Friends of Fulham

General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: win-dup on August 24, 2013, 09:17:40 PM

Title: camera gantry on the JH stand breaks planning laws
Post by: win-dup on August 24, 2013, 09:17:40 PM
Contact English Heritage the stand is a listed building and I doubt very much whether permission was granted from the appropriate authority before this carbuncle was erected.
Title: Re: camera gantry on the JH stand breaks planning laws
Post by: Fulham1959 on August 24, 2013, 09:19:34 PM
I thought only the frontage was listed  -  but am probably wrong !
Title: Re: camera gantry on the JH stand breaks planning laws
Post by: LBNo11 on August 24, 2013, 09:29:54 PM
Quote from: Fulham1959 on August 24, 2013, 09:19:34 PM
I thought only the frontage was listed  -  but am probably wrong !


...I thought the same, maybe things have changed in recent years, certainly the original wooden seats should have some sort of protection because they wear the patination of more than a century of elation and misery and expectation...
Title: Re: camera gantry on the JH stand breaks planning laws
Post by: The Equalizer on August 24, 2013, 10:40:14 PM
I doubt very much that planning permission is required for something which is not in 'public' view. This is just an adornment like the MJ statue or the burger vans.
Title: Re: camera gantry on the JH stand breaks planning laws
Post by: cmg on August 24, 2013, 10:44:12 PM
Quote from: The Equalizer on August 24, 2013, 10:40:14 PM
This is just an adornment like the MJ statue or the burger vans.

...and less tasteful than either.
Title: Re: camera gantry on the JH stand breaks planning laws
Post by: LBNo11 on August 24, 2013, 11:27:06 PM
Quote from: cmg on August 24, 2013, 10:44:12 PM
Quote from: The Equalizer on August 24, 2013, 10:40:14 PM
This is just an adornment like the MJ statue or the burger vans.

...and less tasteful than either.

:drums:
Title: Re: camera gantry on the JH stand breaks planning laws
Post by: Fulham1959 on August 25, 2013, 12:14:37 PM
Quote from: LBNo11 on August 24, 2013, 09:29:54 PM
Quote from: Fulham1959 on August 24, 2013, 09:19:34 PM
I thought only the frontage was listed  -  but am probably wrong !


...I thought the same, maybe things have changed in recent years, certainly the original wooden seats should have some sort of protection because they wear the patination of more than a century of elation and misery and expectation...

This is certainly a better class of messageboard  -  I had to look that one up :

"a gloss produced by age on woodwork".
Title: Re: camera gantry on the JH stand breaks planning laws
Post by: Lighthouse on August 25, 2013, 12:27:23 PM
Is it a permanent structure? Or just for BT Sport? If permanent than the sale of tickets of seats in the area have been sold under false pretences. So the law is on the ticket holders side.

Here is the ticket for the front row of the Cinema. A day before you go, the Cinema puts up a six foot wall infront of the front row. I think you will find you can at least receive a ticket reduction.
Title: Re: camera gantry on the JH stand breaks planning laws
Post by: WhiteJC on August 25, 2013, 12:51:39 PM
Quote from: Fulham1959 on August 24, 2013, 09:19:34 PM
I thought only the frontage was listed  -  but am probably wrong !

the roof is also listed as well as the "supports" along the pitch, Fulham wanted to remove them to give a better view to all in the Johnny Haynes stand but weren't allowed to
Title: Re: camera gantry on the JH stand breaks planning laws
Post by: Logicalman on August 25, 2013, 12:55:48 PM
Quote from: Lighthouse on August 25, 2013, 12:27:23 PM
Is it a permanent structure? Or just for BT Sport? If permanent than the sale of tickets of seats in the area have been sold under false pretences. So the law is on the ticket holders side.

Here is the ticket for the front row of the Cinema. A day before you go, the Cinema puts up a six foot wall infront of the front row. I think you will find you can at least receive a ticket reduction.

I believe the club have already addresses that issue. Now, whether it is to the satisfaction of those STH's that's up for debate I would imagine.

Who on the MB has been directly adversely affected by this, and how?