That proposed stadium is an open bowl. While it will be nice to replicate the open East terrace feeling, It's not exactly suitable for a modern football stadium! Maybe if a version of the IPL comes to the UK, then Greenwich Valiants cricket franchise will play there!
Because what seems like a long lease when you start it out suddenly starts to look like a short lease when you've been there a while. Sooner or later you'll find you don't own your own property. I'd not want to put that to future generations of supporters.
As for developing the south and south-west sides of the existing Valley, these schemes run into the same issue of how you get people out of the immediate area, as well as the need for vehicle access to the pitch. You can't just put more people into Floyd Road, where there are both capacity and segregation issues, so the only solutions are Lansdowne Mews - again -or a massive investment to get supporters out via The Heights. A significant Jimmy Seed Stand development also entails demolishing Sam Bartram Close, which would itself require planning permission...... Airman Brown Which of course is why this proposed development has to be opposed, at least for me because as Len had stated Charlton is the Valley for me. As I stated in an earlier post there was a time when moving to the Greenwich Peninsular was 'floated' a while back, and frankly I am of the same opinion, I support Charlton because I was born in Charlton. To me it is a cultural, emotional probably irrational belief, but a belief it is. If I had wanted to support a winning team I would have supported Arsenal like my grandfather and brother, after all that 'unwashed lot' started of in Woolwich. So good on all you lot that support the club, wherever it may be. I do not think that the directors have some plan to move away from the valley, they have the stewardship of the club at present, but it is the present, like the players and the manager.
As somebody who supported the team at Sellout, I can say I hated it there but my support for Charlton was greater. I desperately wanted us to return to the Valley but that didn't stop me going to support my team. Whilst the Valley is an important part of us, a move on the right terms at the right time could be the best thing for the club at some point in the future. That time isn't now, but if we out grow the Valley who knows! Arsenal have moved from their traditional home and their fans have accepted that. I think any form of ground share is a no no but a move to a gleaming new stadium isn't the same as playing in Croyden or East London.
Having said all that, it would be a shame if the club at some point wanted to expand the Valley and couldn't because of this. It doesn't seem the wisest. Would it have other options, ways of expanding outside of the plans that have lapsed anyway?
Just been down to the council, there new planning department looks more like a airport departure lounge than a planning department, and aside from having to queue up, to use a phone to get someone down from there department the planning officer was very helpful and understood the ' bigger picture' in that this really affects the most obvious expansion of the valley. I pointed out a couple of the most obvious issues of the development, 1. Access for emergency vehicles, refuse bins etc.( turning, navigation looked as though it was based on a car not a long wheel based vehicle, such as a fire engine) 2. The disabled parking space presently being used Charlton. Although clarification needs to be sought that this is actually Charlton's land.
The officer pointed out that the planning meeting were scheduled to possibly hear this application in June, but this was not certain. The officer also understood that Charlton was a 'major player' in the area, but could only judge the application that was to be considered. I asked her what else fans/people could do and she said write to there ward councillors.
Hopefully this has given the officers, and planners something to consider, although in the back of my mind I got the impression that they had 'reservations' about the proposal, but that could just be wishful thinking on my behalf.
Therefore the club does have time to make representation, but had better get there skates on. Obviously the council may go ahead regardless of who objets, and the quality of there objections. Seems to me to that the club have to do this, to preserve the option of any future expansion.
The club could in my opinion consider a judicial review, in that the granting of planning permission is 'irrational', but would have to put in an objection before the application is heard, having previously made an application to consider expansion of the said stand.
Just been down to the council, there new planning department looks more like a airport departure lounge than a planning department, and aside from having to queue up, to use a phone to get someone down from there department the planning officer was very helpful and understood the ' bigger picture' in that this really affects the most obvious expansion of the valley. I pointed out a couple of the most obvious issues of the development, 1. Access for emergency vehicles, refuse bins etc.( turning, navigation looked as though it was based on a car not a long wheel based vehicle, such as a fire engine) 2. The disabled parking space presently being used Charlton. Although clarification needs to be sought that this is actually Charlton's land.
The officer pointed out that the planning meeting were scheduled to possibly hear this application in June, but this was not certain. The officer also understood that Charlton was a 'major player' in the area, but could only judge the application that was to be considered. I asked her what else fans/people could do and she said write to there ward councillors.
