NIMBY's are the worst people in the world. Imagine being that much of a curtain twitching sad b******

The application was determined by a sub-committee consisting of nine councillors.

Unfortunately, the Advertiser report does not reveal the voting figure.

As an alternative to lodging an appeal, the club has the option of submitting a revised application which could address the residents' concerns.

It could also both lodge the appeal AND submit a revised application.

The club seems to have handled this matter clumsily.

It should certainly have held a consultation exercise with all residents.

It should also have lobbied the councillors who sit on that particular planning sub-committee in advance of the debate.

Agreed This seems not to have been seen from the residents point of view at all and handled badly by the club.
As with any development involving residents you have to communicate, have ongoing dialogue and involve them. Show them what you are trying to achieve and be seen to try and incorporate as many of their concerns as possible.

All those objections came from just five people and the councillors were persuaded by that? We'd be wasting our time trying to engage with people like that; they're not going to change their minds and if the rest of the residents haven't objected, they're probably best left alone. Once you start approaching people for an opinion you generally find they have one and it may not be the one you want to hear. Better to appeal and see what happens, then take it from there.

Bexley Dave

Can you hear the Brighton sing? I can't hear a ******* thing!

"The most arrogant, obnoxious bunch of deluded little sun tanned, loafer wearing mummy's boys I've ever had the misfortune of having to listen to" (Burnley forum)

My experience with Councillors nowadays is that they often back the Residents to carry local favour but in planning terms schemes get through once the Appeal gets heard as technically there is nothing wrong.
That way - the scheme goes ahead and the Councillors are able to say to their constituents that they tried.
A complete waste of Developers money just because Councillors are often too weak to stand up and be counted!

The planning case officer for Bromley Council is Stephanie Gardiner who recommended that the application should be approved, but her recommendation was rejected by the plans sub-committee.

The councillors who made the refusal decision were: Lydia Buttinger (committee chair), Peter Dean, Nicky Dykes, Simon Fawthrop, Russell Mellor, Tony Owen,
Richard Scoates, Michael Turner (vice-chair) and Angela Wilkins.

Most of the Copers Cope Road residents didn't bother to submit comments, so they probably didn't care one way or another.

The most vigorous opponent was Richard Fielder who describes himself as chairman of Copers Cope Road Action Group (but that might just consist of himself).

The official refusal notice states: "The proposal would result in inappropriate development on Metropolitan Open Land as a result of the overdevelopment of the
site by way of the massing and bulk of the proposed extension, coupled with the extension to the parking area, which would result in a loss of openness, detrimental to the character, spatial standards and appearance of this area, of which no very
special circumstances exist."

Palace submitted the application in June 2015, so it has taken more than two years to reach the decision stage - plus a huge amount of money in consultancy,
architects and planning fees.

The potential prize is far too great important for the club to walk away, so it would be surprising if it does not lodge either an appeal or a revised application (or both).

The trouble with the appeal process is that it could take another 18 months or longer before it heard by a Planning Directorate inspector.

The club might be well advised to contact the opponents, asking them to suggest proposals that might prompt them to withdraw their objections.

That might lead to a situation where the club can lodge an appeal with an assurance from Bromley Council that it will not be contested.

The development will then be able to proceed.