse moving from surry to south london to stop all the miss-understanding over the south london and proud statements.
welling after wining the play off final are aiming for a higher prize of league football and need a stadium to help with this aim.
The only downside is that no fans from the current clubs will support them.
As Airman says, there's rarely any guarantee of getting planning and its quite an expensive process.
The consultation period is over - so pointless making further representations to the Council.
Also, regarding implementation of work to keep the permission extant, I was under the impression that work now had to be slightly more than minor but in any case, just how much work could have been carried out with the East Stand in place that would have satisfied the relevant bodies?
If we could only sell out 27k with Valley Express and very, very competitive season ticket prices I think we are able to assume that 40k would be a struggle.
This is also before we consider a collapse in demand for football in general, like we saw in the 70s and 80s.
I'm not convinced that we will ever be big enough to need a 40k Valley. Liverpool have even struggled to sell out in recent seasons and there is no doubt that they are a much bigger club than us.
I recall that one of the drivers for the East stand extension was to provide segregated executive boxes, as one of the annoyances back in PL days was when the boxes ended up being filled with away fans, and you had this cheering behind you when the away team scored.
Some people seem to be missing the point that the lapsed east stand application and the new one for 2 Lansdowne Mews directly conflict because the east stand one involves using the land at 2 Lansdowne Mews and could not have been implemented without it.
Couple of points. There is a letter addressed to 'whom it may concern' in regard to a locked container, stating that it owns the land adjacent to the mews, where the club have marked out 14 bays, for disabled supporters. The notice also claims that CAFC owns the land. this was dated december 2011, and gave a deadline of 20 Jan 2012. This would appear to confirm what you claim airman. What confuses me is that the Notice of planning for the proposed development is attached to the Charlton gates further along, by the Sam Bartram gates dated the 11th May 2011 ( In that notice it claims 'any person wishing to make representations has until the 01/06/2011). yet when I spoke to the case officer she claimed 'no decision' had been made, and that you could write into the council with your views, which contradicts the notice.....
I am only stating what is there, and in all this 'process' would like to know is it still possible to make a representation/s to the council.
I have no idea why this notice is not on the site intended, perhaps it was but is not today.
That said, in my opinion, the site at present would present quite a difficulty with access, which of course is what the Airman has stated above.
I post the above, to be constructive, and perhaps someone can clarify the position.
You need to object on the grounds of the specific application, not anything hypothetical.
Down there am tommorow opposite the town hall, in Wellington street.
Been digging out, my books and so far........
The Layout and Siting, both in itself and relation to adjoining buildings, spaces and views, is inappropriate and unsympathetic to the appearance and character of the local environment.
Insufficient parking space will adversely affect the amenity of surrounding properties through roadside parking on this narrow lane/busy junction etc, and possible loss of disabled parking bays for an established use .i.e. Charlton.
The mass, bulk and proximity of the rear elevation would present an overbearing and intrusive element to those neighbours at the rear of the property. The proposal could lead to vehicles overhanging the adopted highway verge/road to the detriment of other road users.
The proposed extension by reason of it’s siting, would result in an unacceptable loss of privacy, adversely affecting the amenities enjoyed by the occupiers of the adjacent dwelling houses
The proposed development, by reason of it’s size and siting, represents and un-neighbourly form of development that would have an adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties by reason of an overbearing effect.
He'll take the money and the flats will never get built.
And to add to my post above - 21 residents in new flats next to The Valley would probably be the first ones objecting to any Valley development!
I will have to study the plans in detail, which is why I am going there.
Personally speaking, I am more comfortable in planning applications in regard to conservation areas, and listed buildings.
The above is the kind of thing what anyone wishing to make an objection should focus. Appearance, adverse effects on amenity (including daylight issues), quantity of parking spaces, impact on highways, failure to comply with affordanble housing percentages - that kind of thing.
In many cases, the developer and the Council can deal with policy objection via a planning obligation or condition. For example, concerns about overloading nearby streets on parking can be dealt with by requiring that future residents of teh development are informed that they won't get a parking permit (if the area is a CPZ). Nevertheless, the more restrictions that can be imposed on a development, the less likely it is to remain financially viable.
Ideally any objection will cross-reference to policies within Greenwich's development plan document and the London Plan. This makes it easier for planning officers to consider possible issues.
Another good area to attack is rights to light, something smaller developers sometimes overlook. Impacts on light is both a planning issue and a property issue. If neighbouring properties who have a right of light by prescription (20 years) are affected then in certain circumstances they can prevent the development from taking place. Usually they are paid off by the developer but it is not unknown for owners to dig their feet in and stop development from taking place or making teh developer change the proposals (in some cases they have actually had to remove parts of a development).