Hopefully this has given the officers, and planners something to consider, although in the back of my mind I got the impression that they had 'reservations' about the proposal, but that could just be wishful thinking on my behalf.
Therefore the club does have time to make representation, but had better get there skates on. Obviously the council may go ahead regardless of who objets, and the quality of there objections. Seems to me to that the club have to do this, to preserve the option of any future expansion.
The club could in my opinion consider a judicial review, in that the granting of planning permission is 'irrational', but would have to put in an objection before the application is heard, having previously made an application to consider expansion of the said stand.
Well done to you Ken for actually doing something about it.I think it is very important that we try to voice our displeasure at this development.I shall write to my ward councillor straight away.
Ken, thanks for spending time to actually do something about this. Sorry but another couple of questions: First, presumably the Council would only consider objections from individuals/businesses that actually have some relevant reasons to appeal and they would have to be living/working close to the actual land site or within the borough? I ask because I assume that some random person like me who happens to support CAFC but lives in Essex would not be considered to have a valid objection? Second, I assume more weight is likely to be put on objections that are cogent and relevant rather than someone who just doesn't like the sound of the development. So would it be possible for you to spend a few minutes putting up on here a comprehensive list of the sort of things that other willing objectors could refer to? I take it that in the Council's consideration the repetition of issues would not be treated as suspicious but numbers of objectors could well help sway the decision. That said, it seems crucial that the club weighs in with their input otherwise it looks they they aren't bothered so why should anyone else be? Cheers.
Let’s face facts we as the fans want to expand but obviously the new owners have no intensions of expanding. Even if the owner/owners of this land don’t get planning Charlton still can’t expand without buying it back, why don’t we approach the cafc board and ask if they have plans to expand or even want to buy the land back.
Why do you say the new owners "obviously" have no intentions of expanding? There's nothing obvious at all. They may well have made official objects and/or be talking to the owners of the land. As has been said many times, there is absolutely no point in even thinking about expansion at the moment. Up until a few weeks ago we were a league one team with an average attendance roughly 63% of the ground's capacity. If/when we are back in the prem, settled in that division and selling out weekly, then we can think about expansion seriously. As that is at least 4 years into the future, possibly longer, then the owners have more important things to think about than expansion.
I heard a rumour some years ago that the club enquired about purchasing the block of flats behind the away entrance. Assuming that is possible, it would solve a number of access and planning issues.
So I take it we can't expand the Valley at all?.Dont want to leave the Valley.
In theory yes we had until recently planning permission up to 40k, although this sale of land and now planning being sought muddies the waters somewhat and may prove an obstacle
Therefore the club does have time to make representation, but had better get there skates on. Obviously the council may go ahead regardless of who objets, and the quality of there objections. Seems to me to that the club have to do this, to preserve the option of any future expansion.
The club could in my opinion consider a judicial review, in that the granting of planning permission is 'irrational', but would have to put in an objection before the application is heard, having previously made an application to consider expansion of the said stand.
As far as I'm aware - and I'm not directly involved in this - the club is already an objector, and it has its own professional advisors on planning matters anyway. However, objections have to be on the basis of material planning considerations affecting this scheme or the existing land use. An objection based around the fact the club might want to do something else in the future on land that it doesn't currently own is not going to carry much weight, IMO. I cannot personally see any grounds for a judicial review, either. The council is legally obligated to decide this application on its own merits.
The only real value of the lapsed east stand permission at this stage is that it would be a material consideration in any future expansion application, i.e. the council could not in future decide that an expansion of similar size and shape was unacceptable - unless the objection related to something external that had changed in the meantime.
This situation really isn't the council or the developer's fault. It's the club's.
Well done Ken for your rooting around. I live in Lewisham so can't lobby on this, but I hope Greenwich based Charlton fans will consider contacting their representatives.
Thanks for replying airman, I fully appreciate that the council have to consider the application that is put forward, and that was why I objected on the grounds that I gave which were material considerations. i.e the access. The 'irrational ' factor is in my view the only challenge that it might be possible to overturn the application if the club were to challenge via judicial review. After all most football clubs would wish to possibly expand there grounds,( West ham, Spurs,Chelsea) and Charlton's previous applications would support this argument. Even though the future householders will have moved next door to a football stadium, I can imagine that any expansion anywhere at the valley will have a considerable impact on planning, and 'events' at the Valley. The Hyde park objectors have been very successful in reducing the concerts and noise levels there...........At least the club has objected.
