If you have been following this Saga.
The Opportunity Area Planning Framework published today contains a classic planners wolly wording that doesn’t bite.
potential for large-scale catalyst uses such as a new educational facility, football stadium, sports complex, health, arts, leisure or cultural centre
Imaging fighting a CPO inquiry on that wording?
I’m a real wonk on this issue as it is a common one.
Heres the planning law issues
1. Private Football Club Survival is a private interest not a public interest – planning is about public interest.
Witness Dulwich Hamlet football club inquiry (which I fought and won on behlaf of locl residents) where the inspector agreed with this point and that football is all about the risk of success and failure and failure.
2. Hence the Concept of the ‘Community Stadium’
Drempt up by Prescott at the Falmer Stadium Brighton to overcome AONB issues, whilst private interests were not material he considered the stadium as a ‘community stadium’ because it offered sporting opportunities and facilities open to the wider community as a bonus. The term is now used universally to get around this legal point. Witness community stadium proposals (often misconceived) in York, Cambridge etc, et, ad nausium.
3. You can specify any grade of Community Stadium you like providing it meets a planning purpose.
So you can specify a premier league quality, national stadium quality, league 1 Rugby ground (as in High Wycombe Community Stadium for Wasps), Division 1 Cricket Ground, etc. etc.
4. You cant Specify the Club in Policy
A private interest. Which always stuffs QPR as Chelsea has bigger pockets. So what QPR can buy Stamford Bridge.
With this in mind I dont need to specify how the policy should be worded, you can work it out for yourself.
If Deptford can rebrand itself as New Bermondsey, (as pontless in the glamour stakes as Welling rebranding itself New Erith) then Old Oak can rebrand itself as New Chelsea.