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?
Anyone can make a planning application for any land. Usually it will be the owner or someone with an option to develop (otherwise why would you waste your money?)
Thanks jints for the info. I have in fact sent in a preliminary objection to the planning officer , and in fact the parking/access is quite an issue.
In the applicants supplementary submission they themselves admit that the access is difficult. They in fact cite the 'home zone guidelines'. which are open to interpretation on this site. ( you would know that as a lawyer) As I have submitted this is an entrance to a major football stadia , and therefore It hardly needs a leap in imagination into the real world to consider the parking implications of guests to the occupants, emergency services access, and anti social parking in the real world as the provision is at best 'minimal' . Access to emergency vehicles must be restricted and compromised with 27,000 fans passing by the enterance, which is also a disabled parking bay at present. The 'pinching points' are both inadequate (IMO) in regard to the site on such occassions. The road also houses several small industrial developments at the end of Lansdowne mews, so this is a 7 day a week consideration.The applicant admits that the site is not 'fully accesssable to disabled users', and with respect 'best endevours' in regard to the proposal needs to be consisdered at all times not some of the time. After all one could suggest that this type of housing would largely be occupied during the weekend and at night. The turning circle for access in any case is very tight and does not allow for the current disabled parking spaces presently being used by cafc. By the way I did also notice that the house at the very entrance of the mews has been sold, so a 'nudge' to the new owners might get an important objection in regard to the valid points you made, as there property runs adjacent to the proposed development. I have passed the notice on to an architect, to comment on the quality of the development, as I reminded him he owes me a 'favour'.
also why is everyone against this development, if cafc wanted to extend the ground then why have they not offered to buy it back? the plans for the 21 units look really nice and improves the area around our ground.
also why is everyone against this development, if cafc wanted to extend the ground then why have they not offered to buy it back? the plans for the 21 units look really nice and improves the area around our ground.
Because If we did want to expand It makes it very difficult.
then cafc need to buy the land back asap before it is developed because otherwise expansion will mean buying 17 flats and 4 houses and knocking them down.
cafc would never have sold this land if they had intensions of expansion.
The new owners must have been aware what they were buying and if they had any intensions of expansion they would have already approached the land owner to buy it back.
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?
Sorry not to have answered you directly cafcfan but as Jints had already posted what I believe is the position. I do remember this happening 30 odd years ago to a wonderful Victorian house in Bexley Village, that a developer without any interest in put in an application to demolish the house and build apartments. Of course when he got the permission he made a very attractive offer to the owner. I fully appreciate people need decent, affordable housing, normally you do not get that with a speculator. I do remember a time when I was warned off not to play at the back of the valley, due to 'posion' probably toxic waste from the war, or the land owner not wanting kids on his site. The valley always seemed to work in harmony with the local community, the massive terrace, with the houses using the back gardens to watch the game gave it a unique feel, I was not aware of too many complaints, but then I only looked at it from a fans perspective.
New stadium being built and land sold that "buggers" developing The Valley.
Quite apart from losing the ground with our soul who is going to want or be able to afford to pay £20 plus to park at the O2 on top of ticket prices to watch a home game?
Ah well 50 years supporting Charlton, as it will be next season for me, wasn't a bad innings I suppose.
So if we move grounds you're going to stop supporting us are you then Len?
Did you not go to Selhurst Park?
Not often no. Pain in the arse to get to from the depths of Kent although family reasons was the main reason.
Well, it was a good job some of us kept the club going in those dark days then wasn't it - otherwise there'd be no flagpole left for you to run your white flag up!
So if we move grounds you're going to stop supporting us are you then Len?
Did you not go to Selhurst Park?
Not often no. Pain in the arse to get to from the depths of Kent although family reasons was the main reason.
Well, it was a good job some of us kept the club going in those dark days then wasn't it - otherwise there'd be no flagpole left for you to run your white flag up!
Is it fair to surmise from your somewhat dismissive attitude to my concerns that leaving The Valley does not bother you?
Perfectly legitimate viewpoint if so, since you appeared to enjoy watching your team in Croydon, but we'll have to agree to differ on this one as, for me, the ground is as important as the Club.
I don't think any of us "enjoyed" going to SP, but to me the club is the Valley and I wouldn't want to go elsewhere, but I might if I had to and could afford it.
Is it fair to surmise from your somewhat dismissive attitude to my concerns that leaving The Valley does not bother you?
Perfectly legitimate viewpoint if so, since you appeared to enjoy watching your team in Croydon, but we'll have to agree to differ on this one as, for me, the ground is as important as the Club.
Not for the first time Len you are completely wide of the mark.
I did not "enjoy" watching my team in Croydon - and I strongly resent the inference that I did. I don't really think that is the sort of accusation one Charlton fan would reasonably level at another. It's actually quite an offensive remark.
You also suggest that the prospect of leaving The Valley "does not bother" me. Why on earth would you think that? Again, in my view, an offensive remark.
Tell you what, yes, let's agree to disagree. But nothing you can say will ever convince me that wetting my knickers and bleating like a small distressed lamb will ever be the way to approach any fears or concerns I may have.
If you decide you want to desert the club you purport to "support" after 50 years then that's up to you. If you do go then so be it, the rest of us will just get on with things so that if you decide to change your mind again there might be a club for you to come back and support.
Is it fair to surmise from your somewhat dismissive attitude to my concerns that leaving The Valley does not bother you?
Perfectly legitimate viewpoint if so, since you appeared to enjoy watching your team in Croydon, but we'll have to agree to differ on this one as, for me, the ground is as important as the Club.
Not for the first time Len you are completely wide of the mark.
I did not "enjoy" watching my team in Croydon - and I strongly resent the inference that I did. I don't really think that is the sort of accusation one Charlton fan would reasonably level at another. It's actually quite an offensive remark.
You also suggest that the prospect of leaving The Valley "does not bother" me. Why on earth would you think that? Again, in my view, an offensive remark.
Tell you what, yes, let's agree to disagree. But nothing you can say will ever convince me that wetting my knickers and bleating like a small distressed lamb will ever be the way to approach any fears or concerns I may have.
If you decide you want to desert the club you purport to "support" after 50 years then that's up to you. If you do go then so be it, the rest of us will just get on with things so that if you decide to change your mind again there might be a club for you to come back and support.
I actually find it quite offensive that you are so dismissive of my legitimate concerns that we might leave The Valley describing them as "bleating like a small distressed lamb" in your last remark for instance.
We're both big boys though and can roll with the punches of a vigourous debate (I hope).
As I've said before for me the ground is the Club and I think at my time of life I probably would call it a day if and when we leave The Valley.
Some might call it "cutting off my nose to spite my face" but that's how I feel. Others such as yourself it is evident see it differently so best to agree to disagree.
Comments
I have in fact sent in a preliminary objection to the planning officer , and in fact the parking/access is quite an issue.
In the applicants supplementary submission they themselves admit that the access is difficult.
They in fact cite the 'home zone guidelines'. which are open to interpretation on this site. ( you would know that as a lawyer)
As I have submitted this is an entrance to a major football stadia , and therefore It hardly needs a leap in imagination into the real world to consider the parking implications of guests to the occupants, emergency services access, and anti social parking in the real world as the provision is at best 'minimal' . Access to emergency vehicles must be restricted and compromised with 27,000 fans passing by the enterance, which is also a disabled parking bay at present. The 'pinching points' are both inadequate (IMO) in regard to the site on such occassions. The road also houses several small industrial developments at the end of Lansdowne mews, so this is a 7 day a week consideration.The applicant admits that the site is not 'fully accesssable to disabled users', and with respect 'best endevours' in regard to the proposal needs to be consisdered at all times not some of the time. After all one could suggest that this type of housing would largely be occupied during the weekend and at night.
The turning circle for access in any case is very tight and does not allow for the current disabled parking spaces presently being used by cafc.
By the way I did also notice that the house at the very entrance of the mews has been sold, so a 'nudge' to the new owners might get an important objection in regard to the valid points you made, as there property runs adjacent to the proposed development.
I have passed the notice on to an architect, to comment on the quality of the development, as I reminded him he owes me a 'favour'.
Can you check what their opinions would be if the club wanted to extend the Valley.
The new owners must have been aware what they were buying and if they had any intensions of expansion they would have already approached the land owner to buy it back.
I do remember this happening 30 odd years ago to a wonderful Victorian house in Bexley Village, that a developer without any interest in put in an application to demolish the house and build apartments. Of course when he got the permission he made a very attractive offer to the owner. I fully appreciate people need decent, affordable housing, normally you do not get that with a speculator. I do remember a time when I was warned off not to play at the back of the valley, due to 'posion' probably toxic waste from the war, or the land owner not wanting kids on his site. The valley always seemed to work in harmony with the local community, the massive terrace, with the houses using the back gardens to watch the game gave it a unique feel, I was not aware of too many complaints, but then I only looked at it from a fans perspective.
http://londondocklands.wordpress.com/tag/charlton-athletic/
New stadium being built and land sold that "buggers" developing The Valley.
Quite apart from losing the ground with our soul who is going to want or be able to afford to pay £20 plus to park at the O2 on top of ticket prices to watch a home game?
Ah well 50 years supporting Charlton, as it will be next season for me, wasn't a bad innings I suppose.
Did you not go to Selhurst Park?
Not often no. Pain in the arse to get to from the depths of Kent although family reasons was the main reason.
Perfectly legitimate viewpoint if so, since you appeared to enjoy watching your team in Croydon, but we'll have to agree to differ on this one as, for me, the ground is as important as the Club.
I did not "enjoy" watching my team in Croydon - and I strongly resent the inference that I did. I don't really think that is the sort of accusation one Charlton fan would reasonably level at another. It's actually quite an offensive remark.
You also suggest that the prospect of leaving The Valley "does not bother" me. Why on earth would you think that? Again, in my view, an offensive remark.
Tell you what, yes, let's agree to disagree. But nothing you can say will ever convince me that wetting my knickers and bleating like a small distressed lamb will ever be the way to approach any fears or concerns I may have.
If you decide you want to desert the club you purport to "support" after 50 years then that's up to you. If you do go then so be it, the rest of us will just get on with things so that if you decide to change your mind again there might be a club for you to come back and support.
We're both big boys though and can roll with the punches of a vigourous debate (I hope).
As I've said before for me the ground is the Club and I think at my time of life I probably would call it a day if and when we leave The Valley.
Some might call it "cutting off my nose to spite my face" but that's how I feel. Others such as yourself it is evident see it differently so best to agree to disagree.