Fulham stadium expansion plan includes new river walk and 4,000 more seats

[Fulham Tup North]

FFC will have known all about the likely objections to the new 'Riverside' long before the ink was dry on the original drawings. 

For starters the intention is to use the stadium everyday rather than the present limited use and that was always likely to be provocative. 

Another thing I, for one, was ignorant about is the closure of the new river walkway on match days which seems to me to suggest it will not be a public thoroughfare (and that is not, IMO, the way to invite people onto your side – Mr Khan and company please note).  Surely security could be introduced to stop people accessing shops etc and then nipping into the football stand to watch the game for free!  The publicity says it is providing a new public river walkway not one that shuts whenever it is inconvenient to open it.  On my scorecard that is a big minus point.

The NIMBY comments are truly misplaced.  Many of these residents have lived with a football stadium on their doorsteps for a long time and there has always been hassle from those who do not like either the sport or the supporters or both.  But these people must also tolerate all of it because the ground is there and it isn't going away.  Accept these people are raising objections because they feel obliged to do so in the planning application phase – it is the only chance they get.  They simply wish to prevent further added nuisance value to having the ground on the doorsteps and the Club will already have answers to their questions ready.   There are expensive properties and powerful people in the vicinity who perhaps see the irony of an absent owner wanted to inflict 'damage' to up his profits.

The wetlands area across the river may be affected by everyday increases in human activity several tens of metres away.  If the experts feel it is an issue then let them deliver the facts to the planning committee.  The issues of interference with wind and boats etc are also matters experts will deal with via facts from both sides.

We live in a democracy and planning consent involves hearing from all sides fairly.  On the one hand FFC have canvassed supporter comments and not just from local residents.  Local residents will be doing their own campaigning.  Some may support the project wholeheartedly.  It is going to be a 'debate' because that is the very nature of these things.   There is no need for people on either side to be offensive since it just makes matters worse.  The outcome will be the outcome and there'll be winners and losers and that may determine the fate of the development or not as the case may be.  .

Although oddly enough, no-one who lives there can moan about the football club as it was there BEFORE any of them were born!! Different if FFC were looking to put it in amongst their houses on an open piece of land.
And how many days will the path be closed for? It is not as if we play 200 games a year.
At the moment they have NO access, in the future they will have around 335 days access. I would say that this is a benefit to the Community, wouldn't you?
COYW

[toshes mate]

Although oddly enough, no-one who lives there can moan about the football club as it was there BEFORE any of them were born!! Different if FFC were looking to put it in amongst their houses on an open piece of land.
And how many days will the path be closed for? It is not as if we play 200 games a year.
At the moment they have NO access, in the future they will have around 335 days access. I would say that this is a benefit to the Community, wouldn't you?

Your first point I already covered - residents must tolerate it not by choice but by the very simple fact it was there before they arrived.  However, by extension a 'tolerated nuisance' can become more invasive and they have a right to speak out against the 'invasion'.
The argument about the walk way being private property is the generic argument that if the shops and hospitality 'bomb' then the walkway will not be there - period.  It will seen as an add on that was entirely political and never an intentional amenity.

[mrmicawbers]

No matter how you sell this to me I do not like the idea of flats or apartments anywhere in the development. Thin. Edge. Wedge.

The flats are not for public sale only rent or for use by the club. At the recent exhibitions the architects said they've been designed so the space could easily be converted back to football stadium facilities at a later date if the club so desired

Yes and if our Chairman wants to stay in one ,he should pay an extortionate Rent to FFC

[VicHalomsLovechild]

So already the goalposts have shifted, up until this article the plan was for work  to commence THIS year now we're suddenly talking about NEXT year !
And secondly this has been dragging on for literally  a life time whilst other clubs just announce then get on with things, a case in point being Chelsea , who had objections to  their new stadium,all objections were quashed in 5 minutes by Hammersmith and Fulham Council, no doubt they will finish their 60,000 stadium before we start our stand.

Quite a few of the "other clubs" have sold their old grounds and rebuilt elsewhere. Probably because their existing grounds were hemmed in by housing and getting an application through would have been tougher.

[MJG]

FFC will have known all about the likely objections to the new 'Riverside' long before the ink was dry on the original drawings. 