I asked Richard Murray at the Bromley meeting. He said yes the club had sold the land, as at the time we were having to sell pretty much anything with a value, to avoid administration. A number of directors at the time weren't willing/ couldn't put in anymore money that was desperately required. Although, we 100% didn't want to sell The Valley or the training ground to outsiders.
He said that it would have cost @£17M to do the East Stand extension & it would perhaps not be cost effective, as it may have, taken too long/never recover the outlay.
He didn't give the impression that he was too concerned (although he of course may be).
He said we could look to fill in the corners in anycase, which could raise the capacity to perhaps 30,000.
Comments
Sooner or later you'll find you don't own your own property. I'd not want to put that to future generations of supporters.
(I know absolutely nothing on this subject so I may just be being stupid)
Which of course is why this proposed development has to be opposed, at least for me because as Len had stated Charlton is the Valley for me. As I stated in an earlier post there was a time when moving to the Greenwich Peninsular was 'floated' a while back, and frankly I am of the same opinion, I support Charlton because I was born in Charlton. To me it is a cultural, emotional probably irrational belief, but a belief it is. If I had wanted to support a winning team I would have supported Arsenal like my grandfather and brother, after all that 'unwashed lot' started of in Woolwich. So good on all you lot that support the club, wherever it may be. I do not think that the directors have some plan to move away from the valley, they have the stewardship of the club at present, but it is the present, like the players and the manager.
Having said all that, it would be a shame if the club at some point wanted to expand the Valley and couldn't because of this. It doesn't seem the wisest. Would it have other options, ways of expanding outside of the plans that have lapsed anyway?
I pointed out a couple of the most obvious issues of the development,
1. Access for emergency vehicles, refuse bins etc.( turning, navigation looked as though it was based on a car not a long wheel based vehicle, such as a fire engine)
2. The disabled parking space presently being used Charlton. Although clarification needs to be sought that this is actually Charlton's land.
The officer pointed out that the planning meeting were scheduled to possibly hear this application in June, but this was not certain.
The officer also understood that Charlton was a 'major player' in the area, but could only judge the application that was to be considered.
I asked her what else fans/people could do and she said write to there ward councillors.
Hopefully this has given the officers, and planners something to consider, although in the back of my mind I got the impression that they had 'reservations' about the proposal, but that could just be wishful thinking on my behalf.
Therefore the club does have time to make representation, but had better get there skates on. Obviously the council may go ahead regardless of who objets, and the quality of there objections. Seems to me to that the club have to do this, to preserve the option of any future expansion.
The club could in my opinion consider a judicial review, in that the granting of planning permission is 'irrational', but would have to put in an objection before the application is heard, having previously made an application to consider expansion of the said stand.
First, presumably the Council would only consider objections from individuals/businesses that actually have some relevant reasons to appeal and they would have to be living/working close to the actual land site or within the borough? I ask because I assume that some random person like me who happens to support CAFC but lives in Essex would not be considered to have a valid objection?
Second, I assume more weight is likely to be put on objections that are cogent and relevant rather than someone who just doesn't like the sound of the development. So would it be possible for you to spend a few minutes putting up on here a comprehensive list of the sort of things that other willing objectors could refer to? I take it that in the Council's consideration the repetition of issues would not be treated as suspicious but numbers of objectors could well help sway the decision.
That said, it seems crucial that the club weighs in with their input otherwise it looks they they aren't bothered so why should anyone else be?
Cheers.
I heard a rumour some years ago that the club enquired about purchasing the block of flats behind the away entrance. Assuming that is possible, it would solve a number of access and planning issues.
The only real value of the lapsed east stand permission at this stage is that it would be a material consideration in any future expansion application, i.e. the council could not in future decide that an expansion of similar size and shape was unacceptable - unless the objection related to something external that had changed in the meantime.
This situation really isn't the council or the developer's fault. It's the club's.
He said that it would have cost @£17M to do the East Stand extension & it would perhaps not be cost effective, as it may have, taken too long/never recover the outlay.
He didn't give the impression that he was too concerned (although he of course may be).
He said we could look to fill in the corners in anycase, which could raise the capacity to perhaps 30,000.