Our New Stadium

[Zola]

Hopefully some new developments soon, gone quiet again!

[Chelsbear]

26 minutes ago, Essex blue said:

I can't see this happening, there's too many permutations, and too much red tape. Hope I'm wrong though. I like Stamford Bridge as it is, my only gripe is the position of the away fans. They get to much influence from there. 

Sadly the ground is far too small for where we are as a club. We have to expand to keep up with football 

[the special one]

Safe standing!!!! 

[Boyne]

23 hours ago, charierre said:

http://www.eurosport.co.uk/football/exclusive-stamford-bridge-could-be-chelseas-home-for-1000-years-after-shareholder-vote_sto5997714/story.shtml#uk-tw-po

@charierre Thanks for posting. Very interesting. It will be very interesting to see what happens at the CPO AGM at the end of January. As mentioned above, I'll be going along and will report back.

10 hours ago, Kentonio said:

Thats not down to Roman nd the club, that's down to us. If we want the new Stamford Bridge to come alive, we have to pour our hearts and souls into making that happen. If we lend our energy and voices to the bridge, then it will become our new home for real.

At the last few CPO AGMs those there have been very passionate about the redevelopment of the ground. Their only wish is that they retain a stake in the ground.

1 hour ago, Zola said:

Hopefully some new developments soon, gone quiet again!

Just had a look on the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Council website. Nothing on there since last September.

1 hour ago, Essex blue said:

I can't see this happening, there's too many permutations, and too much red tape. Hope I'm wrong though. I like Stamford Bridge as it is, my only gripe is the position of the away fans. They get to much influence from there. 

When representatives from the club met fans, staff from the council and local businesses and residents to discuss the plans and answer questions they were asked about where away fans would be located in the new ground. The answer was where they are at the moment i.e. on the East side of the Shed End.

44 minutes ago, the special one said:

Safe standing!!!! 

Asked about that when club reps discussed the plans and the answer was there were no plans. It will be interesting to see if those plans have changed given that Celtic has introduced safe standing at Celtic Park and there are petitions going around about safe standing. I think it requires Government Legislation for safe standing to be introduced and with loads of other stuff going on e.g. Brexit I', not sure if they will see it as a priority.

 

[Boyne]

Just found this on the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) Council website. It is date 19 December. Even though the planning application was submitted to London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (LBHF) Council LBHF passed on copies to RBKC for comment etc. I'm not surprised given that the ground is on the border of the two councils.

 

The information submitted fails to demonstrate that the development would not have an unacceptable impact on the operation of Earl's Court underground station. This is contrary to policies 6.1(j) and 6.3 of The London Plan 2015 and Consolidated Local Plan policy CT1

In the absence of a suitable S106 obligation to secure an appropriate payment for a review of on-street parking controls, and further payment for implementation of any necessary changes to on-street parking controls in theRoyal Borough, the development does not mitigate the impact of the proposals on on-street parking pressure within the Royal Borough. This is contrary to policy 6.13 of The London Plan 2015 and Consolidated Local Plan policy CT1

The information submitted with the application fails to demonstrate the demolition and construction phases of the development would not have an adverse impact on this Borough's highways. The information submitted fails to adequately consider the cumulative impact on the junction of Fulham Road and Finsborough Road (A3220) which is relied upon by all site traffic. This is contrary to policy 6.3 of The London Plan 2015 and Consolidated Local Plan policy CT1

The development fails to provide a sufficient number of cycle parking spaces which is likely to lead to an increase in informal cycle parking within the Borough's streets resulting in unwelcome street clutter. This is contrary to policy 6.9 of The London Plan 2015 and consolidated local plan policy CT1

The proposed development by reason of the proximity of the raised walkway to the Stamford Cottage properties would cause a significant increase in the sense of enclosure and have an unacceptable and harmful impact on the living conditions of occupiers of those properties. This is contrary to policy 7.6 (d) of the London Plan 2015 and consolidated local plan policy CL5

The proposed development by reason of its scale and visibility from The Billings Conservation Area and Brompton Cemetery Conservation Area would be harmful to the setting and views from these designated heritage assets failing to preserve or enhance their character, appearance or settings. This is contrary to policy 7.8 of The London Plan 2015 and consolidated local plan policy CL3.

[KonaKai Blue]

2 hours ago, Boyne said:

Just found this on the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) Council website. It is date 19 December. Even though the planning application was submitted to London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (LBHF) Council LBHF passed on copies to RBKC for comment etc. I'm not surprised given that the ground is on the border of the two councils.

