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

Planning permission for an extra tier on The Curbside?

SoundAsa£
SoundAsa£ Posts: 22,474
edited October 9 in General Charlton

What would be the possibility of us getting planning permission for a second tier?
What are the main obstacles/objections that would no doubt be raised and how serious would the likelihood of us getting the go ahead as a result of these objections?
I assume the Jimmy Seed would have little or no problems in getting the required permission…..as and when.

«134

Comments

  • se9addick
    se9addick Posts: 32,030
    The main obstacle is that it would be an insane waste of money currently!
  • AFKABartram
    AFKABartram Posts: 57,822
    I think it’s completely impractical, there’s no room and the corner plot of land by Bartram Gate about 15 years ago I thought kiboshed any ability . 
  • swords_alive
    swords_alive Posts: 4,255
    Firstly it's not ours to build up as Roland owns the freehold so i'd estimate that is the primary constraint.

    I expect it's doable from an architectural point of view, but the next big constraint would likely be financial justification. We wouldn't fill it. A case could probably be made as there's more people living in the catchment area now but this would probably rely on us retaining premiership football and that would be a challenge and a risk. 
  • DOUCHER
    DOUCHER Posts: 7,894
    edited October 9
    The roof of the east stand is at the height that the top terrace was at originally - that was part of the planning permission granted when it was built - as others have said, the obvious and most cost effective thing is to develop the south stand should it ever be needed which, to be honest, is way off, if at all although i know its currently being looked at again. 
  • swords_alive
    swords_alive Posts: 4,255
    It's a shame we lost the magnificence of the East terrace in some respects. I think we lopped off about 60 feet to bring the roof in under eye levels of those living in Charlton Lane. If that's the case, i would expect those residents would still have a valid objection for any higher stand blocking their light/ views but just a guess as i know nothing about planning law.
  • shirty5
    shirty5 Posts: 19,215
    Was not a problem getting planning permission 20 years ago but at present there is no need for it 

    Charlton Athletic have been granted planning permission by Greenwich Council for the development of the East Stand and South East quadrant, which will see the capacity of The Valley rise to around 30,900 
  • swords_alive
    swords_alive Posts: 4,255
    Also the memorial garden, is that consecrated land? Google says "A planning change of use for consecrated land requires both local planning permission and permission from the relevant Church authorities, known as a faculty in the Church of England, due to its protected legal status. "
  • SoundAsa£
    SoundAsa£ Posts: 22,474
    edited October 9
    se9addick said:
    The main obstacle is that it would be an insane waste of money currently!
    Well yes, I think that’s a given.
    It’s something for the future of course……I doubt I’ll live long enough to see it happen anyway.
    The reality is that if it was to be deemed impossible then The Valley (as things stand), will never hold more than approximately 30,000.
    For a well established London Premiership club, that’s not going to be acceptable. IMHO.😕

  • SoundAsa£
    SoundAsa£ Posts: 22,474
    swords_alive said:
    It's a shame we lost the magnificence of the East terrace in some respects. I think we lopped off about 60 feet to bring the roof in under eye levels of those living in Charlton Lane. If that's the case, i would expect those residents would still have a valid objection for any higher stand blocking their light/ views but just a guess as i know nothing about planning law.
    Never stopped Palarse developing The Homesdale Road End.
  • DOUCHER
    DOUCHER Posts: 7,894
    SoundAsa£ said:
    se9addick said:
    The main obstacle is that it would be an insane waste of money currently!
    Well yes, I think that’s a given. it’s something for the future of course……I doubt I’ll live long enough to see it happen anyway.
    The reality is that if was to be deemed impossible The Valley (as things stand), will never hold more than approximately 30,000.
    For a well established London Premiership club that’s not going to be acceptable. IMHO.😕

    Developing the south stand could take it well over 30,000.  
  • Sponsored links:



  • SoundAsa£
    SoundAsa£ Posts: 22,474
    edited October 9
    DOUCHER said:
    SoundAsa£ said:
    se9addick said:
    The main obstacle is that it would be an insane waste of money currently!
    Well yes, I think that’s a given. it’s something for the future of course……I doubt I’ll live long enough to see it happen anyway.
    The reality is that if was to be deemed impossible The Valley (as things stand), will never hold more than approximately 30,000.
    For a well established London Premiership club that’s not going to be acceptable. IMHO.😕

    Developing the south stand could take it well over 30,000.  
    Explain…..it holds around 3,000 now, assuming approximately another 3,000 would be  obtainable on the upper level, it would bring us to just around 30,000.
  • Stig
    Stig Posts: 29,021
    I want to extend the capacity of my house, I'm thinking of putting an extra room with a dormer window up in the neighbours loft. What would be the possibility of me getting planning permission for this? 
  • Fortune 82nd Minute
    Fortune 82nd Minute Posts: 8,336
    DOUCHER said:
    SoundAsa£ said:
    se9addick said:
    The main obstacle is that it would be an insane waste of money currently!
    Well yes, I think that’s a given. it’s something for the future of course……I doubt I’ll live long enough to see it happen anyway.
    The reality is that if was to be deemed impossible The Valley (as things stand), will never hold more than approximately 30,000.
    For a well established London Premiership club that’s not going to be acceptable. IMHO.😕

    Developing the south stand could take it well over 30,000.  
    Come on, we need to be a bit more ambitious when we redevelop the Jimmy Seed stand.

    It needs to include a hotel in the redevelopment!
  • swords_alive
    swords_alive Posts: 4,255
    SoundAsa£ said:
    swords_alive said:
    It's a shame we lost the magnificence of the East terrace in some respects. I think we lopped off about 60 feet to bring the roof in under eye levels of those living in Charlton Lane. If that's the case, i would expect those residents would still have a valid objection for any higher stand blocking their light/ views but just a guess as i know nothing about planning law.
    Never stopped Palarse developing The Homesdale Road End.
    I don't know specifically what Palace have done at that end as i haven't been for many years. I assume put a roof on and gone higher? If that's the case, it isn't/ wasn't as big as our East terrace and more importantly perhaps had a road immediately behind it with residents opposite with not much by way of garden. And their front gardens face east and didn't have a view or sun-trap. The residents of Charlton Lane are different (more anti the cub in days gone by), with their private gardens immediately backing on to the terrace, facing more southerly (sun traps) and maybe with great view. Plus Croydon council may have a different planning sympathies than Greenwich, back then and potentially more recently too. Each case on its merits i believe, meaning comparison to Palace is probably of no consequence. 
  • Portch
    Portch Posts: 173
    Fortune 82nd Minute said:
    DOUCHER said:
    SoundAsa£ said:
    se9addick said:
    The main obstacle is that it would be an insane waste of money currently!
    Well yes, I think that’s a given. it’s something for the future of course……I doubt I’ll live long enough to see it happen anyway.
    The reality is that if was to be deemed impossible The Valley (as things stand), will never hold more than approximately 30,000.
    For a well established London Premiership club that’s not going to be acceptable. IMHO.😕

    Developing the south stand could take it well over 30,000.  
    Come on, we need to be a bit more ambitious when we redevelop the Jimmy Seed stand.

    It needs to include a hotel in the redevelopment!
    Not a Sainsbury’s?
  • killerandflash
    killerandflash Posts: 69,839
    The previous plans on the East side involved a small extension backwards, with a small second tier containing new exec boxes. 

    Personally I don't see the need for more than 30000 anyway, which can easily be achieved at the JS end.
  • msomerton
    msomerton Posts: 2,969
    swords_alive said:
    Firstly it's not ours to build up as Roland owns the freehold so i'd estimate that is the primary constraint.

