I work in planning, and many years ago wrote a piece for one of the fanzines about the various obstacles the club would face when it came to redevelopment of each of the four stands.

It seemed to me at the time that the main problem for the Main stand was the close proximity of the houses at Wooderson Close (the ones near the corner between the main stand and the Holmesdale). This led to planning permission being granted way back in the mid 1990s for a new main stand to mirror the Holmesdale, but for that stand to only come as far as the edge of the penalty area, so as to leave light and view for those houses.

What we now also know is that whatever plan the club currently has seems to require some of the carpark land owned by Sainsburys, and that they are pushing for a big price.

The Arthur is backed by houses, which may be a problem if the club wanted to go 2 tiers in that location, though they were allowed on the Holmesdale, so its worth a go.

Obviously there isn’t any land behind the Whitehorse stand that the club own, but there may be potential to build over Sainsburys to add a second tier to that stand, though of course Sainsburys would have to agree, and there may be issues with the proximity to the rear windows on the houses facing Whitehorse lane.

Looking at it now, I would think there remains a fair chance of redevelopment, but the club perhaps needs to think outside the box a bit, especially to get over the Sainsburys land ownership issues.

A few people have pointed out that whilst in the 1990s it would have been unthinkable that the club could afford to buy the houses in Wooderson Close just to knock them down, the current TV money in the EPL might make this feasible now, and may be a solution to that problem. That’s probably true financially, but you need planning permission to demolish houses even if you own them, and given the chronic shortage the Council would at least require that the club replace them. I can’t see where this could happen while we don’t own the carpark land, and it seems to me we need a design which doesn’t add bulk and mass to that corner of the ground.

If you look at an aerial photo of the ground you can see that the footprint of the Arthur is literally twice the size of the main stand.

The Holmesdale stand has two tiers, but the top one does not overhang the bottom one, which means that the whole stand takes up a lot of room.

If the club goes for a design whereby the top tier mostly overlaps the bottom one, it would free up space, and open up a lot of options. This link gives some examples of cantilevered upper triers:

[Link]

If CPFC were able to erect a two tier stand in place of the current Arthur, but only use up half the floor area by getting the top tier to overlap the bottom one, it would make it far more likely that the Council would accept it, as it would be further from the houses on Park Road. Alternatively, and even more interestingly, the club could potentially build a two or three tier stand in place of the Arthur to the same height as the Holmesdale, but move it further away from the pitch by 10/15 metres or so.

The Main stand could then be rebuilt to the same design, but built 10/15 metres further towards the Arthur. Effectively we could move the pitch 10/15 metres further towards Park Road, moving the Main stand further from the houses on Wooderson Close. We would need to extend the sides of the current Holmesdale and Whitehorse stands by 10 metres or so, and remove the parts of those stands closest to the Main stand, which is a big job in itself, but not as big as building new stands, as the bulk of those structures could remain.

I have attached a sketch to show what I mean. We could keep the roof low, flat, and tight to the stands so as to further reduce the height of the stands and improve the noise. I would do this new roof as one structure across the Holmesdale and the two new stands.

None of this is simple, but it seems a possible solution to the problem the Chairman is finding, which is that we are beholden to Sainsburys at present.

We can. Easily. It's the outgoings that are the problem.

I think his point is that we could afford a new stadium development on our income, but that would mean no more Benteke/Cabaye signings and wages, and no new contract for Wilf.

I think his point is that we could afford a new stadium development on our income, but that would mean no more Benteke/Cabaye signings and wages, and no new contract for Wilf.