mileoffside

Arsenal make me laugh, they had a crowd of 4,000 for s night match against Leeds in the old first division in 1966, piss poor for a top flight game.

Gone are the days when Chico Hamilton could debut for us at 16 and score away to Tottenham.
You've got to be an old man before you get a look in these days !!

Gone are the days when Chico Hamilton could debut for us at 16 and score away to Tottenham.
You've got to be an old man before you get a look in these days !!

Some more views of the stadium. Let me know if there are particular views you'd like to see.

As no one has commented yet on the official response to the EIA Scoping Report, I can only assume that you haven't managed to get access as there is some interesting stuff in there. Anyway, I've waded through it so that you don't have to and I'll just note some highlights. Worth stating that this isn't just a response from LBHF, it also outlines the response from various other statutory bodies and their responses are very up to date (all received from the 11th Aug-4th September this year). The views were from: RBKC, Thames Water, the Environment Agency, Natural England, Historic Parks, Royal Parks, Sports England, TfL, Network Rail and London Underground and while the individual responses are not available they are summarised in this document.  I'm aware that some of this is a bit dry but I thought it was worth listing the issues in the report both to see what the club is up against and to recognise that the council are not trying to stitch us up in relation to the project.
 
Overall, LBHF have considered the EIA Scoping report and feel that it is 'generally sound and clear'. However, they make the following comments:
They want the report to include information about the other options that have been considered regarding a new stadium. They want more detail about the restaurant and retail plans outside the footprint of the stadium (i.e. under the new Stamford Bridge presumably) and of the number of spaces in the car park. LBHF note that the geology and groundwater situation seems a bit more complex than the original report suggests. They insist that the project needs to include a sustainable drainage system - a SuDS (from the document this seems a particular concern but it is presumably resolvable) and they want the new stadium's potential to add to the flood risk of the area to be assessed. Thames Water re particularly concerned with the new stadiums water and sewage requirements and the potential for sewer collapse during the demolition and building phase. Natural England is concerned about the loss of the 'protected species habitats' immediately to the north and east of the site when the railways are covered over. They want 'full surveys conducted to establish the absence/presence of protected species' (shades of the search for the rare orchid...). Royal Parks want the impact on the views from seven specific locations in Brompton Cemetery to be considered. LBHF want two separate assessments of the road traffic to the new stadium to understand the impact on air quality and they want a low emissions strategy to minimise the resulting pollution. They also want assessments for all possible match times rather than just Sat 3pm, Sun 4pm and midweek 7.45pm and they want improved footways for pedestrians on Fulham Road (including 'a review of...street vendors'). RBKC 'consider the scope of assessment to be adequate and fit for purpose' but they want to know more about the impact on Earls Court tube station as well as Fulham Broadway and West Brompton. Transport for London state that since no correspondence has occurred with the consultants since April 2015 (despite their initial reaction and pre-application advice letter apparently being positive) 'it is premature to say the Transport Assessment Scoping Report has been agreed with TfL'. Incidentally, if anyone is interested the document confirms the consultants have been talking to TfL since at least Feb 2015. Particular concerns that TfL note centre on 'increased pressure on public transport infrastructure' and the 'effect on rail infrastructure and operations due to the decking over railway lines'. Network Rail state that 'no property rights or engineering approvals have yet been obtained to build the deck and negotiations are in the early stages which may lead to specifications/designs changing as negotiations progress'. LBHF and RBKC have asked for a Retail Impact Assessment for the whole of Fulham Town Centre and other shops close to Stamford Bridge in relation to the development. LBHF and RBKC have asked for light pollution to be considered as part of the report and to provide more information about the right to light of neighbouring properties. LBHF concludes that "the council considers that the submitted Environmental Statement Scoping Report appears to be generally acceptable and comprehensive, subject to the comments and required amendments set out in this letter". From my point of view, I think the major unresolved issue revealed here is that there is still some work to be done on finalising negotiations with TfL and Network Rail regarding the decking over of the railways lines. This is especially true as the work is supposed to start next summer and because their positions noted in the document are very up to date (TfL 17th Aug and Network Rail 4th Sept). I'm also a bit worried about this search for protected species along the railway verges. Just how much of an impact on the plans would there be if another rare orchid or endangered newt turned up? That said, most of the issues highlighted seem fairly technical and should be resolvable with some thought and probably some extra cash.

I updated my model to be an exact copy of the official model. So I can make renders from any seat, section in the stadium.