Jump to content

Recommended Posts


michy only been here a few weeks and already he's causing issues. the longer we're not in wembley stadium the better imo. one thing i hope which is a hard ask is we can win the champion's league one last time at stamford bridge before the new stadium move. what a dream that would be.

Edited by enigma
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just found the following on the Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Council website. One is about a resident in Seagrave Road which is just around the corner from the ground. The other is a letter to a representative of the club with some questions about the redevelopment proposal.

http://public-access.lbhf.gov.uk/online-applications/files/2536F638AE9B3E02A85094D14FD2E17D/pdf/2015_05050_FUL-COVERING_LETTER-1736790.pdf

http://public-access.lbhf.gov.uk/online-applications/files/7A257D8E35110620A07FC82300599B78/pdf/2015_05050_FUL-LBHF_REGULATIONS_22_LETTER-1719592.pdf

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Boyne said:

Just found the following on the Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Council website. One is about a resident in Seagrave Road which is just around the corner from the ground. The other is a letter to a representative of the club with some questions about the redevelopment proposal.

http://public-access.lbhf.gov.uk/online-applications/files/2536F638AE9B3E02A85094D14FD2E17D/pdf/2015_05050_FUL-COVERING_LETTER-1736790.pdf

http://public-access.lbhf.gov.uk/online-applications/files/7A257D8E35110620A07FC82300599B78/pdf/2015_05050_FUL-LBHF_REGULATIONS_22_LETTER-1719592.pdf

 

 

Document Unavailable

This document is unavailable for viewing at this time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kev56, thanks for letting me know that the documents are no longer available. Strange that the Council has just removed them given that they were put on the website about two months ago. The documents do include personal information i.e. home addresses so I wonder if that has been spotted. Anyway, I have managed to download the documents to my laptop. Hope to upload them to here later today. Will remove personal references out of courtesy to the residents. Also to stop this website from getting into trouble about data protection etc.

Edited by Boyne
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Boyne said:

Kev56, thanks for letting me know that the documents are no longer available. Strange that the Council has just removed them given that they were put on the website about two months ago. The documents do include personal information i.e. home addresses so I wonder if that has been spotted. Anyway, I have managed to download the documents to my laptop. Hope to upload them to here later today. Will remove personal references out of courtesy to the residents. Also to stop this website from getting into trouble about data protection etc.

OK, im not to optimistic about this happening, if it does its gonna be a very long drawn out process. Myself and many others can remember the last time we 'rebuilt the bridge' to much to write about here, but it was painfully slow and ill-fated .

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎27‎/‎08‎/‎2016 at 10:26, coco said:

 

I had no idea of any of this. I'll never underestimate the contribution of bats to human society ever again. This sentence alone almost made me run to donate to the bat conservation fund:

Additionally, the Saguaro cactus (Arizona’s state plant) and the agave plant, which is used to make tequila, are completely dependent on bat pollinators for reproduction.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Kev56 said:

OK, im not to optimistic about this happening, if it does its gonna be a very long drawn out process. Myself and many others can remember the last time we 'rebuilt the bridge' to much to write about here, but it was painfully slow and ill-fated .

Agree it's going to be a long drawn out process. I remember the last re-build in the nineties. I can't remember when application went into the council but am guessing it must have been about 1992. The old Shed End closed at the end of season 1993-1994. At the time Ken Bates said that he didn't think building a 60,000 capacity stadium was a good idea as he believed that the football supporting bubble would burst. Hasn't been the case but that's hindsight. What might have been.

Does make you wonder if the council and local businesses and residents would have been more agreeable to a larger stadium. For example, rather than building the hotel at the back of the Shed an additional tier could have been added to the Shed. 

Am not sure how much planning rules and conservation laws have changed in the last 25 years. 

As mentioned above a resident in Lily Bridge House in Seagrave Road has raised objections to the redevelopment. I wonder if they have raised similar objections to the news housing estate being built at the top of Seagrave Road just down from the junction with Lillie Road and near the Atlas pub.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/30/2016 at 21:39, Boyne said:

Just found the following on the Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Council website. One is about a resident in Seagrave Road which is just around the corner from the ground. The other is a letter to a representative of the club with some questions about the redevelopment proposal.

http://public-access.lbhf.gov.uk/online-applications/files/2536F638AE9B3E02A85094D14FD2E17D/pdf/2015_05050_FUL-COVERING_LETTER-1736790.pdf

http://public-access.lbhf.gov.uk/online-applications/files/7A257D8E35110620A07FC82300599B78/pdf/2015_05050_FUL-LBHF_REGULATIONS_22_LETTER-1719592.pdf

 

 

A few days I posted the above links which have now been removed by Hammersmith and Fulham Council. However, before they were removed I took copies and here they are:

Have uploaded the files. Hope this works. If not, let me know and I'll try and cut and paste them. One of the files is 12mb. Mods, sorry if this exceeds any space limits.