For starters the intention is to use the stadium everyday rather than the present limited use and that was always likely to be provocative. 

Another thing I, for one, was ignorant about is the closure of the new river walkway on match days which seems to me to suggest it will not be a public thoroughfare (and that is not, IMO, the way to invite people onto your side – Mr Khan and company please note).  Surely security could be introduced to stop people accessing shops etc and then nipping into the football stand to watch the game for free!  The publicity says it is providing a new public river walkway not one that shuts whenever it is inconvenient to open it.  On my scorecard that is a big minus point.

The walk through will be closed by exit gates which are next to the turnstiles as shown below on the two drawings for the Putney and Hammersmith ends next to the river

[Andy S]

We always know that people will object to any large building in their area. This is no different. The council will look at all objections and eventually make a decision. Solicitors dealing with such objections will charge a fortune and from experience the club will eventually get their permission

[toshes mate]

FFC will have known all about the likely objections to the new 'Riverside' long before the ink was dry on the original drawings. 

For starters the intention is to use the stadium everyday rather than the present limited use and that was always likely to be provocative. 

Another thing I, for one, was ignorant about is the closure of the new river walkway on match days which seems to me to suggest it will not be a public thoroughfare (and that is not, IMO, the way to invite people onto your side – Mr Khan and company please note).  Surely security could be introduced to stop people accessing shops etc and then nipping into the football stand to watch the game for free!  The publicity says it is providing a new public river walkway not one that shuts whenever it is inconvenient to open it.  On my scorecard that is a big minus point.

The walk through will be closed by exit gates which are next to the turnstiles as shown below on the two drawings for the Putney and Hammersmith ends next to the river

Thanks for that, MJG.  I've already owned up to my ignorance and naivety.....

[fcfulham55]

3900 extra seats.

[Riversider]

No objections at the time of the public exhibition but yet all of a sudden objections suddenly appear now, why ?
If I was going to be ultra cynical (which I wont) I might say (which I wont) that a further delay only suits one person !
I'm sure everything will turn out ok and work will commence in 5 months time , but I wouldn't want to bet my house on it, would you ?

[MJG]

FFC will have known all about the likely objections to the new 'Riverside' long before the ink was dry on the original drawings. 

For starters the intention is to use the stadium everyday rather than the present limited use and that was always likely to be provocative. 

Another thing I, for one, was ignorant about is the closure of the new river walkway on match days which seems to me to suggest it will not be a public thoroughfare (and that is not, IMO, the way to invite people onto your side – Mr Khan and company please note).  Surely security could be introduced to stop people accessing shops etc and then nipping into the football stand to watch the game for free!  The publicity says it is providing a new public river walkway not one that shuts whenever it is inconvenient to open it.  On my scorecard that is a big minus point.

The walk through will be closed by exit gates which are next to the turnstiles as shown below on the two drawings for the Putney and Hammersmith ends next to the river

Thanks for that, MJG.  I've already owned up to my ignorance and naivety.....

Saw that of course, but wanted to show the plan to clarify it for others.
Would be very restrictive to allow full time walk through. Would need turnstiles to get into the stand and cut off the river.

[MJG]

No objections at the time of the public exhibition but yet all of a sudden objections suddenly appear now, why ?
If I was going to be ultra cynical (which I wont) I might say (which I wont) that a further delay only suits one person !
I'm sure everything will turn out ok and work will commence in 5 months time , but I wouldn't want to bet my house on it, would you ?

Th people complaining here have always done it at everything we have tried to do, including BTTC.

[flyingfish]

I do major developments for a living. Objections to major developments are a fact of life. Especially in areas like Fulham were there are a large number of articulate, wealthy and well educated individuals. Really, the surprise here is that this is so late to arrive in the Standard.

What I am trying to say is, that this is noise, chaff, the usual suspects. They are not raising anything of substance. Most of what they are complaining about has already been established by the extant consent. In planning terms, the previous consent carries very substantial weight.

By the way, although it is being publicised that today is the last day to get comments in, that is not actually the case. Councils are obliged to take into account comments all the way up to determination, even if it arrives the day before committee. What today's deadline is, is actually the expiry of the minimum period of consultation that must take place by law. The planning authority is now free to determine the application at any time (though any outstanding issues or new issues that have come up will need to be addressed, and a slot found in the committee cycle).

