Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

T H E RT. H O N . G R E G H A N D S M.P.

, C H E L S E A & F U L H A M

HOUSE OF COMMONS
LONDON SW1A 0AA
Mr Nigel Pallace
Chief Executive
London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham
Town Hall
King Street
London
W6 9JU

9th January 2016

Dear Mr Pallace,

Submission in response to LBHF Planning Application 2015/05050/FUL


Stamford Bridge Grounds Redevelopment

As the Member of Parliament for Chelsea & Fulham, I am writing to respond to the London Borough
of Hammersmith & Fulham (LBHF) regarding planning application 2015/05050/FUL for the
redevelopment of Chelsea FCs Stamford Bridge stadium.

1.

Background and recent contributions

As a constituency MP, I am pleased to hear that Chelsea Football Club (CFC) intends to remain in
its 110-year-old home at Stamford Bridge. I held a meeting with senior representatives of CFC on 22
June 2015, and received a briefing on their proposals to redevelop Stamford Bridge. As I stated in my
newsletter at the time, I received assurances from them that CFC was making and would continue
making every effort to work with local residents and stakeholders throughout the proposed
redevelopment, if it were approved. Since then, I have continued listening to local residents and
stakeholders concerns, and I am now seeking to represent them as their local MP by asking LBHF
to ensure that the following criteria should be satisfactorily considered during their deliberations.

I was myself an LBH&F Councillor at the time of the last Chelsea FC redevelopment public inquiry in
1998-99, and I remember the arguments made for and against at that time. Some of those arguments
will doubtless be made again with this proposal, but it is worth noting that a major difference this time
is the proposed total demolition of the existing stadium, rather than incremental builds, and the
implications that has for both the construction period and the longer-term impact of the new stadium.
2.

Impact on residential properties

I have received correspondence from a number of local residents who are concerned about the impact
that the proposed redevelopment of Stamford Bridge might have on their homes. In particular, I have
been contacted by residents of The Billings (Billing Road, Billing Street, Billing Place, and Stamford
Cottages), who are concerned about the impact that the proposed redevelopment might have on
them, including their Right to Light and the proposed decking platform over part of the District Line
and part of the West London Line, for example. I suspect that other residents in other locations in the
immediate vicinity of the ground, in both boroughs, might have similar concerns. LBHF will need to
be satisfied that these residents concerns have been considered before making a decision on this
planning application.
mail@greghands.com

tel: 020 7219 5448

fax: 020 7219 6801

w w w. g r e g h a n d s . c o m

3.

Impact on transport and local parking

4.

Impact on the policing of matches

5.

Impact on other local stakeholders and cultural amenities

6.

Conclusions

Frequently, I am contacted by constituents who are concerned about traffic problems associated with
CFC, especially on match days, but also in relation to celebratory parades and other one-off events,
whether it be to do with congestion or with parking, for example. It is imperative that LBHF should be
satisfied with any proposals that CFC might have regarding the mitigation of transport and parking
problems both during and after the redevelopment. The prospect of an increase in ground capacity
from 42,000 to 60,000, and its impact on public and private transport, and on local parking amenities
will need to be considered very carefully by the Council.

As the MP for Chelsea & Fulham, I work closely with the Metropolitan Police Service in both
Hammersmith & Fulham and in Kensington & Chelsea, and I am grateful for the hard work that they
carry out in relation to football matches at Stamford Bridge. I believe that LBHF will need to determine
the impact that an increase in capacity at Stamford Bridge might have on policing when considering
this planning application. I would assume that the police will be asked to give a view also.
At my meeting with CFC in June 2015, I was assured that they were making every effort to work with
local stakeholders such as the Friends of Brompton Cemetery, English Heritage, Royal Parks, the
London Oratory School, and Stoll. However, I am aware that there is still a particular concern about
the vulnerable veterans at Stoll. Accordingly, LBHF will need to engage with these and other local
stakeholders in order to be satisfied that their concerns have been taken into consideration.
In light of the number of development projects proposed for Chelsea and Fulham over the coming
years including the Thames Tideway Tunnel and Crossrail 2 I feel that LBHF should seriously
consider these concerns and those expressed by my constituents directly, while determining the
outcome of Chelsea Football Clubs planning application.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my suggestions, and I look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely,

The Rt Hon Greg Hands MP


Member of Parliament for Chelsea and Fulham

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi