Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

The Academy Rebuilding Project

Shortly after CAFC was purchased by RD we heard a lot about how he wanted to build a bigger and better academy. We have seen the plans produced by the Peter Varney team and heard that RD has put his influnce on the plans and enlarged the project. At the beginning of the year we were told that the club would apply for a Catagory One Academy in two years. Building an academy takes time and for some time there seems to have been no progress.

Anyone got any ideas on what is happening with the plans and the project?

Comments

  • The links say document unavailable.
  • Yes I received a reply from David Gittens the area planning manager(west) RBG, after I saw Rick's excellent FOI request..
    The correspondence contained in the pdf that you just emailed, which was willingly provided by the Council to a Mr Rick Everitt as part of the FOI process, simply relates to the further aspirations of Charlton Athletic who are seeking to discuss some changes to their proposals that received planning permission earlier this year and upon which you kindly provided your observations before their planning application was considered by the Council’s Planning Board.

    As the colleague of mine that you spoke to earlier today was briefed to advise you in respect of Charlton Athletic Training Ground:
    · No existing planning permission has been amended;
    · No new planning permission has been granted; and
    · No new planning application has been submitted (which would, naturally, trigger our processes to notify local people).

    I hope my comments are of assistance and clarify the position.

    . I did request a meeting with Mr Gittens, who despite my several phone calls seems unable to respond to a meeting.
    . I had in fact turned up at the contact centre, to view the plans, but you have to make an appointment.
    . I have requested that I am updated on any plans for the training ground, as well as the valley.
    . I will be following this up with a further enquiry after Christmas, and if need be putting in a FOI request myself if Mr Gittens does not contact myself before hand. That is of course if Airman has not already done a follow up?

    These are public documents, and I was quite surprised that you had to make an appointment to view planning applications?. They citied a lack of resources....and Mr Gittens was in a meeting?




  • thanks for the replies guys. From the limited information available it seems that nothing has been achieved by RD and his executives since they took over, considering that RD has placed such an emphasis on the academy it seems a little strange that there has not been any progress.
  • thanks for the replies guys. From the limited information available it seems that nothing has been achieved by RD and his executives since they took over, considering that RD has placed such an emphasis on the academy it seems a little strange that there has not been any progress.


    I think that it is a bit harsh on RD and KM to say "nothing" has been achieved regarding the academy rebuild.

    We have planning permission and have applied for revised planning permission for an expanded building.

    Part of the funding is now in place from the Football Foundation (although that comes via the Community Trust) not from the club.

    I agree that it is frustrating that no further progress APPEARS to have taken place especially as like you I think this is one of the most important aspects of developing the club long term.

    It would certainly be good to get an update from KM or even from Steve Avory when he visits Eltham Addicks.


  • thanks for the replies guys. From the limited information available it seems that nothing has been achieved by RD and his executives since they took over, considering that RD has placed such an emphasis on the academy it seems a little strange that there has not been any progress.


    I think that it is a bit harsh on RD and KM to say "nothing" has been achieved regarding the academy rebuild.

    We have planning permission and have applied for revised planning permission for an expanded building.

    Part of the funding is now in place from the Football Foundation (although that comes via the Community Trust) not from the club.

    I agree that it is frustrating that no further progress APPEARS to have taken place especially as like you I think this is one of the most important aspects of developing the club long term.

    It would certainly be good to get an update from KM or even from Steve Avory when he visits Eltham Addicks.


    Once an application has been registered (accepted by the council as a valid application) this has to be a public document and would be available via the council's website within a very short period. I don't have time to do the search right now, but you can't apply in secret and it would be inept to apply without making a public statement - admittedly this is what happened last time, although the detail of that application was widely known already as it entirely predated RD's takeover. The club only reported it in reaction to comment on here.
  • OK, they are in the process of applying for revised planning permission for an expanded building
  • edited November 2014
    Why does the Council reply in 'Ken from bexley's' post state "no new planning application has been submitted"?

    Is that response from before the new application or in reference to a different thing entirely and I'm miss reading it?

    Ignore, Henry replied just before posting. He's that good.
  • DRAddick said:


    Why does the Council reply in 'Ken from bexley's' post state "no new planning application has been submitted"?

