Fulham are planning a huge expansion to accommodate thousands more fans while creating a new riverside walkway along the Thames.
The Championship side will demolish its Riverside Stand and rebuild with two tiers of seating, while creating shops, cafes and nine short-stay luxury apartments. Capacity at Craven Cottage will increase from 25,700 to 29,600.
The walkway would open a currently closed section of the riverbank and allow people enjoying the Thames Path to continue strolling by the water.
However, it will encroach on to the Thames by up to 11 metres, with the new stand above it - sparking opposition from some locals who say a "quiet and beautiful" stretch could be destroyed. They warn it paves the way for other developments to edge into the river.
(https://www.standard.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/hero_mobile/public/thumbnails/image/2018/01/18/14/fulhamproject1801a.jpg)
Architects Lichfields cited Tottenham Hotspur's expansion and West Ham's move to the London Stadium, saying: "The ambition is to return to the Premier League as soon as possible. The stadium has to match this ambition.
"The river walk can only be provided by cantilevering out, beyond the line of the river wall, with water flowing under the walkway. Fulham FC need to improve stadium capacity and facilities. To achieve this the riverside stand has to be larger." The walkway would shut on matchdays. The flats would be used by Fulham's American billionaire owner Shahid Khan and new players.
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 - Fulham not only want to keep the land but take more by cantilevering out over the river. This would set a very dangerous precedent for other developers."
Local author Eivor Martinus said: "We are blessed with rich bird life thanks to the [Barnes] Wetland Centre and greenery on both sides. A colossus reaching well into the river would ruin this."
Amanda Lloyd-Harris of Friends of Bishops Park said the walkway "will be a cliff-like structure which will block wind and threaten use of the river for sailing, and be a safety hazard."
Comments on the planning application are open until tomorrow. If Hammersmith and Fulham council grants permission the club hope to start work by May next year and finish in 2021.
https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/fulham-stadium-expansion-plan-includes-new-river-walk-and-4000-more-seats-a3743621.html
Was honestly waiting for Amanda LloydHarris to make comment. Same for her miserable old sidekick Roger ????? ; can't remember his name. They'll make life difficult and have powerful allies.
If they lived in SYDNEY they would probably complain about the Opera House ........very sad people
Clutching at straws
A beautiful stretch - the mud stinks at low water and she can't have seen the bank since it's not open to the public - she certainly hasn't walked down our bit of the river bank
Rich Bird life - the wetland centre is on the opposite river bank and the bird are probably more disturbed by the rowers and sailors
Block the wind and threaten the river for sailing - old chestnut - this was played out with the MAF application - in the end the council officers brought an end to the compensation discussion and determined their was no detrimental effect on the sailing
Having given permission to the previous carbuncle I can't see that they can suddenly change their minds and vote against this and I would guess the whole thing will hinge on what the river authority has to say about it
They moaned about the same things last time, and didn't get very far, so..
I read this in the Standard on the train home this evening and I actually cannot believe the objections:
Local author Eivor Martinus said: "We are blessed with rich bird life thanks to the [Barnes] Wetland Centre and greenery on both sides. A colossus reaching well into the river would ruin this."
Amanda Lloyd-Harris of Friends of Bishops Park said the walkway "will be a cliff-like structure which will block wind and threaten use of the river for sailing, and be a safety hazard."
What on Earth are they on about?!! How will this 'RUIN' the rich bird life?
It's as though they don't realise that there is already a football stadium occupying the site - this will open up the Thames walkway, which has to be a good thing. But Pensioner Jane Swithinbank says "This is a very quiet and beautiful stretch. I'm appalled - Fulham not only want to keep the land, but take more by cantilevering out over the river. This would set a very dangerous precedent for other developers... A quiet and beautiful stretch ENTIRELY TAKEN UP BY A FOOTBALL STADIUM, WHICH YOU CANNOT WALK ALONG. And it seems that she is appalled that we even want to KEEP the land, let alone expand.
I have really gone off other people lately and it is all the fault of the media!
Quote from: Dixie on January 18, 2018, 08:26:43 PM
I read this in the Standard on the train home this evening and I actually cannot believe the objections:
Local author Eivor Martinus said: "We are blessed with rich bird life thanks to the [Barnes] Wetland Centre and greenery on both sides. A colossus reaching well into the river would ruin this."
Amanda Lloyd-Harris of Friends of Bishops Park said the walkway "will be a cliff-like structure which will block wind and threaten use of the river for sailing, and be a safety hazard."
What on Earth are they on about?!! How will this 'RUIN' the rich bird life?
It's as though they don't realise that there is already a football stadium occupying the site - this will open up the Thames walkway, which has to be a good thing. But Pensioner Jane Swithinbank says "This is a very quiet and beautiful stretch. I'm appalled - Fulham not only want to keep the land, but take more by cantilevering out over the river. This would set a very dangerous precedent for other developers... A quiet and beautiful stretch ENTIRELY TAKEN UP BY A FOOTBALL STADIUM, WHICH YOU CANNOT WALK ALONG. And it seems that she is appalled that we even want to KEEP the land, let alone expand.
I have really gone off other people lately and it is all the fault of the media!
As this will not be built until 2021, most of these people will have popped their clogs by then!
The same sort of people who complained about Putney Bridge getting built!
NIMBY's with nothing better to do. :031:
When I last looked over the wall a few Saturdays ago it was an unloved piece of river bank with a few seagulls on it.
It is a river in a city and what FFC proposes will greatly enhance it. It looks pretty shallow (no expert me) so taking 11 metres away (or under) to create a walk way where everyone can enjoy a stroll? What's the problem Mr & Mrs NIMBY?
NIMBY'S can do one.We have been there longer than any of them.We are not building the structure over the water,but creating a bloody walkway to give people access. I'm sure it would stop people passing their properties. If they even live around there.
Quote from: Friendsoffulham on January 18, 2018, 06:53:48 PM
Fulham are planning a huge expansion to accommodate thousands more fans while creating a new riverside walkway along the Thames.
The Championship side will demolish its Riverside Stand and rebuild with two tiers of seating, while creating shops, cafes and nine short-stay luxury apartments. Capacity at Craven Cottage will increase from 25,700 to 29,600.
The walkway would open a currently closed section of the riverbank and allow people enjoying the Thames Path to continue strolling by the water.
However, it will encroach on to the Thames by up to 11 metres, with the new stand above it - sparking opposition from some locals who say a "quiet and beautiful" stretch could be destroyed. They warn it paves the way for other developments to edge into the river.
(https://www.standard.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/hero_mobile/public/thumbnails/image/2018/01/18/14/fulhamproject1801a.jpg)
Architects Lichfields cited Tottenham Hotspur's expansion and West Ham's move to the London Stadium, saying: "The ambition is to return to the Premier League as soon as possible. The stadium has to match this ambition.
"The river walk can only be provided by cantilevering out, beyond the line of the river wall, with water flowing under the walkway. Fulham FC need to improve stadium capacity and facilities. To achieve this the riverside stand has to be larger." The walkway would shut on matchdays. The flats would be used by Fulham's American billionaire owner Shahid Khan and new players.
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 - Fulham not only want to keep the land but take more by cantilevering out over the river. This would set a very dangerous precedent for other developers."
Local author Eivor Martinus said: "We are blessed with rich bird life thanks to the [Barnes] Wetland Centre and greenery on both sides. A colossus reaching well into the river would ruin this."
Amanda Lloyd-Harris of Friends of Bishops Park said the walkway "will be a cliff-like structure which will block wind and threaten use of the river for sailing, and be a safety hazard."
Comments on the planning application are open until tomorrow. If Hammersmith and Fulham council grants permission the club hope to start work by May next year and finish in 2021.
https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/fulham-stadium-expansion-plan-includes-new-river-walk-and-4000-more-seats-a3743621.html
This is really nice!
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.
Nothing changes. Riverside ambition met with hostility by the same people and arguments. It is all getting a bit boring. Mainly because those who are appalled just don't want a football club there. They never did. I have doubts our owners want a football club there. For all their guff on historical roots they would be quite happy to sell up and move elsewhere.
I just want it built to stuff the N.I.M.B.Ys I'm not bothered by the flats at all
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.
I don't have a problem with the flats. They are short-stay and " The flats would be used by Fulham's American billionaire owner Shahid Khan and new players." Have a bite to eat at the new cafe and who knows, Messi might invite you up to check out the river view.
Quote from: Riversider on January 19, 2018, 12:20:27 AM
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.
I think the completion date is the same
Chelsea's plans are not in the clear - they still have to deal with this
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/12/no-light-end-tunnel-chelseas-new-1-billion-stadium/
Everton have had more failed attempts to build a new stadium and over a longer time period than we have
Quote from: Roberty on January 19, 2018, 05:21:20 AM
Quote from: Riversider on January 19, 2018, 12:20:27 AM
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.
I think the completion date is the same
Chelsea's plans are not in the clear - they still have to deal with this
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/12/no-light-end-tunnel-chelseas-new-1-billion-stadium/
Everton have had more failed attempts to build a new stadium and over a longer time period than we have
Been dealt with, Hammersmith & Fulham council ruled in Chelsea's favour in the week following the residents light objections. They were even talking about compulsory purchasing the house but it never came to that
Quote from: FFC73 on January 18, 2018, 10:12:32 PM
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
Quote from: Riversider on January 19, 2018, 12:20:27 AM
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 !
remember this is from a newspaper and no quotes from anyone at club or council on that date.
The plan is still to have it seen in March/April at planning and if it gets the go ahead then plan is basic work to start from May/june with major works summer 2019.
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. .
Quote from: toshes mate on January 19, 2018, 07:18:15 AM
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
Quote from: Fulham Tup North on January 19, 2018, 08:06:37 AM
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.
Quote from: HillingdonFFC on January 19, 2018, 06:30:35 AM
Quote from: FFC73 on January 18, 2018, 10:12:32 PM
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
Quote from: Riversider on January 19, 2018, 12:20:27 AM
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.
Quote from: toshes mate on January 19, 2018, 07:18:15 AM
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
(https://preview.ibb.co/ktxabw/H_F.png)
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
Quote from: MJG on January 19, 2018, 10:30:36 AM
Quote from: toshes mate on January 19, 2018, 07:18:15 AM
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.....
3900 extra seats.
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 ?
Quote from: toshes mate on January 19, 2018, 10:56:52 AM
Quote from: MJG on January 19, 2018, 10:30:36 AM
Quote from: toshes mate on January 19, 2018, 07:18:15 AM
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.
Quote from: Riversider on January 19, 2018, 11:48:31 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: flyingfish on January 19, 2018, 12:30:43 PM
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.
Quote from: MJG on January 19, 2018, 12:32:47 PM
Quote from: flyingfish on January 19, 2018, 12:30:43 PM
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.
Quote from: MJG on January 19, 2018, 12:32:47 PM
Quote from: flyingfish on January 19, 2018, 12:30:43 PM
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.
Quote from: Holders on January 19, 2018, 12:39:36 PM
Quote from: MJG on January 19, 2018, 12:32:47 PM
Quote from: flyingfish on January 19, 2018, 12:30:43 PM
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.
Putting to one side the potential planning hurdles, the school of thought re "will it actually happen", etc...
...it looks bloody amazing!
Quote from: HillingdonFFC on January 19, 2018, 06:30:35 AM
Quote from: FFC73 on January 18, 2018, 10:12:32 PM
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
Quote from: FFC73 on January 19, 2018, 01:37:58 PM
Quote from: HillingdonFFC on January 19, 2018, 06:30:35 AM
Quote from: FFC73 on January 18, 2018, 10:12:32 PM
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,.
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
Quote from: Ged on January 19, 2018, 01:57:44 PM
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
I don't see how anyone could argue that the walk will be any less pleasant/more unpleasant than it is at present and surely opening up the path can only speed walkers by it if they don't like it. Besides, much of what follows downstream is built up as well, much of it hideously so.
The public consultation on the Riverside Stand closes today. If you'd like to do something practical this afternoon, you can support the plans by adding a comment here:
http://public-access.lbhf.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=P0ADRMBIJRA00
Even if you don't live in Hammersmith and Fulham, the Council is obliged to take note of your comments.
Quote from: paulbrookersmazydribbles on January 19, 2018, 03:38:26 PM
The public consultation on the Riverside Stand closes today. If you'd like to do something practical this afternoon, you can support the plans by adding a comment here:
http://public-access.lbhf.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=P0ADRMBIJRA00
Even if you don't live in Hammersmith and Fulham, the Council is obliged to take note of your comments.
I'm amazed how few people appear to have commented, either way.
It's never going to be built anyway
Quote from: Riversider on January 19, 2018, 11:48:31 AM
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 ?
I hardly think the club are going round asking local residents to object. That idea is not ultra cynical it's paranoid conspiracy theory. I'm as concerned as the next person to see our Chairman commit unreservedly to our club and I would not bet on a start to the works in 5 months but I will wait and see with an open mind.
Quote from: Baszab on January 19, 2018, 04:22:22 PM
It's never going to be built anyway
Will you publicly apologise and eat humble pie if proved wrong Bas?
Quote from: Southcoastffc on January 19, 2018, 04:04:06 PM
Quote from: paulbrookersmazydribbles on January 19, 2018, 03:38:26 PM
The public consultation on the Riverside Stand closes today. If you'd like to do something practical this afternoon, you can support the plans by adding a comment here:
http://public-access.lbhf.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=P0ADRMBIJRA00
Even if you don't live in Hammersmith and Fulham, the Council is obliged to take note of your comments.
I'm amazed how few people appear to have commented, either way.
I have now entered a comment in support.
Apology will be grovelling
Toshes Mate; Seem to have a foot in both camp's old son? Anything you want to tell us?
I'd much prefer the flats to be more corporate and bar space for fans and the corners to be filled in with extra seats as 3900 is hardly the biggest jump in capacity
Quote from: Baszab on January 19, 2018, 04:54:37 PM
Apology will be grovelling
Well given that I want the damned thing built then I look forward to your grovel. (But I'm not holding my breath!).
Quote from: MikeW on January 19, 2018, 05:05:37 PM
Toshes Mate; Seem to have a foot in both camp's old son? Anything you want to tell us?
Funny you should notice that.....
But, I am a Fulham lad born and bred and lived for my teen years five minutes from the ground. I have lots of friends in the area from childhood, from marriage, and from work I have done in the area. My best mate in my younger years lived in Doneraile Street and was a Fulham supporter and we played football in Bishops Park as often as we could with a bunch of others. We also met up with friends at the cafe and outdoor theatre there in the evening. And so, consequently. I know quite a few people from the area who are not Fulham supporters and have views about the ground - both good and bad. My father was a surveyor involved in planning and in my schooldays I used to help him in the evenings which gave me an insight into how planning works: although planning has changed in the last several years the tenets that hold it together are still, barely, in place and so Councils remain answerable for mistakes (as the recent disaster in Notting Hill may yet reveal).
I have publicly stated that I am underwhelmed by the new plan and still believe its most redeeming feature was the walkway. Personally I think Fulham have missed a trick with that, but that is just my opinion. I have no interest in the planning phase as it stands simply because I cannot get excited about the plan as it stands. Simple as that.
How many season ticket holders do we have in The Riverside Stand ? 2000 Higher, Lower ?
Personally I hold 3 season tickets there,
It's going to be a logistical nightmare to rehouse us all , people will want a similar view, they will want to stay close to family and friends etc etc , as I say an absolute nightmare !!!
And it's going to take a lot of time and effort, the day the club email me and ask me whether or not I have a preference as to which stand I would want to be rehoused in then, and only then, will I think "you know what, this is really going to happen"
But here we are at the end of January and still no contact !
Any type of delay in March , even if it's only for 1 week and the rhetoric will turn to 2019.
Would much prefer we moved back to QPR and we got The Riverside, Hammersmith End and The Putney End all done at the same time, then we can all move on with our lives and never have to be concerned with redevelopment works again.
Quote from: Riversider on January 20, 2018, 01:34:46 AM
How many season ticket holders do we have in The Riverside Stand ? 2000 Higher, Lower ?
Personally I hold 3 season tickets there,
It's going to be a logistical nightmare to rehouse us all , people will want a similar view, they will want to stay close to family and friends etc etc , as I say an absolute nightmare !!!
And it's going to take a lot of time and effort, the day the club email me and ask me whether or not I have a preference as to which stand I would want to be rehoused in then, and only then, will I think "you know what, this is really going to happen"
But here we are at the end of January and still no contact !
Any type of delay in March , even if it's only for 1 week and the rhetoric will turn to 2019.
Would much prefer we moved back to QPR and we got The Riverside, Hammersmith End and The Putney End all done at the same time, then we can all move on with our lives and never have to be concerned with redevelopment works again.
The last time Fulham moved to Queens Park Rangers we very nearly never came back. Be very grateful what you wish for.
For what it's worth, I think it looks like a bit of a monstrosity compared to the old plans.
Quote from: Riversider on January 20, 2018, 01:34:46 AM
How many season ticket holders do we have in The Riverside Stand ? 2000 Higher, Lower ?
Personally I hold 3 season tickets there,
It's going to be a logistical nightmare to rehouse us all , people will want a similar view, they will want to stay close to family and friends etc etc , as I say an absolute nightmare !!!
And it's going to take a lot of time and effort, the day the club email me and ask me whether or not I have a preference as to which stand I would want to be rehoused in then, and only then, will I think "you know what, this is really going to happen"
But here we are at the end of January and still no contact !
Any type of delay in March , even if it's only for 1 week and the rhetoric will turn to 2019.
Would much prefer we moved back to QPR and we got The Riverside, Hammersmith End and The Putney End all done at the same time, then we can all move on with our lives and never have to be concerned with redevelopment works again.
I can say that moving fans to other parts of the ground and options available to them is already being discussed. We spent some time at last FST meeting with club on this subject and we welcome any ideas or comments on this. If you have e any ideas you want to put forward pm over to me or send them to
[email protected] and we can include them in the working group we are part of.
I'm with Bas on this and don't see it being built. My apology will also be public and fulsome if/when it is built. As a ST in this stand I assume we will be moved in the main to the Putney end with the tickets available to visiting teams severely reduced. Whatever the plans the view we currently enjoy will not be as good wherever we are placed. No doubt also when moved back the price will increase significantly- if it is built!
I wouldn't be surprised if our home form deserts us during the time there is no stand down one side of the ground. It will be strange playing in half a stadium
To be NIMBY about my seat, I hope it isn't built - I like my seat had it for many many years and don't want change
Don't see the benefit at this moment in time - if we we're thriving Premier club then it's worth it
Who moved my cheese ?
Quote from: Baszab on January 20, 2018, 01:00:52 PM
To be NIMBY about my seat, I hope it isn't built - I like my seat had it for many many years and don't want change
Don't see the benefit at this moment in time - if we we're thriving Premier club then it's worth it
Who moved my cheese ?
I'm almost in a similar position as you, though I do respect the fact that The Riverside Stand is now barely fit for purpose and needs significant money spent on it,
But I will say this in my best Nimby voice, it's taken me a life time to work my way along the row to get myself an aisle seat and would love some reassurance from the Club and the FST that when we return to the newly redeveloped Riverside Stand that those of us with an aisle seat have first option to purchase another.
Quote from: Riversider on January 22, 2018, 11:18:37 AM
Quote from: Baszab on January 20, 2018, 01:00:52 PM
To be NIMBY about my seat, I hope it isn't built - I like my seat had it for many many years and don't want change
Don't see the benefit at this moment in time - if we we're thriving Premier club then it's worth it
Who moved my cheese ?
I'm almost in a similar position as you, though I do respect the fact that The Riverside Stand is now barely fit for purpose and needs significant money spent on it,
But I will say this in my best Nimby voice, it's taken me a life time to work my way along the row to get myself an aisle seat and would love some reassurance from the Club and the FST that when we return to the newly redeveloped Riverside Stand that those of us with an aisle seat have first option to purchase another.
Certainly too early to promise anything like an aisle seat, but there will be something out later this week that talks about club and FST working on this subject. There are lots of ideas and comments about how this can all be handled and its all up for discussion.
Well you may well get one as there should be more aisle seats with increased capacity! But yep do understand that.
Quote from: SuffolkWhite on January 22, 2018, 11:32:57 AM
Well you may well get one as there should be more aisle seats with increased capacity! But yep do understand that.
As Suffolk White correctly points out, there will be thousands more aisle seats than there are at present, surely no reason why an existing season ticket holder shouldn't get they're preference,
Or is that being unreasonable ?
Quote from: Riversider on January 22, 2018, 11:46:11 AM
Quote from: SuffolkWhite on January 22, 2018, 11:32:57 AM
Well you may well get one as there should be more aisle seats with increased capacity! But yep do understand that.
As Suffolk White correctly points out, there will be thousands more aisle seats than there are at present, surely no reason why an existing season ticket holder shouldn't get they're preference,
Or is that being unreasonable ?
I could say there are bigger blocks, less aisles so less seats on them, but I wont ;-)
I suspect the grumpies will be easily placated by optional heated seats and Thermos Flask holders in their new BrandXXCasinoRiverside Stand seats.
Chris who is on the FST board and lives next to ground got a reply into the Substandard
(http://i66.tinypic.com/288tmw8.jpg)
Thanks MJG and we'll done Chris.
Chris, top man.
I remember walking down the road towards Fulham Palace Road after Hamburg at home and seeing obviously very well-to-do people reveling in the victory and thinking how many of you or friends during the Ernie Clay era would have loved Fulham FC to have been swallowed up by the Thames. The times they were a changin'.
I have already expressed my feelings about local residents and their views but it is heartening to see Chris Gilbertson's printed rebuttal of the ES report. For the record Ordnance Survey sheets for the area can be viewed from the National Library of Scotland (strange, I know) for the period when Fulham FC begun. There were no houses to the western side of Fulham Palace Road down to the River Thames apart from the Palace, a penitentiary called St James's with almshouses nearby, Mill Shot Farm, Rosebank House, Crab Tree Wharf and some outhouses, around the time the football ground first appeared. A farm track called Crab Tree Alley seems to mark the line of current day Stevenage Road.
Perhaps current day residents should reflect upon how the area developed after the arrival of the football ground and praise the simple fact they have a charismatic ground on their doorsteps and not an eyesore.
Quote from: toshes mate on January 23, 2018, 09:40:06 AM
I have already expressed my feelings about local residents and their views but it is heartening to see Chris Gilbertson's printed rebuttal of the ES report. For the record Ordnance Survey sheets for the area can be viewed from the National Library of Scotland (strange, I know) for the period when Fulham FC begun. There were no houses to the western side of Fulham Palace Road down to the River Thames apart from the Palace, a penitentiary called St James's with almshouses nearby, Mill Shot Farm, Rosebank House, Crab Tree Wharf and some outhouses, around the time the football ground first appeared. A farm track called Crab Tree Alley seems to mark the line of current day Stevenage Road.
Perhaps current day residents should reflect upon how the area developed after the arrival of the football ground and praise the simple fact they have a charismatic ground on their doorsteps and not an eyesore.
So, unless any of them are over 120 years old, the ground was already there when they chose to move to the area.
Quote from: HamsterWheel on January 22, 2018, 12:08:37 PM
I suspect the grumpies will be easily placated by optional heated seats and Thermos Flask holders in their new BrandXXCasinoRiverside Stand seats.
Ohh, now I'm getting excited, please reserve me one ( does it come with travel rug and ear muffs?)
I hope the council take all that into account before deciding that we can build a new stand at our old ground by the river
Quote from: Holders on January 23, 2018, 11:20:26 AM
So, unless any of them are over 120 years old, the ground was already there when they chose to move to the area.
The ground was already there before any of the current streets were even drawn up on plans let alone built. Even families who have lived there from the first construction of a house will all post date the football ground (or field used for football) by at least a decade or more. The only recognisable street names are all to the east and south of Fulham Palace Road (e.g Nestor Road, Fulham High Street) and there are very few of them. Most of the land outside the Palace seems to have been farmland.
Quote from: toshes mate on January 23, 2018, 09:40:06 AM
I have already expressed my feelings about local residents and their views but it is heartening to see Chris Gilbertson's printed rebuttal of the ES report. For the record Ordnance Survey sheets for the area can be viewed from the National Library of Scotland (strange, I know) for the period when Fulham FC begun. There were no houses to the western side of Fulham Palace Road down to the River Thames apart from the Palace, a penitentiary called St James's with almshouses nearby, Mill Shot Farm, Rosebank House, Crab Tree Wharf and some outhouses, around the time the football ground first appeared. A farm track called Crab Tree Alley seems to mark the line of current day Stevenage Road.
Perhaps current day residents should reflect upon how the area developed after the arrival of the football ground and praise the simple fact they have a charismatic ground on their doorsteps and not an eyesore.
To be fair I don't think Chris Gilbertson is the only local resident who appreciates Fulham being on his doorstep, there are plenty of local ST holders. But I think you make a very good point that the ground pre dates all of the residential building. As to the NIMBYS, well through a bizarre coincidence I once worked under a CEO who had a very nice property close to the ground. He was a total pr1ck who believed he and his cronies pretty much owned the borough. He despised FFC but would have been quite happy to have had the Royal Opera House close by. Just the worst kind of snob.
Why are we even discussing NIMBY's and objections , Chelsea had an objector (Who lives in a multi million pound next to their ground) to their 60k stadium rebuild,
Inside a week Hammersmith and Fulham Council listened to their objection and quashed it , so why should they treat us any differently ?
I think over the last 15 years (or however long it's been now) it's suited Al Fayed and now Khan to have delays, I think when were serious about getting this done we'll stop dragging our heels and get the job done,
The next 8 weeks will tell us whether , A, it's getting started in 2018 or B, yet another bull s**t excuse will be produced as to why it's being delayed until next year.
Only the Local residents who haven't improved their property should have a say and then be ignored.
Quote from: toshes mate on January 23, 2018, 09:40:06 AM
I have already expressed my feelings about local residents and their views but it is heartening to see Chris Gilbertson's printed rebuttal of the ES report. For the record Ordnance Survey sheets for the area can be viewed from the National Library of Scotland (strange, I know) for the period when Fulham FC begun. There were no houses to the western side of Fulham Palace Road down to the River Thames apart from the Palace, a penitentiary called St James's with almshouses nearby, Mill Shot Farm, Rosebank House, Crab Tree Wharf and some outhouses, around the time the football ground first appeared. A farm track called Crab Tree Alley seems to mark the line of current day Stevenage Road.
Perhaps current day residents should reflect upon how the area developed after the arrival of the football ground and praise the simple fact they have a charismatic ground on their doorsteps and not an eyesore.
There is no excuse for local residents who have come to the area i the last few years, my wife and I moved here 36 years ago, and one of the things we noticed was this bloody great football club at the end of the road.
