This post has been merged from a topic called 'Stadium plans' by bexleydave

Yes, us mere mortals will be able to view absolutely everything submitted on the Croydon Council website fairly soon. The application has to be 'validated' by the officers (ie they check that everything is there that should be - there will be not only lots of plans, but also all sorts of noise, traffic, parking and other environmental assessments) and as soon as that is done, it will all be uploaded for everyone to see. Then the public can make their comments either supporting or objecting (giving reasons).

Re Ginger Public Wig - the revised design is not massively different really, a bit more brick banding and so on. More importantly they are showing cars and trees in the car park and the setting with regard to the supermarket etc, rather than airbrushing everything out, which they were criticised for at the meeting (it was suggested that the club was inferring a huge 'fan plaza' rather than a car park as no indication was given of landscaping, so this at least makes it clear as to the setting and leaves no ambiguity

This post has been merged from a topic called 'Stadium plans' by bexleydave

I can see the new stand maybe losing the top tier of seats and being scaled back to satisfy local councillors yet.

This post has been merged from a topic called 'Stadium plans' by bexleydave

I am a planner myself, and would like to add a couple of observations / comments:

Firstly, thanks Dorking for all your updates on this. Whilst I'm sure nobody doubts it, my professional opinion is that Dorking is capturing the main points of this in a far more accurate, fair and straight way than the papers (or even the club) are likely to, as well as saving everyone on here from trying to weed through all the documentation on the Council website, which is designed to be read by the public but still needs a little clarification for most.

Secondly, I did an article for one of the fanzines about 12 or 13 years ago about the obstacles to redeveloping the main stand, and the main ones were clear:

1. The Cost.
2. The Houses on Wooderson Close.
3. Land Ownership (i.e. Sainsbury’s).

All three remain relevant, though I would now add:

4. Local Infrastructure.

The major changes over the last 10-15 years are financial. We got on the Premier League gravy train at exactly the right time, and with the Americans on board can now afford not only to build, but also to buy out both the houses and Sainsbury’s. None of this would have been possible until now.

Another point to consider is that 10-15 years ago Croydon Council had no particular policy on Selhurst Park – it was just private land. Not long after I wrote my article, the Council adopted a new policy, recognising the value of CPFC in the Borough and making it harder to redevelop Selhurst Park into anything other than a football ground. This was relevant at the time, as the club didn’t own the ground, and it was far from certain that we would be able to continue playing there. In that context the policy could be read as a show of support for the club in the Borough, and given some of the comments on here it is worth noting that Croydon Council have, if anything, become demonstrably more pro-CPFC as recent years have gone by. As Dorking rightly says, the Council are broadly supportive of this project now.

In terms of stumbling blocks, despite some slightly snooty comments in the last planning report about the external appearance of the stand, I doubt very much the Council would refuse this application on how it looks. The local area simply doesn’t have enough architectural quality or consistency for that. If push came to shove the club could just change the appearance, but it's not a likely deal-breaker for either side.

The rest is stuff the club can work around – we absolutely do need to provide new housing to replace that which we propose to demolish (it would be scandalous even to consider not doing so), and that may take some time if we need to buy land elsewhere for that purpose. We also do need to pay our share towards road and rail services locally, partly because we have the money and should be taxed appropriately, and partly because we generate so many journeys already, and will generate even more when we expand the ground. It’s only fair (and an established part of the planning system) that we pay towards the network. This shouldn’t be insurmountable – the Council will have a tariff of sorts, and though there may be some haggling the club will have expected to shell out for network improvements.

Finally, we do also have a clear obligation to provide something within this project for the local community where we can. Most CPFC fans support this, the club certainly talk the talk, and the Council are entitled to get what they can for the community out of redevelopments of this size. Anyone who is against this might like to consider that if the gains for the community from this project are sufficiently important, it may even allow the Council to use Compulsory Purchase Orders to see the redevelopment come to fruition. Chelsea had this benefit recently when a neighbour was digging their heels in over their right to light, and the local Council CPO’d that right to allow for the redevelopment of Stamford Bridge, a project for which they had already granted planning permission. Given that Sainsbury’s own a bit of the land we need for this, and may seek to hold us over a barrel, this aspect may become important in time.

All in all, this looks good to me. It may not be done in the time the club would like, and they may have to pay out for a few extras, but there is every reason to be positive.

This post has been merged from a topic called 'Stadium plans' by bexleydave

Very interesting view from the other side of the fence. Very optimistic too.

This post has been merged from a topic called 'Stadium plans' by bexleydave

As I understand it (and I haven’t done the research that Dorking has) Palace have not yet submitted the actual planning application, they are instead in the pre-application phase which involves ‘engaging with the community’ (i.e. displaying your ideas to the wider world and taking on board their comments, and in this case the Councils, before you then make the actual planning application). Perhaps Dorking can confirm.

If the Council ultimately grants planning permission it will do so subject to conditions and a legal agreement, all of which will basically set out what CPFC have to do if they want to implement the permission and build the stand. Basically, the terms of the permission will be set out. Normally this will require some extra details to be approved (exact materials, landscaping and so on), and tie the club to network and community facility improvements, replacement housing and probably the signing of a large cheque.

The key thing to remember about the post-planning permission phase (if we get there) is that planning permission doesn’t override land ownership, and as the new stand would sit partly on land owned by Sainsbury’s, and also require the demolition of houses not in our ownership, there will still be work to do before the build can begin. This is likely to involve agreeing a price for the land in question with Sainsbury’s and the homeowner, and if that gets messy then perhaps asking Croydon Council to CPO it.

Another possible post-planning delay would be if the Council wanted the new housing (wherever that is) to be completed before the Wooderson Close houses are flattened. If CPFC have any firm plans about new / replacement housing somewhere to offset the lost ones, they haven’t said anything yet. It may be that permission is granted on the condition that appropriate replacement housing is provided first (it would certainly be fair to do that), leading to CPFC not being able to get cracking on the new stand until they find suitable land for new housing somewhere, buy it, get permission for that housing, and build it.

As Eaglecoops rightly says, if something is ‘called in’ it just means that a relevant higher power (in our case, the Mayor of London and then the Secretary of State) reserve the right to make the final decision. Either could well happen in our case, but I doubt the outcome would be affected.

Edited by TheBigToePunt (06 Feb 2018 5.38pm)

This post has been merged from a topic called 'Stadium plans' by bexleydave

100% agreed.
Thanks to all for taking the time to 'clarify/simplify' many points.

Great work.

Buy Litecoin.