Stamford_Bridge_Redevelopment_1.docx

Stamford_Bridge_Redevelopment_2.docx

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Davey Baby said:

Thanks Boyne. Whoever objects in that first letter has employed Mishcon de Reya to represent them. Don't know if we should be alarmed or not. Does anyone know if this is normal practise?

With a bit of googling I've found that Lily Bridge House was sold in 2014 for £18m and has been up for rent for the small sum of £34,677pcm:

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-26449355.html

It's clear then that whoever the owner is (be it an individual or a company) has some money to burn! In my line of work I've learnt that all wealthy land owners have solicitors and land agents etc so it doesn't surprise me that they have Mishcon de Reya representing them.

I've also found out that Lily Bridge House also has a planning application ongoing with Hammersmith and Fulham council so maybe there's an ulterior motive.

http://www.public-access.lbhf.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=N9SADNBI0UN00

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Huttsey said:

With a bit of googling I've found that Lily Bridge House was sold in 2014 for £18m and has been up for rent for the small sum of £34,677pcm:

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-26449355.html

It's clear then that whoever the owner is (be it an individual or a company) has some money to burn! In my line of work I've learnt that all wealthy land owners have solicitors and land agents etc so it doesn't surprise me that they have Mishcon de Reya representing them.

I've also found out that Lily Bridge House also has a planning application ongoing with Hammersmith and Fulham council so maybe there's an ulterior motive.

http://www.public-access.lbhf.gov.uk/online-applications/buildingControlDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=N9SADNBI0UN00

Huttsey, thanks for posting the link. I see that the application has been with the council for a couple of years. That's a hell of a lot of money for a month's rent. As you say, they have money to burn.

I've done a bit of a research on the couple who are using Mishcon de Reya. He is on the board of Hellman and Friedman (a private equity investment firm) and she is an independent film producer so between them they must earn a few quid.

I have tried accessing the links I posted a few days ago a few times this morning. Sometimes I can access the links and on other times I can't. Looks like there is something wrong with the Council's website. The links give the names of the couple. I'm surprised that the council hasn't covered up the names under data protection laws unless the couple don't mind if their names are made public.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Boyne said:

Huttsey, thanks for posting the link. I see that the application has been with the council for a couple of years. That's a hell of a lot of money for a month's rent. As you say, they have money to burn.

I've done a bit of a research on the couple who are using Mishcon de Reya. He is on the board of Hellman and Friedman (a private equity investment firm) and she is an independent film producer so between them they must earn a few quid.

I have tried accessing the links I posted a few days ago a few times this morning. Sometimes I can access the links and on other times I can't. Looks like there is something wrong with the Council's website. The links give the names of the couple. I'm surprised that the council hasn't covered up the names under data protection laws unless the couple don't mind if their names are made public.

That explains a lot! In my research yesterday I was trying to find out who the owners were but all links went to a website for an independent film company. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Boyne said:

I have tried accessing the links I posted a few days ago a few times this morning. Sometimes I can access the links and on other times I can't. Looks like there is something wrong with the Council's website. The links give the names of the couple. I'm surprised that the council hasn't covered up the names under data protection laws unless the couple don't mind if their names are made public.

 

My understanding is that when people object to the council regarding proposals which are in the public domain, you waive your anonymity, and the council can publish if they so wish, and they tend to publish only a few. I guess this keeps everybody accountable. My understanding but could be wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

More than this, it seems some major parts of the application have recently been revised. As the LBHF website puts it:

Quote

Latest news - the application has been revised

Since the submission of the original planning application, a number of amendments have now been made by the applicant to the proposed development.

Some amendments have been made in response to the representations received on the original submission. Other amendments respond to changing technical and operational requirements as well as ongoing design refinement. The principal changes to the design reflected in the Amended Proposed Development relate to:

  • Enhanced landscaping proposals. These include additional tree planting, green roofs and perimeter planting;
  • Refinements to the stadium design, including minor changes to massing and roof geometry and the introduction of a combined heat and power (CHP) plant;
  • Reduction in overall number of parking spaces from 250 to 190 spaces; and

Amendments to the proposed decking platforms in certain locations around the edge of the Application Site.

The description of the proposed development is unchanged from the original description with the exception of the inclusion of a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plant.

See the site for a link to all the revised documents.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Well, this is awkward!

awkward the office GIF

The Shed End Forum relies on revenue to pay for hosting and upgrades. While we try to keep adverts as unobtrusive as possible without pop ups or video adverts, we need to run ad's to make sure we can stay online and continue to keep the forum up, as over the years costs have become very high.

Could you please allow adverts on this domain by switching it off. Some of the advert banners can actually be closed to avoid interferance of your experience on The Shed End.

Cheers now!

emma watson yes GIF

Alright already, It's off!