Given we have heard nothing for a while that makes sense. I can see us looking at new sites again.

Given we have heard nothing for a while that makes sense. I can see us looking at new sites again.

I'm fairly sure we were told there would be no news or development until September.

The problem with Craven Cottage is despite it being local, it's so small it can barely accommodate our present season ticket holders. If the club faced shutting out club members for three years it would be a financial blow in the short term as what would be the point of paying £25 when there is literally no chance of getting a ticket? Then the longer term effects could also be bad as it may take some time to repair that damage. I'm sure the club will see the benefits of at least a 50K capacity stadium as they need to grow the match going support to hope to eventually fill a 60K Stamford Bridge.

I'm sure they'll be less bothered by the increased journey from Putney than they will be about enticing new fans from other regions. The hardcore support will stick with the club because that's what it does.

I'm sure it'll be Wembley if not possibly the Olympic thing. It's just that I reckon it's going to be two or three years away yet.

 

Isnt this contradictory. If not getting tickets for 2-3 seasons will turn someone to another team then I doubt that person would be willing to travel all the way across london.

 

Personally I dont think either of the two things will turn away more than a handful of the match goers. Getting craven cottage will be awesome.

Edited June 4, 201610 yr by Orpington_Blue

I was joking before. No way fulham would let us share with them. They hate us.

I was joking before. No way fulham would let us share with them. They hate us.

 

I think they're cute.

How about we swap grounds with Fulham and develop Craven Cottage.

 

Mez

How about we swap grounds with Fulham and develop Craven Cottage.

Mez

we could have the first floating pitch!!

I was joking before. No way fulham would let us share with them. They hate us.

 

Their owner is a sporting conglomerate similar to glazers or henry. He is not a hobbyist like Abrahmovic.

 

He wouldnt give a toss about the fans if Abrahmovic threw enough money his way.

Just put some pics up in the vintage section of the designs for our proposed new ground in the early 70s.

 

http://www.theshedend.com/topic/18020-vintage-blues-pictures-and-film/page-275

Isnt this contradictory. If not getting tickets for 2-3 seasons will turn someone to another team then I doubt that person would be willing to travel all the way across london.

Personally I dont think either of the two things will turn away more than a handful of the match goers. Getting craven cottage will be awesome.

What I meant by hardcore support is the fans who travel away and long term season ticket holders. The fans that might lose some interest in going to games by being barred from getting tickets for three years are club members who pay £25 for the opportunity to get tickets for games, usually the less glamorous fixtures. And a lot of those fans aren't necessarily resident in SW6. So travelling to Wembley for 3 or 4 games a season would maybe not be as much a problem to them as being frozen out for three seasons. It's perhaps not they'd support someone else, just that they may lose the habit or drive in that time and not get back into it.

But maybe with a 60'000 seater stadium in the future it'll be almost impossible not to get tickets for all but the biggest fixtures, even without a membership.

Anyway, I still can't see the club going there because it could possibly have a medium term effect on the fan base and it would certainly restrict match day revenue for three years. It's the old bottom line again.

Edited June 6, 201610 yr by Snedger

What I meant by hardcore support is the fans who travel away and long term season ticket holders. The fans that might lose some interest in going to games by being barred from getting tickets for three years are club members who pay £25 for the opportunity to get tickets for games, usually the less glamorous fixtures. And a lot of those fans aren't necessarily resident in SW6. So travelling to Wembley for 3 or 4 games a season would maybe not be as much a problem to them as being frozen out for three seasons. It's perhaps not they'd support someone else, just that they may lose the habit or drive in that time and not get back into it.

But maybe with a 60'000 seater stadium in the future it'll be almost impossible not to get tickets for all but the biggest fixtures, even without a membership.

Anyway, I still can't see the club going there because it could possibly have a medium term effect on the fan base and it would certainly restrict match day revenue for three years. It's the old bottom line again.

 

Actually most of the members I know dont have a ST for one of two reasons. 1) they cant afford it 2) they dont gather have enough points. So its unlikely they stop being chelsea supporters all of a sudden. 

 

Also most of the support does not come from SW6. It comes from deep with-in surry, kent and essex. It would mean increase travel costs and travel times.

 

Both the cases pose big problems for the match goers. Dont think either will deter those who want to go though.

 

If we ended up in a smaller ground for a couple of seasons, the number of STs will surely be reduced, keeping them at about 70% of the capacity. Simillarly if we ended up at Twikers or Wembley the STs will increase proportional to the capacity.

We have 25,000 non cooperate season ticket holders. If we go to craven cottage who decides who loses their season ticket? Non starter for me.

Minutes of the CPO Board Meeting of 7 April 2016. I can't remember if they have already been posted. Point 2 is about the ground redevelopment

 

http://www.chelseafc.com/content/dam/cfc/pdf-word-documents/CPO/CPO%20Minutes%20070416%20.pdf

 

Minutes of the CPO Board Meeting of 15 June. Point 2 is about the ground redevelopment.

 

http://www.chelseafc.com/content/dam/cfc/pdf-word-documents/CPO/CPO%20Minutes%20150616.pdf

Have just found this article about the redevelopment. 

 

http://www.eurosport.co.uk/football/premier-league/2015-2016/chelsea-stadium-latest_sto5723811/story.shtml

Have just found this article about the redevelopment.

http://www.eurosport.co.uk/football/premier-league/2015-2016/chelsea-stadium-latest_sto5723811/story.shtml

Good article that, this build was always going to be a legal minefield I suppose due to the location and profile.

Objections now posted on the RBKC website too, dated 1st August (just search for 'Stamford Bridge' and look under the Decisions tab)

 

https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/planning/searches/default.aspx

 

 

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

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 changes to on-street parking controls if necessary in the Royal Borough, the application does not mitigate the impact of the proposals on on-street parking pressure within the Royal Borough, contrary to policies of the Consolidated Local Plan in particular, Policy CT1 and policy 6.13 of the London Plan 2015.

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 submitted information fails to adequately consider the cumulative impact of traffic movements during these phases and the impact on the junction of Fulham Road and Finsborough Road (A3220) which is relied upon by all site traffic. Therefore, the proposal is contrary to policies contained in the Consolidated Local Plan, in particular 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 Royal Borough's streets, resulting in unwelcome street clutter, contrary to policies CT1 and CR4 of the Consolidated Local Plan and London Plan 2015 policy 6.9.

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 conflicts with policies of this Borough's Consolidated Local Plan , in particular policy CL5.

The proposed development would result in a significant loss of sunlight and daylight to properties in Stamford Cottages and would cause an unacceptable reduction in the living conditions of those properties. This conflicts with policies of this Borough's Consolidated Local Plan 2015, in particular policy CL5.

The proposed development by reason of its development over the railway embankment and its close proximity to Brompton Cemetery, would cause a partial loss of, and harm to, this Borough's Grade 1 Sites of Nature Conservation Importance. The development does not provide appropriate mitigation for this harm and the submitted bat surveys are inadequate to fully assess the ecological impact of the development. This conflicts with policies contained in this Borough's Consolidated Local Plan 2015, in particular policies CE4 and CR5.

The proposal does not include an air quality neutral assessment for transport emissions as is required by the Mayor's Sustainable Design and Construction SPG (2014). It is not possible to determine whether the development would be air quality neutral for transport emissions and if it were not neutral, the mitigation required to offset this is not determined. As such the development could undermine efforts to control the impact of development on air quality in this Borough, contrary to policy CE5 of this Borough's Consolidated Local Plan and policy 7.14 of the London Plan.

The proposed development by reason of its scale and proximity to the Billings Conservation Area and Brompton Cemetery Conservation Area is considered to result in harm to the setting and views from out of these Conservation Areas. Therefore, the proposal is considered contrary to policies in the Consolidated Local Plan, in particular, Policy CL3

 

Thanks for posting Kiwi1691.

 

Some interesting comments made by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.

 

I wonder how much say they have in the approval of the redevelopment of the Stadium given that we're in the Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. Unless there is a rule that allows a neighbouring Council to have a say if a redevelopment takes place within a certain distance of borough boundaries.

