Please describe your concerns with this comment. If you simply wish to respond to the comment please use the Comment Box on the story itself:
I fail to see why this should be allowed, the change of use from (presumably) recreational to development is a dangerous precedent to set. What if the KGV or one of the football clubs said they'd like to improve their facilities but could only do so by building x number of units, would that be ok? I'm sure there are many clubs that could benefit from this type of policy, and they're not all privately owned like Kings is. At firt sight this likes like a fairly crude blackmail attempt along the lines of "give us building permission or we won't pay for a refurbishment of a private members club that people pay us handsomely to use".