    Is that response from before the new application or in reference to a different thing entirely and I'm miss reading it?

    I think it means that CAFC are talking to RBG about making a revised application but haven't formally submitted a new application.

    I made the mistake of confusing the two stages.
  • I have emailed KM asking for her comments on any progress re the Sparrows Lane redevelopment.
  • Sponsored links:


  • edited November 2014

    Yes I received a reply from David Gittens the area planning manager(west) RBG, after I saw Rick's excellent FOI request..
    The correspondence contained in the pdf that you just emailed, which was willingly provided by the Council to a Mr Rick Everitt as part of the FOI process, simply relates to the further aspirations of Charlton Athletic who are seeking to discuss some changes to their proposals that received planning permission earlier this year and upon which you kindly provided your observations before their planning application was considered by the Council’s Planning Board.

    As the colleague of mine that you spoke to earlier today was briefed to advise you in respect of Charlton Athletic Training Ground:
    · No existing planning permission has been amended;
    · No new planning permission has been granted; and
    · No new planning application has been submitted (which would, naturally, trigger our processes to notify local people).

    I hope my comments are of assistance and clarify the position.

    . I did request a meeting with Mr Gittens, who despite my several phone calls seems unable to respond to a meeting.
    . I had in fact turned up at the contact centre, to view the plans, but you have to make an appointment.
    . I have requested that I am updated on any plans for the training ground, as well as the valley.
    . I will be following this up with a further enquiry after Christmas, and if need be putting in a FOI request myself if Mr Gittens does not contact myself before hand. That is of course if Airman has not already done a follow up?

    These are public documents, and I was quite surprised that you had to make an appointment to view planning applications?. They citied a lack of resources....and Mr Gittens was in a meeting?




    Not that it matters, since I'd already published it, but as far as I'm aware it's a breach of the data protection act for the council to identify members of the public who make FoI requests - and whether they were "willing" is neither here nor there!
  • DRAddick said:


    Why does the Council reply in 'Ken from bexley's' post state "no new planning application has been submitted"?

    Is that response from before the new application or in reference to a different thing entirely and I'm miss reading it?

    I think it means that CAFC are talking to RBG about making a revised application but haven't formally submitted a new application.

    I made the mistake of confusing the two stages.
    Yes, and there is nothing sinister in that at all........ As I personally, and the trust fully endorse the plans as proposed.
    It would not be unusual for the application to be revised, a development of this nature is bound to have 'details' to discuss. It is also a joint application with the Community trust, and CAFC and is being partly funded by the football foundation. I had heard a figure..... but that would not be confirmed by Rory Caroll, in any form from the football foundation ( press office). It has been known that a 'start notice' might have been lodged, but as I say I was unable to get any details. The latter being the reason for the original enquiry.......
  • It would seem incongruous and contradictory to me if people who made FOI requests then got upset if their name was published.
  • edited November 2014
    Brunello said:

    It would seem incongruous and contradictory to me if people who made FOI requests then got upset if their name was published.

    I agree - and I'd welcome it, given the costs incurred by councils dealing with speculative FOIs. However, I'm told by officers where I am a councillor that it's not allowed, which in turn means that a few individuals are able to run up big bills at public expense without anyone being able to call them to account. Hence I've asked Greenwich what their view of the law is and they have just apologised, although I made clear that I wasn't complaining, just interested.
  • Brunello said:

    It would seem incongruous and contradictory to me if people who made FOI requests then got upset if their name was published.

    I agree - and I'd welcome it, given the costs incurred by councils dealing with speculative FOIs. However, I'm told by officers where I am a councillor that it's not allowed, which in turn means that a few individuals are able to run up big bills at public expense without anyone being able to call them to account. Hence I've asked Greenwich what their view of the law is and they have just apologised, although I made clear that I wasn't complaining, just interested.
    Yes I agree, and would not have published your name if you had not mentioned it in VOTV, and on here previously.
    I was following up your story. I did remind RBG that the trust holds the nominated body for the ACV in regard to the Valley, and in fact the Director overseeing that department, who is also the deputy chief executive of RBG council was the officer who oversaw the ACV process. This was because the then leader of the council asked to refer this back to the cabinet, after the consultation period?
    I had in fact been dealing with another officer who covered the valley, but made it quite clear in emails that we would like to be updated on the Sparrows Lane training ground application. To date I heard nothing about the Valley, or Sparrows Lane, except this email, since the ACV.
    Personally I think it was the intervention of the two local MP's, whose support, and the ward councillors that got the process through when it did. I have never made a FOI request in my life, but in the case of RBG and Sparrows Lane I might make an exception.

