You are here: Home > Message Board > Palace Talk > Training Ground Plans Rejected
April 23 2024 5.56pm

Training Ground Plans Rejected

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >

 

View pizzapat's Profile pizzapat Flag Caterham 25 Aug 17 4.59pm Send a Private Message to pizzapat Add pizzapat as a friend

Originally posted by majorkaios im afraid not!!!

did a run there recently and was told by a local runner that the locaL council had secured funds to develop land into leisure centre inc swimming pool etc!!

Your Idea seems like a genuinely sound location. I Wish you good luck in pointing this location to the board, perhaps they really are unaware of this site

thanks.

 


2010 decided my services were no longer required after 10 years service on the WHITEHORSE LANE FAMILY STAND

#CRPS

please read [Link] to find out what #CRPS is

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View pieceofcake's Profile pieceofcake Flag Cell 36,HMP Albany 25 Aug 17 5.43pm Send a Private Message to pieceofcake Add pieceofcake as a friend

Originally posted by auk

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.


Thanks for that auk.

The reasons given seem odd considering Kent County Cricket Club's development of their Beckenham ground,a very short distance fron the CPFC training ground.This included a 2048 seater stand,an indoor cricket school, 3G football pitches and a physiotherapy clinic.Added to that,it is suggested the developers had to build 48 houses in order to fund the project.This redevelopment occurred in 2013-2014,which were the same years that Councillor Russell Mellor,of Copers Cope Ward,received tickets for KCCC match(28/07/13 and 11/06/14 obtained from Councillor's Register of Interests listing on London Borough of Bromley site).

Councillor Mellor has served well the residents of Copers Cope Ward since 1998.One of his most recent Council jobs was serving on the Planning Committe that refused the CPFC Training Ground Application.


 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Forest Hillbilly's Profile Forest Hillbilly Flag in a hidey-hole 25 Aug 17 9.13pm Send a Private Message to Forest Hillbilly Add Forest Hillbilly as a friend

Originally posted by auk


The neighbours' objections are listed here.

[Link]

My vocation is in Planning. The Planners decisions and reasons for the outcome(s)of Applications can be hugely variable.
The Council state the reason for refusal is based on residents objections. In my opinion, the objections are speculative (at best), largely without basis, and in a lot of cases are conflicting.
Why does the number of people on site form part of objections ? seven additional car parking spaces are of no significance, when they later state that the site is hardly used in the off-season.
Speculation that alcohol may be served on site and pished-up people will be casing nuisance ?
WTF ?!!!

Speculating on Planning Creep in the future is of no consequence to the current proposal, and would be addressed through the Planning System.

Tree screening around the perimeter is probably the main issue that might need to be addressed.

The rest is just b0ll0x, to be honest


Edited by Forest Hillbilly (25 Aug 2017 9.15pm)

 


"The facts have changed", Rishi Sunak

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View auk's Profile auk Flag 25 Aug 17 9.28pm Send a Private Message to auk Add auk as a friend

Mostly agree with Pieceofcake and Forest Hillbilly.

Coun Russell Mellor represents the Copers Cope ward so it is a certainty that he will have been lobbied like fury by opponents of the proposal.

Which begs the question: did he approach the discussion with an open mind and did he vote impartially?

Re the point made by Pieceofcake, I think the councillors' Register of Interests should be published online (as is the practice with other councils).

Also, councillors should be compelled to state their home addresses (as at other councils) instead of putting c/o Bromley Council. Electors have a right to know where their representatives live

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
weaselpop Flag Southeast London and damn proud of... 25 Aug 17 9.58pm

Originally posted by Stuk

And tax payers. They'd have wasted an enormous amount of council funds and time too.

I don't agree.

In my limited experience of opposing highly unsuitable local developments, as a resident, the whole thing stinks. The consultation process is a complete waste of residents' time as the developer can work hand in hand with the planners after rejection and appeal to make small cosmetic changes and then get it through on the nod almost, without any further consultation with residents.

It's the appeal process that is a joke, not the consultation - I've seen things get through on appeal even though the residents and planning officers are against them!

