As mentioned on Charlton Live,there may be certain restrictions on the Valley as to only used as a Sports Stadium, and not for housing.Does any one know if this is true.
As mentioned on Charlton Live,there may be certain restrictions on the Valley as to only used as a Sports Stadium, and not for housing.Does any one know if this is true.
And an NHS call center.. which is a worry, if that sets a precedent that it can be used for uses other than Sports?
I believe that it is designated as an area of recreational use (not sure on exact terminology), so if anyone wanted to build housing on it, it would have to be approved (by the council) for a change of purpose.
I don't think so and even if it were it would probably be fairly easy to convince the council that an area of land, in the middle of a residential area, should be converted to a residential area.
Either way, the one decent thing about Duchatelet is that I really don't think it's in his plan to move us away from the Valley.
Easy to get around I would imagine, either build a leisure centre underneath a huge tower block of flats. Or build flats around the pitch and turn the pitch into a community garden for the flats
I have a feeling Greenwich Council would prefer it if The Valley / Charlton were on a site north of The Woolwich Road and that everything south of Woolwich Rd were residential. Was there not a local draft plan showing ideas for this?? Can't see this in the short term but will we still be at The Valley 20 years for now, you never know.
not sure if that's true. Lewisham is a great example of a big development on loampit road right by two railway lines and just a few yards from the station.
I don't think so and even if it were it would probably be fairly easy to convince the council that an area of land, in the middle of a residential area, should be converted to a residential area.
Either way, the one decent thing about Duchatelet is that I really don't think it's in his plan to move us away from the Valley.
I think it is a little ambigous to be honest...... The ACV in itself will NOT stop a possible planning application for housing by a developer, if it is in accordance with the "London plan criteria' gains the support of the local councillors and provides both social housing and therefore jobs. BUT as the case officer for the Landowne Mews development (still not built) explained to me that CAFC are an 'important provider of social and community use in the borough'. That planning case officer was Jessica Li, and was two years ago. The planning officer directly responsible for the Valley was a David Gittens, who I last spoke to re: the new pitch. So about 18 months or so. For a time he worked on the other side of the borough as they have divided the ward into 2 sections for administration and management. I share SE9 addicks view that at present he does not have any intentions to move away from the Valley, but that of course that could change.
Was it not the 'Value the Valley' part of his vision for CAFC, which of course relates to his refurbishment of the Valley over the past two years, or so Tony Keogh informed me on the one occassion I met him at one of the last fans forum I attended.
I have already stated I do not accept politicians assurances, as guarantees, and I am certainly not convinced by the planning officers of RBG. This may well be out of date news, and let's be honest with money and local councils who knows?. By the way there was 'Knot weed' on the former players house site/Garden, and the 'heights' as was when I lived in Springfield's decades ago was a dumping ground for builders when H&S was not a paramount issue,or known about. But of course with money involved..............
not sure if that's true. Lewisham is a great example of a big development on loampit road right by two railway lines and just a few yards from the station.
Amazes me how close some of those new flats are to the railway lines.
I don't think so and even if it were it would probably be fairly easy to convince the council that an area of land, in the middle of a residential area, should be converted to a residential area.
Either way, the one decent thing about Duchatelet is that I really don't think it's in his plan to move us away from the Valley.
I think it is a little ambigous to be honest...... The ACV in itself will NOT stop a possible planning application for housing by a developer, if it is in accordance with the "London plan criteria' gains the support of the local councillors and provides both social housing and therefore jobs. BUT as the case officer for the Landowne Mews development (still not built) explained to me that CAFC are an 'important provider of social and community use in the borough'. That planning case officer was Jessica Li, and was two years ago. The planning officer directly responsible for the Valley was a David Gittens, who I last spoke to re: the new pitch. So about 18 months or so. For a time he worked on the other side of the borough as they have divided the ward into 2 sections for administration and management. I share SE9 addicks view that at present he does not have any intentions to move away from the Valley, but that of course that could change.
Was it not the 'Value the Valley' part of his vision for CAFC, which of course relates to his refurbishment of the Valley over the past two years, or so Tony Keogh informed me on the one occassion I met him at one of the last fans forum I attended.
I have already stated I do not accept politicians assurances, as guarantees, and I am certainly not convinced by the planning officers of RBG. This may well be out of date news, and let's be honest with money and local councils who knows?. By the way there was 'Knot weed' on the former players house site/Garden, and the 'heights' as was when I lived in Springfield's decades ago was a dumping ground for builders when H&S was not a paramount issue,or known about. But of course with money involved..............