From my professional sphere, I know many of the firms involved in preparing the application, and I can say that they will have given top drawer advice to the club on securing consent and the whole process  being handled by top professionals (for a lot of money!). The club hasn't cut corners with its professional appointments and so you can see that they are taking the application seriously. It would be highly unusual if the application had been submitted without a high degree of confidence that consent will be forthcoming. The application would have been discussed with the Council many times over before it was submitted, that is how things work these days.

[MJG]

I do major developments for a living. Objections to major developments are a fact of life. Especially in areas like Fulham were there are a large number of articulate, wealthy and well educated individuals. Really, the surprise here is that this is so late to arrive in the Standard.

By the way, although it is being publicised that today is the last day to get comments in, that is not actually the case. Councils are obliged to take into account comments all the way up to determination, even if it arrives the day before committee. What today's deadline is, is actually the expiry of the minimum period of consultation that must take place by law. The planning authority is now free to determine the application at any time (though any outstanding issues or new issues that have come up will need to be addressed, and a slot found in the committee cycle).

From my professional sphere, I know many of the firms involved in preparing the application, and I can say that they will have given top drawer advice to the club on securing consent and the whole process  being handled by top professionals (for a lot of money!). The club hasn't cut corners with its professional appointments and so you can see that they are taking the application seriously. It would be highly unusual if the application had been submitted without a high degree of confidence that consent will be forthcoming. The application would have been discussed with the Council many times over before it was submitted, that is how things work these days.

Having gone through the 2012 application and documents and the 201 documents with this one I will agree that this one is so much more professional.

[Holders]

I do major developments for a living. Objections to major developments are a fact of life. Especially in areas like Fulham were there are a large number of articulate, wealthy and well educated individuals. Really, the surprise here is that this is so late to arrive in the Standard.

By the way, although it is being publicised that today is the last day to get comments in, that is not actually the case. Councils are obliged to take into account comments all the way up to determination, even if it arrives the day before committee. What today's deadline is, is actually the expiry of the minimum period of consultation that must take place by law. The planning authority is now free to determine the application at any time (though any outstanding issues or new issues that have come up will need to be addressed, and a slot found in the committee cycle).

From my professional sphere, I know many of the firms involved in preparing the application, and I can say that they will have given top drawer advice to the club on securing consent and the whole process  being handled by top professionals (for a lot of money!). The club hasn't cut corners with its professional appointments and so you can see that they are taking the application seriously. It would be highly unusual if the application had been submitted without a high degree of confidence that consent will be forthcoming. The application would have been discussed with the Council many times over before it was submitted, that is how things work these days.

Having gone through the 2012 application and documents and the 201 documents with this one I will agree that this one is so much more professional.

Yes, and it's a modification to a major development that already has approval. Many of the points of objection will already have been tested and, I assume, won't be re-opened unless there's new data. The changed aesthetics are a different matter but most people seem to prefer the new design from that point of view. I've even come around to it myself.

[flyingfish]

I do major developments for a living. Objections to major developments are a fact of life. Especially in areas like Fulham were there are a large number of articulate, wealthy and well educated individuals. Really, the surprise here is that this is so late to arrive in the Standard.

By the way, although it is being publicised that today is the last day to get comments in, that is not actually the case. Councils are obliged to take into account comments all the way up to determination, even if it arrives the day before committee. What today's deadline is, is actually the expiry of the minimum period of consultation that must take place by law. The planning authority is now free to determine the application at any time (though any outstanding issues or new issues that have come up will need to be addressed, and a slot found in the committee cycle).

From my professional sphere, I know many of the firms involved in preparing the application, and I can say that they will have given top drawer advice to the club on securing consent and the whole process  being handled by top professionals (for a lot of money!). The club hasn't cut corners with its professional appointments and so you can see that they are taking the application seriously. It would be highly unusual if the application had been submitted without a high degree of confidence that consent will be forthcoming. The application would have been discussed with the Council many times over before it was submitted, that is how things work these days.

Having gone through the 2012 application and documents and the 201 documents with this one I will agree that this one is so much more professional.

Yes but not only that, it's what happens before the application is submitted. Like a good lawyer never asks a question of a witness that they don't already know the answer to, a sensible developer never submits a planning application less they know what the officers, Highways officers, Mayor, Natural England, Historic England, TfL are going to say about matters.

