Chelsea’s £1bn Stamford Bridge redevelopment is under threat from a local family who are making light of it.
The Crosthwaites have lived in Stamford Cottages oppostite the Bridge for 50 years and the family – comprising Lucinda and Nicolas, plus children Louis and Rose – took out an injunction in May when they discovered the new 60,000-capacity stadium will cast a permanent shadow over parts of their home.
Despite the lawsuit, the local municipalities of Fulham and the London Borough of Hammersmith are looking to intervene with the families to allow the plans to move forward, using local planning laws to override the injunction.
“The club has been in discussions with the owners of 1-2 Stamford Cottages for some time to acquire their rights to light by agreement, but they have confirmed that it is highly unlikely that a private agreement will be reached,” wrote Chelsea in a report to the local councils.
“Given the significant level of investment necessary, the club state that they will not be able to implement the development or secure any necessary development financing whilst there remains a risk that the existing injunctive proceedings might succeed.”
READ MORE: Chelsea appoint new CEO
After looking for a new stadium site, Chelsea eventually settled on a similar plan to Tottenham, a complete redesign of their stadium at their current site. The new Stamford Bridge is expected to have a 60,000-seat capacity and will actually be built deeper into the ground to allow more seats to be built, instead of raising the height of the stadium.
But the delays mean that the wait for Chelsea to move into a bigger ground will have to continue.
A three-bedroom property on the same street as the Crosthwaites sold for £1.18m last year.
Chelsea’s offer of legal advice worth £50,000, and further compensation understood to be in the region of a six-figure sum could not persuade them to waive their ‘right to light’ in their home.
The family have said via their lawyers they are not opposed to the redevelopment of the stadium, but have suggested the east stand in question could be “cut-back or re-designed so as not to cause interference”.