Hammersmith & Fulham have published a document inviting views on the planning application - http://www.apps.lbhf.gov.uk/PublicAccess/tdc/dcapplication/application_detailview.aspx?caseno=LXL9NFBI0IE00 As I read it, this is an opportunity for not just locals but also fans (wherever you live) to comment. The residents in the area will probably get together a fairly vocal lobby against. So an alternative, balanced opinion in support can only help. The council are clearly going to base their decision on things like 'noise', 'residential amenity' and 'traffic' (see the actual form - click on "submit comments"). So will be looking for positives around these criteria. Any ideas? I'm thinkng of - * the family nature of the club/attracting more youngsters from the community * new sponsorship/ businesses within the Riverside walk (ie jobs), An article appeared in the Estate Gazette and talks about 15000sq ft of shops and restaurants http://new.egi.co.uk/news/article.aspx?id=746288 * tourism - the Thames and Fulham palace (which the Council have financial interest in) as well as FFC per se.
A considerable focus on the economic side of things is essential. An additional 5000 spectators will make a great difference with regard to revenue for shops, bars and restaurants and we need a coherent argument in which the economic benefits of this are succinctly communicated. Also while I haven't read up on this side of things much, how exactly do the club see the riverside walk being an effective way of reducing congestion on matchdays? If we can prove that this will improve things in this sense then the additional noise of more spectators may prove to be of minimal relevance to residents and the council?
It seems to say the extension will be funded by 4 top end apartments located in the stands, which seems to be a good idea, but does it mean they are reliant on getting residential building permission within the structure ? On a very frivolous point, has the club thought about global warming and if the Thames was to flood. I always thought that the last stadium plan in the 2000 was binned because of the clay bed under the stadium couldn't take the structure?
The indians are gathering - http://friendsofbishopspark.com/ They are also using the local press, with the main complaint being how the new stand will dominate over the JH - http://www.fulhamchronicle.co.uk/fulham-and-hammersmith-news/local-fulham-and-hammersmith-news/2012/02/17/bishop-s-park-group-raises-concerns-over-fulham-fc-stadium-plans-82029-30352222/ You'll see they are urging locals to submit a 'NO' vote. I know a little about how these things work and while the Planning Committee will receive a summary of the comments, a key factor will be the numbers for and against. Not necessarily the deciding factor but nonetheless something which could sway a member sitting on the fence. So I'd also urge you all to make a submission.
I have bookmarked this page for later response. As A supporter and former resident (a long time ago) what is my best respondent category ? Consultee, seems best to me, though I don't really know what is implied by this term.
When the extend the stand will they also extend the exterior concourse? On the river side you could go out another 10 metres without impacting too much on the environment, it's all rocks down there.
Silkship, I believe the plan is to extend the concourse over the Thames a bit - don't know exactly by how much but looks like 5-10 metres). The main proposal however is to cantilever the new Riverside stand and create more walking area that way.
Excellent news. I hope something is done about Bishop's Park too - how long is it going to take to finish the damn thing?! I could go on for some time about the park, I go to the games with my dad, he is hardly elderly but even still a fall wouldn't do him much good. The lighting in that park is awful, the floor is uneven, and in the winter no-one bothers to de-ice it. They spend loads on a police presence outside the ground, but then in the park you're lucky to see one copper. If I were prone to post (or pre) match fighting I'd go for the massive park/battleground next to the stadium, rather than the street outside. They need to establish whose responsibility policing that park is. Fortunately Fulham doesn't attract many violent types. And to complete my rant - why do they still have police horses outside the ground? What purpose, other than a vantage point, do they serve? They can't charge the crowd with them. I can't see why they don't just get a policemen to hold a large pole with a camera on top and have a man watching at all times.
Just a reminder that the final date to get your submisson in is 9th March. Also an update on the latest activities of the Friends of Bishop's Park outfit. Well it's really two individuals who are making the running - Amanda Lloyd-Jones and Roger Weston. Both are the rump of the old 'Fulham Alliance' group who caused so much trouble last time around. Here is the recent Newsletter being circulated by Mr Weston - http://www.friendsofbishopspark.com/newsletter/Fulham%20FC%20Planning%20Application.pdf
The Putney sailors are now huffing an puffing - http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-24038218-fulham-fc-will-take-wind-out-of-our-sails.do
Fulham established before them. Had they been visionaires they would have predicted the rise of our club. Seriously that's what is wrong these days. Everybody with a silly reason can raise an objection. The river is so big that is nonsense. What about the business and development in the area. Will the sailing club support this?
Reminder. If you haven't already, get your submission in to the Planning Committee. The closing date is 9th March. Here's the link again - http://www.apps.lbhf.gov.uk/PublicAccess/tdc/dcapplication/application_detailview.aspx?caseno=LXL9NFBI0IE00
The standard of English in that newsletter is really quite poor. This does not exactly help me believe that Mr Weston understands what he is talking about.
He doesn't, but then he and his side kick, Amanda Lloyd-Harris, are politicians. What they have done is listed key headings from the criteria that the Planning Committee have said their decision will be based on, to drum up negativity. When it comes to it their submission will be along the lines " x people objected to increased traffic on match days". The Committee will take more heed of the numbers than the substance. This is why it's important to get as many supporting votes in front of the Committee as possible.