 

The information submitted fails to demonstrate that the development would not have an unacceptable impact on the operation of Earl's Court underground station. This is contrary to policies 6.1(j) and 6.3 of The London Plan 2015 and Consolidated Local Plan policy CT1

In the absence of a suitable S106 obligation to secure an appropriate payment for a review of on-street parking controls, and further payment for implementation of any necessary changes to on-street parking controls in theRoyal Borough, the development does not mitigate the impact of the proposals on on-street parking pressure within the Royal Borough. This is contrary to policy 6.13 of The London Plan 2015 and Consolidated Local Plan policy CT1

The information submitted with the application fails to demonstrate the demolition and construction phases of the development would not have an adverse impact on this Borough's highways. The information submitted fails to adequately consider the cumulative impact on the junction of Fulham Road and Finsborough Road (A3220) which is relied upon by all site traffic. This is contrary to policy 6.3 of The London Plan 2015 and Consolidated Local Plan policy CT1

The development fails to provide a sufficient number of cycle parking spaces which is likely to lead to an increase in informal cycle parking within the Borough's streets resulting in unwelcome street clutter. This is contrary to policy 6.9 of The London Plan 2015 and consolidated local plan policy CT1

The proposed development by reason of the proximity of the raised walkway to the Stamford Cottage properties would cause a significant increase in the sense of enclosure and have an unacceptable and harmful impact on the living conditions of occupiers of those properties. This is contrary to policy 7.6 (d) of the London Plan 2015 and consolidated local plan policy CL5

The proposed development by reason of its scale and visibility from The Billings Conservation Area and Brompton Cemetery Conservation Area would be harmful to the setting and views from these designated heritage assets failing to preserve or enhance their character, appearance or settings. This is contrary to policy 7.8 of The London Plan 2015 and consolidated local plan policy CL3.

So basically we are screwed.

[fitz]

2 hours ago, KonaKai Blue said:

So basically we are screwed.

Not at all. Issues like 'cycle spaces' and construction traffic control are fairly straightforward to resolve. The s106 obligation is basically the Boroughs asking the Club to cough up extra cash to pay for 'street improvement' reviews etc. The  tricky ones are the impact of extra fans using Earls Court (TfL looking for a bung to upgrade access etc) and the last two as they are both basically design related and we are already trying to squeeze a lot into a small site. I find it difficult to believe that the the new brick stadium design is more 'harmful to the setting of Brompton Cemetery' than the current concrete Brutalist East Stand and the application will no doubt make the same argument. It's a subjective opinion - not a matter of fact and if the other issues are dealt with to the planners satisfaction would probably not be enough on its own to derail the scheme. The raised walkway close to the Cottages again -  a design issue. The architects will be working on mitigating the impact no doubt.

[Tibbers]

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/chelseas-plan-for-new-stadium-runs-into-trouble-over-threat-to-bats-habitat-a3330141.html

[Mr Parker's Dogbite]

Hammersmith & Fulham council officers have recommended the application for approval. Due to be discussed by the Planning and Development Committee on Wed 11th January.

http://news.costar.co.uk/en/assets/news/2017/January/Chelsea-FC-set-for-major-development-all-clear/

[bisright1]

17 hours ago, Tibbers said:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/chelseas-plan-for-new-stadium-runs-into-trouble-over-threat-to-bats-habitat-a3330141.html

That story is 6 months old...

 

 

[fitz]

Link to H&F Planning Committee's Report recommending approval of the new Stadium. It's been known for Planners to overturn their own Committees recommendations so we haven't got Full Planning Permission yet - but this is an important next step. 

 

http://democracy.lbhf.gov.uk/documents/s86180/Full Report_plus contents page_Friday 23.12.2016.pdf

[Ivanov87]

Good news. We need to keep up with the top 6.

[PythonLu]

On 1/4/2017 at 13:15, Mr Parker's Dogbite said:

Hammersmith & Fulham council officers have recommended the application for approval. Due to be discussed by the Planning and Development Committee on Wed 11th January.

http://news.costar.co.uk/en/assets/news/2017/January/Chelsea-FC-set-for-major-development-all-clear/

 

15 hours ago, fitz said:

Link to H&F Planning Committee's Report recommending approval of the new Stadium. It's been known for Planners to overturn their own Committees recommendations so we haven't got Full Planning Permission yet - but this is an important next step. 

 

http://democracy.lbhf.gov.uk/documents/s86180/Full Report_plus contents page_Friday 23.12.2016.pdf

Fantastic news! I hope we can start work on this as soon as possible. I believe the initial target was to start 2020/2021 in the new stadium, which I hope we can still achieve.

It's a shame a sophisticated design like this comes at a cost in terms of time it takes to build it. That's where Spurs, Arsenal etc have the advantage. Their new metalbox is up and running in a few months.

[Ivanov87]

Oh sh*t forgot there's already a thread on this. Mods please delete.

[BrexitBasher]

There's a stadium thread for that.

[Zola]

Chelsea are expected to discover next Wednesday if their planning application to rebuild Stamford Bridge will be approved.