I don't think it's got much to do with the ACV at all though as the ACV (if I remember rightly) doesn't stop an acquisition for any purpose regardless of the future use for the site it simply says that the current owner needs to inform someone (in this case the Supporters Trust) should they intend to sell.
not sure if that's true. Lewisham is a great example of a big development on loampit road right by two railway lines and just a few yards from the station.
Amazes me how close some of those new flats are to the railway lines.
They might look alright now. My sister used to live in a flat right next to a railway line and everything was covered in fine layer of rust from the wheels/tracks grinding at each other over the years, never mind the noise and rumbling/rattling all the time. I'd only visit briefly and it would do my head in.
I don't think it's got much to do with the ACV at all though as the ACV (if I remember rightly) doesn't stop an acquisition for any purpose regardless of the future use for the site it simply says that the current owner needs to inform someone (in this case the Supporters Trust) should they intend to sell.
The bill states....... 9. Moratorium In responses to the consultation, there was a broad consensus in favour of an interim window of 6 weeks, a full moratorium of 6 months (in total) and a protected period of 18 months (in total). We intend to lay an amendment to set out the moratorium time periods on the face of the Bill.
Although I understand from the Swann ACV group in Charlton Village a solicitor on there website was suggesting that once nominated to be added to the list it would normally be used as pub, it could be used as a material fact in any change of use. In our case it would or a sporting venue hence the reference to of 'important community use in the borough' That opinion of the planning officer course is one planners view....... and she may not even be employed still at the council.
You are of course right, it does NOT stop someone selling to a developer, and an appeal has to be lodged within the 6 weeks, as stated above in this case the trust,
As you have had the club investing in the pitch, and the Mayor of London, and MPs supporting the nomination, as well as most councillors it would be a remarkable turn around of useage even for planners, and politicians to then set aside that nomination that was passed at cabinet level at the RBG. But of course as I already stated money and politicians, well we all know how that can be reversed, hence my comment......... I have already stated I do not accept politicians assurances, as guarantees, and I am certainly not convinced by the planning officers of RBG. This may well be out of date news, and let's be honest with money and local councils who knows?.
The owner can also apply for compensation as in section 10. This is taken from: Department for Communities and Local Government Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU Telephone: 030 3444 0000
Perfect example of modern life. If it at all was possible to cost the effort that went into that exchange of information just to provide absolutely fuck all of an end product... a bit like a CAFC FA Cup campaign!
Perfect example of modern life. If it at all was possible to cost the effort that went into that exchange of information just to provide absolutely fuck all of an end product... a bit like a CAFC FA Cup campaign!
For a response that the information is not held, as in this case, the cost should not be too high. (In any case, there is a maximum amount of staff time that an authority need give to a request - I think for the Council a total of £450 @ £25 per hour). Provided you have reasonable records management procedures, identifying what is held would be fairly simple.
The problem is much more likely to be that someone higher up (often SpAds and politicians in central govt) wants to sit on the response....
Unlike the FA Cup, however, you end up knowing more than before...
It does, but it predates the ACV which was granted in December 2013. And as it concludes:in September 2013....... "I can confirm that the Royal Borough has no record of any such discussions taking place. Any decision on a planning permission would be subject to the submission of a planning application for determination by the Council’s Planning Board."
Paul Miller, the Security compliance officer would probably not been aware of the application for the nomination, which myself and SE3 lodged that summer, and the council dragged the decision out till the December a few days before xmas if I recall.
Just as an aside........ the 'area nominated' as detailed by myself in red includes the area of the 'shop and of course ticket office',
So maybe a call to remind Mr Gittens of his undertaking that he would notify the trust of a material change of use...... a block of flats and a NHS call centre ?.. not a change of use.!...... By the way you will need to make an appointment at the contact centre, they do not see members of the public walking in from the street.
Personally speaking as SE3 originally posted I do not think RD is selling the Valley, and the ACV in itself does NOT stop him.
I think there are more urgent events at CAFC to worry about including replacing a useless manager, and staying in the league just two issues that perhaps we should focus on......
It does, but it predates the ACV which was granted in December 2013. And as it concludes:in September 2013....... "I can confirm that the Royal Borough has no record of any such discussions taking place. Any decision on a planning permission would be subject to the submission of a planning application for determination by the Council’s Planning Board."
Paul Miller, the Security compliance officer would probably not been aware of the application for the nomination, which myself and SE3 lodged that summer, and the council dragged the decision out till the December a few days before xmas if I recall.
Just as an aside........ the 'area nominated' as detailed by myself in red includes the area of the 'shop and of course ticket office',
So maybe a call to remind Mr Gittens of his undertaking that he would notify the trust of a material change of use...... a block of flats and a NHS call centre ?.. not a change of use.!...... By the way you will need to make an appointment at the contact centre, they do not see members of the public walking in from the street.