    I expect it's doable from an architectural point of view, but the next big constraint would likely be financial justification. We wouldn't fill it. A case could probably be made as there's more people living in the catchment area now but this would probably rely on us retaining premiership football and that would be a challenge and a risk. 
    Wrong. If we wanted to expand the stadium we can. The lease has nothing to do with the maintenance or expansion of the ground. As a Surrey member I can assure you the Prince of Wales has not spent a penny on the Oval he just takes the ground rent.
  • SoundAsa£
    SoundAsa£ Posts: 22,474
    Portch said:
    Fortune 82nd Minute said:
    DOUCHER said:
    SoundAsa£ said:
    se9addick said:
    The main obstacle is that it would be an insane waste of money currently!
    Well yes, I think that’s a given. it’s something for the future of course……I doubt I’ll live long enough to see it happen anyway.
    The reality is that if was to be deemed impossible The Valley (as things stand), will never hold more than approximately 30,000.
    For a well established London Premiership club that’s not going to be acceptable. IMHO.😕

    Developing the south stand could take it well over 30,000.  
    Come on, we need to be a bit more ambitious when we redevelop the Jimmy Seed stand.

    It needs to include a hotel in the redevelopment!
    Not a Sainsbury’s?
    .
  • swords_alive
    swords_alive Posts: 4,255
    msomerton said:
    swords_alive said:
    Firstly it's not ours to build up as Roland owns the freehold so i'd estimate that is the primary constraint.

    I expect it's doable from an architectural point of view, but the next big constraint would likely be financial justification. We wouldn't fill it. A case could probably be made as there's more people living in the catchment area now but this would probably rely on us retaining premiership football and that would be a challenge and a risk. 
    Wrong. If we wanted to expand the stadium we can. The lease has nothing to do with the maintenance or expansion of the ground. As a Surrey member I can assure you the Prince of Wales has not spent a penny on the Oval he just takes the ground rent.
    Prince of Wales would likely not have coughed up any money granted but his permission/ backing was likely required. And would possibly be a signatory to the planning application, no? As said i am not a planning specialist or specialist of anything but understand a freeholder would seek to protect their interest and does that primarily through the lease.
  • LargeAddick
    LargeAddick Posts: 32,555
    If we get to the PL our 26k+ capacity is more than sufficient. Look at Brentford and Bournemouth with 12k capacities and how they are thriving. TV income is what's key. 
  • Sponsored links:



  • cantersaddick
    cantersaddick Posts: 16,907
    edited October 10
    LargeAddick said:
    If we get to the PL our 26k+ capacity is more than sufficient. Look at Brentford and Bournemouth with 12k capacities and how they are thriving. TV income is what's key. 
    This. Times have changed since we were last in the Prem. The focus is now on building a state of the art training ground rather than expanding the stadium. If we ever get to the prem and want to do serious infrastructure investment it should be that, and even then we have to buy the assets first. Once that's done If we did then want to do anything to the ground beyond minor upgrades it would be to add more exec boxes as that's where the cash is. 
  • JohnnyH2
    JohnnyH2 Posts: 5,341
    SoundAsa£ said:
    DOUCHER said:
    SoundAsa£ said:
    se9addick said:
    The main obstacle is that it would be an insane waste of money currently!
    Well yes, I think that’s a given. it’s something for the future of course……I doubt I’ll live long enough to see it happen anyway.
    The reality is that if was to be deemed impossible The Valley (as things stand), will never hold more than approximately 30,000.
    For a well established London Premiership club that’s not going to be acceptable. IMHO.😕

    Developing the south stand could take it well over 30,000.  
    Explain…..it holds around 3,000 now, assuming approximately another 3,000 would be  obtainable on the upper level, it would bring us to just around 30,000.
    The original plans to get to 40k when we were in the PL was the extra tier in the then East would not add many seats, was more about corporate on the upper tier no more than about 3k extra seats

    The Jimmy Seed would have been flattened and rebuilt and using the corners would have added another 9k.