  • edited November 2014
    Steve Bradshaw has left the building! He was the one tasked with this project before his departure.
    When the club announce they have appointed architects and a new project manager then we will know things are moving. The size of the scheme and the calibre of the project management will give us all insight into the vision and ambition of Staprix.
    As the assumption is that a revised plan is being negotiated then it is logical to presume that there are architects and professional project management on the case.
    My guess is that the new scheme might be at least double that of the original.
    Why?
    Because they can!
    Because M.Duchatelet only gets to do this once so I expect he will want to do it properly.
  • .....do it properly or not at all?

    As wise man once paraphrased an old saying to, 'if it's worth doing, it's worth doing badly'.

    I agree, badly rather than not at all.
  • seth plum said:

    .....do it properly or not at all?

    As wise man once paraphrased an old saying to, 'if it's worth doing, it's worth doing badly'.

    I agree, badly rather than not at all.

    Disagree.. whatever is done now we will have to work with for the foreseeable future.. need to get it right!
  • cantersaddick I know where you're coming from, but if the choice is 'right' or not at all, or half right, I obviously would want it to be state of the art, but would want something.
    If I mess up cooking the dinner, I don't bin it, I try to salvage it as best I can.
  • edited November 2014

    Steve Bradshaw has left the building! He was the one tasked with this project before his departure.
    When the club announce they have appointed architects and a new project manager then we will know things are moving. The size of the scheme and the calibre of the project management will give us all insight into the vision and ambition of Staprix.
    As the assumption is that a revised plan is being negotiated then it is logical to presume that there are architects and professional project management on the case.
    My guess is that the new scheme might be at least double that of the original.
    Why?
    Because they can!
    Because M.Duchatelet only gets to do this once so I expect he will want to do it properly.

    I don't think you appreciate the planning issues involved. The fact that you have the money doesn't necessarily mean you can build what you like on protected open land, while Bradshaw's departure from the club was known about nine months or so ago so didn't come as a surprise. Clearly he did not design the scheme - the architect who did was involved in the FOI disclosures, although I believe he has stood down since.


  • Sponsored links:


  • Thank you all for your input, the reason I started this thread is because I see the rebuild at Sparrows Lane as a true indication of the intentions of RD. Such things as financing the cost of a new striker pail into insignificance in comparison to the commitment required for Sparrows Lane. Although I applaud all that the new owner has done I do not have the optimism of Seriously Red nor am I well versed in the intricacies of a planning application. As I said I have emailed KM in this subject but she is away this week, although I am not optimistic about received a reply or an answer from her I would be grateful if those of you who have contributed to this thread will keep it alive with any information or insight that you might have on this subject as this is the future of CAFC.
  • edited November 2014

    Thank you all for your input, the reason I started this thread is because I see the rebuild at Sparrows Lane as a true indication of the intentions of RD. Such things as financing the cost of a new striker pail into insignificance in comparison to the commitment required for Sparrows Lane. Although I applaud all that the new owner has done I do not have the optimism of Seriously Red nor am I well versed in the intricacies of a planning application. As I said I have emailed KM in this subject but she is away this week, although I am not optimistic about received a reply or an answer from her I would be grateful if those of you who have contributed to this thread will keep it alive with any information or insight that you might have on this subject as this is the future of CAFC.

    The main difficulty in planning terms is likely to be 1) the additional height of the building and 2) the proposal for residential use (as a hostel for young players). I doubt if any intensification of use implied in the variations is material.
  • I wonder also if RD's plans may be affected by the change in FFP rules over the next couple of years. i would have thought the impact of the changes would have significant implications on RD's plans / budget for the club
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!