Personally speaking as SE3 originally posted I do not think RD is selling the Valley, and the ACV in itself does NOT stop him.
I think there are more urgent events at CAFC to worry about including replacing a useless manager, and staying in the league just two issues that perhaps we should focus on......
Good post but I don't agree with the last bit. I feel that we need to make our voices heard on every little thing we can.
Essentially our strength is in numbers and with that comes the power to be VERY irritating, we should be striving to be the biggest pain in the ass we can be.
I don't even mind taking 15 minutes out to draft off a letter when I get in.
The fact the NHS call center slipped by is a complete shambles and surely should've been communicated clearly.
Comments
Either way, the one decent thing about Duchatelet is that I really don't think it's in his plan to move us away from the Valley.
Was it not the 'Value the Valley' part of his vision for CAFC, which of course relates to his refurbishment of the Valley over the past two years, or so Tony Keogh informed me on the one occassion I met him at one of the last fans forum I attended.
I have already stated I do not accept politicians assurances, as guarantees, and I am certainly not convinced by the planning officers of RBG. This may well be out of date news, and let's be honest with money and local councils who knows?. By the way there was 'Knot weed' on the former players house site/Garden, and the 'heights' as was when I lived in Springfield's decades ago was a dumping ground for builders when H&S was not a paramount issue,or known about.
But of course with money involved..............
I don't think it's got much to do with the ACV at all though as the ACV (if I remember rightly) doesn't stop an acquisition for any purpose regardless of the future use for the site it simply says that the current owner needs to inform someone (in this case the Supporters Trust) should they intend to sell.
The bill states.......
9. Moratorium
In responses to the consultation, there was a broad consensus in favour of an interim
window of 6 weeks, a full moratorium of 6 months (in total) and a protected period of 18
months (in total). We intend to lay an amendment to set out the moratorium time periods
on the face of the Bill.
Although I understand from the Swann ACV group in Charlton Village a solicitor on there website was suggesting that once nominated to be added to the list it would normally be used as pub, it could be used as a material fact in any change of use. In our case it would or a sporting venue hence the reference to of 'important community use in the borough'
That opinion of the planning officer course is one planners view....... and she may not even be employed still at the council.
You are of course right, it does NOT stop someone selling to a developer, and an appeal has to be lodged within the 6 weeks, as stated above in this case the trust,
As you have had the club investing in the pitch, and the Mayor of London, and MPs supporting the nomination, as well as most councillors it would be a remarkable turn around of useage even for planners, and politicians to then set aside that nomination that was passed at cabinet level at the RBG. But of course as I already stated money and politicians, well we all know how that can be reversed, hence my comment......... I have already stated I do not accept politicians assurances, as guarantees, and I am certainly not convinced by the planning officers of RBG. This may well be out of date news, and let's be honest with money and local councils who knows?.
The owner can also apply for compensation as in section 10.
This is taken from: Department for Communities and Local Government
Eland House
Bressenden Place
London
SW1E 5DU
Telephone: 030 3444 0000
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/the_valley_floyd_road_se7
The problem is much more likely to be that someone higher up (often SpAds and politicians in central govt) wants to sit on the response....
Unlike the FA Cup, however, you end up knowing more than before...
The regime has been obviously shite for too long.
And as it concludes:in September 2013.......
"I can confirm that the Royal Borough has no record of any such discussions taking place.
Any decision on a planning permission would be subject to the submission of a planning application for determination by the Council’s Planning Board."
Paul Miller, the Security compliance officer would probably not been aware of the application for the nomination, which myself and SE3 lodged that summer, and the council dragged the decision out till the December a few days before xmas if I recall.
Just as an aside........ the 'area nominated' as detailed by myself in red includes the area of the 'shop and of course ticket office',
So maybe a call to remind Mr Gittens of his undertaking that he would notify the trust of a material change of use...... a block of flats and a NHS call centre ?.. not a change of use.!......
By the way you will need to make an appointment at the contact centre, they do not see members of the public walking in from the street.
Personally speaking as SE3 originally posted I do not think RD is selling the Valley, and the ACV in itself does NOT stop him.
I think there are more urgent events at CAFC to worry about including replacing a useless manager, and staying in the league just two issues that perhaps we should focus on......
Essentially our strength is in numbers and with that comes the power to be VERY irritating, we should be striving to be the biggest pain in the ass we can be.
I don't even mind taking 15 minutes out to draft off a letter when I get in.
The fact the NHS call center slipped by is a complete shambles and surely should've been communicated clearly.