Just saying ...

Edited by weaselpop (25 Aug 2017 9.59pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View pieceofcake's Profile pieceofcake Flag Cell 36,HMP Albany 26 Aug 17 1.43am Send a Private Message to pieceofcake Add pieceofcake as a friend

Originally posted by auk

Mostly agree with Pieceofcake and Forest Hillbilly.

Coun Russell Mellor represents the Copers Cope ward so it is a certainty that he will have been lobbied like fury by opponents of the proposal.

Which begs the question: did he approach the discussion with an open mind and did he vote impartially?

Re the point made by Pieceofcake, I think the councillors' Register of Interests should be published online (as is the practice with other councils).

Also, councillors should be compelled to state their home addresses (as at other councils) instead of putting c/o Bromley Council. Electors have a right to know where their representatives live


In fairness to the London Borough of Bromley,the elected councillors do have their Register of Interests
published online on the LBB website.

Regarding your last point,Bromley's councillors have to list

"Land: Any beneficial interest in land which is within the London Borough of Bromley, such as land or property which I own or have a right to occupy, or receive an income from."

This applies to the councillor and also their spouse or partner as applicable.It may be inferred that an address given in this section may be a home address.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View auk's Profile auk Flag 26 Aug 17 7.11am Send a Private Message to auk Add auk as a friend

weaselpop s right in suggesting that the planning system (sometimes at the appeal stage) regularly allows inappropriate development to go ahead.

But by the same token, it also regularly prevents appropriate development which is why the Palace application has stalled.

The proposal would surely have tidied up the site and created both employment and opportunities for young people.

Instead of refusing the plan, the committee should have approved it wholeheartedly in the knowledge that they were doing their bit to ensure Palace remains a top-flight English football club.

If only the council and the residents had the same pride and ambition as CPFC and its fans.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View auk's Profile auk Flag 26 Aug 17 7.39am Send a Private Message to auk Add auk as a friend

Thanks pieceofcake.

It took me a while to track down the register of interests but I got there in the end.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View auk's Profile auk Flag 31 Aug 17 9.17pm Send a Private Message to auk Add auk as a friend

For the record, the planning sub-committee's voting was 6-0 in favour of refusal.

Highly disappointing that Bromley councillors failed to get behind the local club - especially as the project would also create employment and generate opportunities for young people.

As of yesterday, CPFC has not lodged an appeal.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Billy_the_Eagle's Profile Billy_the_Eagle Flag Getting ready to freeze in UK 01 Sep 17 7.40am Send a Private Message to Billy_the_Eagle Add Billy_the_Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Pierre

Apparently it was all down to the cars in the training ground car park being of much higher value than the cars in the driveways of Copers Cope Road!

I wonder how many councillors live at the "posh" end of the Copers Cope Road. Certainly not at the “rough” end where fly tipping is an everyday occurrence!
Plenty of rubble available for new foundations though but it is Lewisham and not Bromley.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Goldfiinger's Profile Goldfiinger Flag Just down the road 03 Sep 17 8.44am Send a Private Message to Goldfiinger Add Goldfiinger as a friend

Originally posted by Tommyp151211

Some members of the 'back room' team live on the road I believe.

I spottted Sammy Lee walking down the road towards the ground early one morning and wondered if he walked to work. You'd assume he drive in and park in the car park, so thought it was odd he was walking down the road. Unless they really are limited for space.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View bexleydave's Profile bexleydave Flag Barnehurst 03 Sep 17 8.54am Send a Private Message to bexleydave Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add bexleydave as a friend

Originally posted by Goldfiinger

I spottted Sammy Lee walking down the road towards the ground early one morning and wondered if he walked to work. You'd assume he drive in and park in the car park, so thought it was odd he was walking down the road. Unless they really are limited for space.

My elder son used to see former physio Alex Manos almost every morning, waiting to catch a bus from Bromley Common to Beckenham, so perhaps parking really is a problem.

 


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)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > Palace Talk > Training Ground Plans Rejected