The application to convert the ground into a 60,000-seat stadium will be presented to Hammersmith and Fulham Council planning and development control committee on January 11, the council said on Thursday.

And the committee is expected to deliver its verdict after the scheduled meeting, which is due to begin at 1900.

 

Hammersmith and Fulham Council has recommended the application be approved, but the complexity of the project means it would just be one significant step in the rebuild to transform the current 41,000-capacity stadium into a new one.

It would also expedite Chelsea's requirement to find a temporary home.

Chelsea submitted the planning application in November 2015. The proximity of overground and underground railway lines creates challenges for the project in a built-up area of west London.

[MKBlue]

On 06/11/2016 at 22:22, Neilando said:

This was another couple of ideas I came up with:
 

Love the last one, a nod to the old East Stand

 

[Carshalton Blue]

Bringing up old ground here, but i still struggle with Chelsea's claim that they cant add an extra tier to the MH upper because of local residents right to flight(i was told that at the two consultations i went to) firstly there isnt any properties behind the MH stand & the West stand is opposite the Oswald Stoll building & doesnt block out any light.

[Mr Parker's Dogbite]

6 minutes ago, Carshalton Blue said:

Bringing up old ground here, but i still struggle with Chelsea's claim that they cant add an extra tier to the MH upper because of local residents right to flight(i was told that at the two consultations i went to) firstly there isnt any properties behind the MH stand & the West stand is opposite the Oswald Stoll building & doesnt block out any light.

There are properties on Brompton Park Crescent behind the MH Stand and a larger stand there would presumably have to be taller and stretch much further back. I do see your point about the proximity of the West Stand and Oswald Stoll but maybe it's a matter of where the sun is in relation to the stadium over the course of the year.

[fitz]

750 individual neighbouring windows were tested for the impact on light levels the new stadium will have (one of the reasons these developments in built-up areas take so much longer) according to the planning documents. These drawings show the difference in bulk and proximity to neighbouring properties between the old and new stadiums.

 

 

As for the extra-tier on the old stadium scenario I don't know but I'm guessing that because any extra storeys would have to be built  'straight up' vertically from the existing foundations rather than 'slope away' from the neighbours (like the new stadium does) it would create light problems.

[Bovis Messroom]

Location of the various gates and public access times to the proposed new stadium.

 

[Celery1989]

On 1/3/2017 at 12:28, Essex blue said:

I can't see this happening, there's too many permutations, and too much red tape. Hope I'm wrong though. I like Stamford Bridge as it is, my only gripe is the position of the away fans. They get to much influence from there. 

I hope we put them high in the new West or East stand as that way they would have the least possible influence on the game. However, given that these would be the most expensive seats its very unlikely to happen and so hopefully they are in the West or East Lower. It irritates me that they have a corner of the Shed, all thanks to José Mourinho as well. 

Is anyone else concerned about what 3 years at a half-full Wembley will do to us? It's been shown that the big pitch doesn't do any favours for teams that play there and for the fans the area is rubbish as well. 

[Bovis Messroom]

8 hours ago, Celery1989 said:

I hope we put them high in the new West or East stand as that way they would have the least possible influence on the game. However, given that these would be the most expensive seats its very unlikely to happen and so hopefully they are in the West or East Lower. It irritates me that they have a corner of the Shed, all thanks to José Mourinho as well. 

Is anyone else concerned about what 3 years at a half-full Wembley will do to us? It's been shown that the big pitch doesn't do any favours for teams that play there and for the fans the area is rubbish as well. 

I believe legislation is coming in that a proportion of the away fans seating must be pitch-side.   The visitors section in the new stadium will be located in the SW corner (equivalent to the opposite side of The Shed) and split over the three tiers.  A very similar arrangement to The Etihad.   As a regular away fan, I totally disagree about visiting supporters being shunted up in the gods.  These are the loyalist of fans and it's like an admission of defeat by the home support that they cannot out-sing them.  We should be better than that 

[Essex blue]

Our away fans are up there with the best in the country, our home fans aren't so great TBH. If they are going to be located in a similar position to which they're now, then I think  they should be thinly spread in each 3 tiers,similar to what city have done. 

[Celery1989]

4 hours ago, Bovis Messroom said:

As a regular away fan, I totally disagree about visiting supporters being shunted up in the gods.  These are the loyalist of fans and it's like an admission of defeat by the home support that they cannot out-sing them.  We should be better than that 

Fair point mate. I actually go to a handful of aways and in fairness do always appreciate being in the corner of an end, be it upper or lower. It just rankles me that the away fans get up to half the Shed when this is the stand that has been synonymous with our fans or decades. In the new ground they will definitely be in an end, just remains to be seen which one and why. I would have thought the Shed as this is easier to get in and out of.