Planning permission cannot be guaranteed at the end of the day as it is a political process, but I would be extremely surprised had the professional team appointed not done everything to maximize the chances of success.

[flyingfish]

I do major developments for a living. Objections to major developments are a fact of life. Especially in areas like Fulham were there are a large number of articulate, wealthy and well educated individuals. Really, the surprise here is that this is so late to arrive in the Standard.

By the way, although it is being publicised that today is the last day to get comments in, that is not actually the case. Councils are obliged to take into account comments all the way up to determination, even if it arrives the day before committee. What today's deadline is, is actually the expiry of the minimum period of consultation that must take place by law. The planning authority is now free to determine the application at any time (though any outstanding issues or new issues that have come up will need to be addressed, and a slot found in the committee cycle).

From my professional sphere, I know many of the firms involved in preparing the application, and I can say that they will have given top drawer advice to the club on securing consent and the whole process  being handled by top professionals (for a lot of money!). The club hasn't cut corners with its professional appointments and so you can see that they are taking the application seriously. It would be highly unusual if the application had been submitted without a high degree of confidence that consent will be forthcoming. The application would have been discussed with the Council many times over before it was submitted, that is how things work these days.

Having gone through the 2012 application and documents and the 201 documents with this one I will agree that this one is so much more professional.

Yes, and it's a modification to a major development that already has approval. Many of the points of objection will already have been tested and, I assume, won't be re-opened unless there's new data. The changed aesthetics are a different matter but most people seem to prefer the new design from that point of view. I've even come around to it myself.

The Council's Design Review Panel made up of independent architects and design experts reviewed the scheme before it went in, liked ti and thoguth it was an improvement over the last consent. This will go down well with planning committee.

[Burt]

Putting to one side the potential planning hurdles, the school of thought re "will it actually happen", etc...

...it looks bloody amazing!

[ffc73]

No matter how you sell this to me I do not like the idea of flats or apartments anywhere in the development. Thin. Edge. Wedge.

The flats are not for public sale only rent or for use by the club. At the recent exhibitions the architects said they've been designed so the space could easily be converted back to football stadium facilities at a later date if the club so desired

Whilst the flats may have been designed to convert the space back to stadium facilities, I assume that the club can in the future decide to change the flats use and sell and/or rent them on the open market.  Cold fact for me is that precedence will be set for residential accommodation on the stadium site.  In the fullness of time that could enable housing consent for the whole site

I live in a lovely rural location in a commuter belt.  You see this happening all the time.  A small, little noticed, development on the edge of a green field.  Over time the green field is ploughed up and there is a housing estate.  I wonder if those living in such developments even register that their address e.g Cornfields and High Wood etc really once were those very things

[flyingfish]

No matter how you sell this to me I do not like the idea of flats or apartments anywhere in the development. Thin. Edge. Wedge.

The flats are not for public sale only rent or for use by the club. At the recent exhibitions the architects said they've been designed so the space could easily be converted back to football stadium facilities at a later date if the club so desired

Whilst the flats may have been designed to convert the space back to stadium facilities, I assume that the club can in the future decide to change the flats use and sell and/or rent them on the open market.  Cold fact for me is that precedence will be set for residential accommodation on the stadium site.  In the fullness of time that could enable housing consent for the whole site

I live in a lovely rural location in a commuter belt.  You see this happening all the time.  A small, little noticed, development on the edge of a green field.  Over time the green field is ploughed up and there is a housing estate.  I wonder if those living in such developments even register that their address e.g Cornfields and High Wood etc really once were those very things

No it doesn't. planning doesn't work like that. This would not represent any sort of precedent that could be relied upon. And this would be a funny and ineffective straetgy of securing planning permission for the whole site for resi, I can assure you,.

[Ged]

Pensioner Jane Swithinbank, who has walked the 215-mile river from its source, said: "This is a very quiet and beautiful stretch. I'm appalled
Firstly the Thames path is only 184 miles long i know I've walked it and this must be quite a noisy part compared with the rest of the Thames which for 90% is through open country side                             
Yes its beautiful and we are opening it up for other people to enjoy on non match days. She doesn't know what shes talking about people like her moan for the sake of it