CHARLTON Athletic is appealing to the Government after a council refused part of its redevelopment plans.

Plans for nine flats at the rear of the east stand were blocked by Greenwich councillors, throwing the project to add a second tier to the stand and build a south-east quadrant into turmoil.

The redevelopment would increase the capacity of The Valley to about 31,000 people.

Addicks chief executive Peter Varney said he was frustrated that a “minor issue” was threatening to derail the plans.

He said: “It is sad that we must now go into battle with the council once again on a planning issue when surely a little bit of common sense could have averted a costly exercise for both parties.

“While we have received planning permission for the general east-stand development, the provision of some flats is integral to the funding of the project.”

Greenwich council refused to remove a condition that the flats must be occupied by tenants “associated to the club” that formed part of its consent regarding the application in August 2006.

Mr Varney said: “I am puzzled as to why tenure of the flats has become such a contentious issue, and this condition is so wide-ranging as to be difficult to enforce.

“Are we talking about club employees only, or are we extending that to season-ticket holders and Red Card holders, or friends and family of season-ticket holders, or those people from the local community who use The Valley’s facilities, such as all the staff and students of London Leisure College?

“It’s incredible the process has taken so long, and, after all that time, we have had the worst possible outcome. We are now in the process of lodging our appeal to the environment secretary.”

He added: “The club will always remain the freeholder of the flats, and while it is likely the majority of tenants will be directly associated with the club, we do not wish to be denied the opportunity to sell the properties on a leasehold basis in the future.”

Issuing a formal refusal notice last month, the council said removing the condition would “result in a use that is not ancillary nor environmentally compatible with the existing land use of the stadium, and would give rise to a poor living environment by reason of poor outlook and noise and disturbance, thereby detrimental to the amenities of future occupiers”.