 

RBKC is concerned about the impact on Earl's Court Underground. I'm intrigued if the Council is concerned about the increased numbers at the Station on match day. If so, I'm not aware of any concerns from Transport of London. 

 

RBKC says it has concerns about the lack of sunlight to Stamford Cottages. I'm baffled by that as the new ground will be no higher than the existing one.

 

As DKW has stated this is going to be a legal minefield given the location and profile.

Valencia have been building their new stadium for 9 years now and are still nowhere near completion, hope we don't end up waiting that long.

Have found a couple of links about the redevelopment. Don't think they've been posted before. Apologies if they have. One is from about a year ago and is from the Greater London Authority (GLA). The GLA has called the redevelopment of the Bridge Project Neptune. 

 

https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/1237-1.pdf

 

http://www.fulhamsw6.com/default.asp?section=info&page=conchelsea015.htm

http://www.eurosport.co.uk/football/premier-league/2015-2016/chelsea-stadium-latest_sto5723811/story.shtml#uk-tw-po

At the AGM with the Supporters Trust, they said they hope to get planning by the end of this season and then start work on Stamford Bridge at the beginning of the 2018/19 season

At the AGM with the Supporters Trust, they said they hope to get planning by the end of this season and then start work on Stamford Bridge at the beginning of the 2018/19 season

 

Thanks for posting, CFCMatt. Hopefully the club will get planning permission by the end of the season.

 

It's been estimated that it will take three years to re-develop the ground so guess we will move into the "new" Bridge at the season 2021/22. A pain having to wait that long but I wonder if a reason for the delay in granting permission for the redevelopment is so that building work doesn't start until after the work at the Earl's Court Arena has been completed. I'm not sure when that is due to be completed. Hammersmith and Fulham and Kensington Councils are probably trying to keep their residents happy by not having too many building projects going on at the same time.

From today's Building magazine. Lack of detail suggests it was submitted in a bit of a hurry although a more detailed Plan shouldn't be a major problem to fix.     Chelsea feeling the blues after planners rap stadium scheme

 

 

 

 

Chelsea feeling the blues after planners rap stadium scheme

26 August 2016 | By Louise Dransfield

•  

 

Council wants more detail on application for football club’s new £500m Stamford Bridge home

 

Herzog&de Meuron’s Stamford Bridge design

Premier league football club Chelsea has been told to provide more detail on how it will protect endangered bats and a historic cemetery during construction of its new £500m Stamford Bridge home.

Planners at Hammersmith and Fulham council have written to the club raising concerns about the effect of building work on bat hibernation and the nearby grade I-listed Brompton Cemetery. They said the club’s environmental statement was “inconclusive” about the impact of piling works on the cemetary’s catacombs - identified as a potential hibernation roost for bats.

Plans for the Herzog & de Meuron-designed redevelopment were sent in last November but, in its letter to the club’s strategic planner on the scheme, Aecom, the council said detail was lacking in many key areas, including the works timetable.

The council said: “[There is a] lack of detail and certainty over the phasing and demolition and construction programme. The council considers that for a project of this scale and complexity, it would be expected that a full chapter be devoted to this topic.” It added: “The council does not consider it acceptable to state that ‘the nature and duration of demolition and construction will be considered further as part of the next phase of design development’ given this is a detailed planned application.”

The council also wants more information on the impact of road closures as well as measures to mitigate noise, vibration and dust for local residents and businesses.

The club wants to increase the capacity of the ground from 41,600 to 60,000. It has hired Swiss practice Herzog & de Meuron to come up with a brick-clad design that is expected to use 6 million bricks.

Earls Court developer Capco has previously flagged up worries about the Chelsea scheme, writing to the council to raise concerns over a “lack of detail” from the football club on how it intends to build the venue.

Chelsea declined to comment. A Hammersmith & Fulham Council spokesperson said: “As part of the normal planning procedures, we had requested some further information from the developers.

“That has now been submitted to us and once we have gone through all information provided, there will be a further round of public consultation into the proposals.”

 

Edited August 26, 20169 yr by fitz

Reading that I was thinking this would be tied up in planning for some time yet, however the last line seems to indicate we've addressed their additional request.

Fukin bats!!!!!