    Seemed to all go out the window when land was flogged at the Bartram Gate area which was needed for the expansion
  • sammy391
    sammy391 Posts: 3,782
    Think there's a recent article by Peter Varney (maybe in the SLP?) that confirmed that an extra tier on the AC wouldnt need the land that was sold behind  the stand (landsdown mews). Thats before you even look at developing, enlarging and even adding a tier to the Jimmy Seed, which Roland had tried to look at (wasnt a hotel mooted there at that point?).

    Filling in the corners are the most obvious step, if it was ever needed, but question would be where the big screen goes
  • Crusty54
    Crusty54 Posts: 3,227
    LargeAddick said:
    If we get to the PL our 26k+ capacity is more than sufficient. Look at Brentford and Bournemouth with 12k capacities and how they are thriving. TV income is what's key. 
    The new Brentford Community Stadium has a capacity of 17,250 and they normally sell it out. 
  • Off_it
    Off_it Posts: 28,838
    swords_alive said:
    Also the memorial garden, is that consecrated land? Google says "A planning change of use for consecrated land requires both local planning permission and permission from the relevant Church authorities, known as a faculty in the Church of England, due to its protected legal status. "
    Well, if you're using Google then look up "consecrated land" and that should tell you the answer is "no".
  • PragueAddick
    PragueAddick Posts: 22,143
    msomerton said:
    swords_alive said:
    Firstly it's not ours to build up as Roland owns the freehold so i'd estimate that is the primary constraint.

    I expect it's doable from an architectural point of view, but the next big constraint would likely be financial justification. We wouldn't fill it. A case could probably be made as there's more people living in the catchment area now but this would probably rely on us retaining premiership football and that would be a challenge and a risk. 
    Wrong. If we wanted to expand the stadium we can. The lease has nothing to do with the maintenance or expansion of the ground. As a Surrey member I can assure you the Prince of Wales has not spent a penny on the Oval he just takes the ground rent.
    Unfortunately, as @Airman Brown reveals in the latest Rich Cawley podcast, there is a problem with the terms of the lease contract re stadium development of any kind. But I’ll leave people to check out the podcast and hear it from the man himself.
  • CAFCTrev
    CAFCTrev Posts: 5,975
    20 years of top 10 premier league finishes should do it. 
  • SuedeAdidas
    SuedeAdidas Posts: 7,733
    Portch said:
    Fortune 82nd Minute said:
    DOUCHER said:
    SoundAsa£ said:
    se9addick said:
    The main obstacle is that it would be an insane waste of money currently!
    Well yes, I think that’s a given. it’s something for the future of course……I doubt I’ll live long enough to see it happen anyway.
    The reality is that if was to be deemed impossible The Valley (as things stand), will never hold more than approximately 30,000.
    For a well established London Premiership club that’s not going to be acceptable. IMHO.😕

    Developing the south stand could take it well over 30,000.  
    Come on, we need to be a bit more ambitious when we redevelop the Jimmy Seed stand.

    It needs to include a hotel in the redevelopment!
    Not a Sainsbury’s?
    Only if it’s the oldest Sainsbury’s in the world. 
  • Todds_right_hook
    Todds_right_hook Posts: 10,877
    sammy391 said:
    Think there's a recent article by Peter Varney (maybe in the SLP?) that confirmed that an extra tier on the AC wouldnt need the land that was sold behind  the stand (landsdown mews). Thats before you even look at developing, enlarging and even adding a tier to the Jimmy Seed, which Roland had tried to look at (wasnt a hotel mooted there at that point?).

    Filling in the corners are the most obvious step, if it was ever needed, but question would be where the big screen goes
    If the south stand was redeveloped, the screen could be relocated up high and fixed to the roof.
  • SoundAsa£
    SoundAsa£ Posts: 22,474
    It would seem the whole thing is something of a minefield.
    So many different opinions and posters with differing view points.
    It’s most confusing if you ask me, I certainly can’t work out what’s factual.
    So……is it viable or not?

Categories

“Marketplace”