Dyched wrote:You’d have to take out a a few rows of seats to actually make a difference to pitch view from the JHL.

All you’d do is take out 4/5 rows from one stand, move the pitch and add the seats that were lost to the bob lord at the cost of millions.

No, because with an overhanging tier on the Bob Lord you’d add perhaps 15 rows of seats. You’d remove maybe 3-4 from the JHL (there’s already a gap between pitch and stand). You might in total gain 10 rows of seats, so around 2,200 seats. Capacity 24,200.

If the Cricket Field stand is re-seated in the home side, gaining a further 2-300 seats then that’s a total capacity of around 24,500. We wouldn’t need more than that, and would provide better views from available seats, and slightly more of them.

We would also still be complying with PL rules to give 10% of tickets to away fans.

Claretforever wrote:No, because with an overhanging tier on the Bob Lord you’d add perhaps 15 rows of seats. You’d remove maybe 3-4 from the JHL (there’s already a gap between pitch and stand). You might in total gain 10 rows of seats, so around 2,200 seats. Capacity 24,200.

If the Cricket Field stand is re-seated in the home side, gaining a further 2-300 seats then that’s a total capacity of around 24,500. We wouldn’t need more than that, and would provide better views from available seats, and slightly more of them.

We would also still be complying with PL rules to give 10% of tickets to away fans.

My reply was about your view of adding rows to the back of the BL. You can not do that. You’re basically taking 5/600 fans out of the JHL which has the biggest concourse adding them into the BL plus another 1500 or so. It’ll be a death trap.

You’re post above states a second overhanging tier which would be the safer way.

Dyched wrote:My reply was about your view of adding rows to the back of the BL. You can not do that. You’re basically taking 5/600 fans out of the JHL which has the biggest concourse adding them into the BL plus another 1500 or so. It’ll be a death trap.

You’re post above states a second overhanging tier which would be the safer way.

Different ways of doing things, and I can’t see them ever removing seats in reality. Out of curiosity why do you think they couldn’t extend backwards?

A small concourse on top of the offices? Perhaps finishing the other side’s of the office build and using that as concourse space?

Here's a revolutionary thought....

Let's leave things exactly as they are.

Im_not_Robbie_Blake wrote:Here's a revolutionary thought....

Let's leave things exactly as they are.

Quite right, they should never have terraced and put a roof on the Longside, should they?

It is not about sticking an extra tier on the BL, really though, is it? It should be all about improving facilities and getting income streams going when footy isn't being played. And if that includes a small capacity increase to say 25,000 that would be perfectly acceptable. We need both the CFS and the BLS replacing. The scope of the redevelopment will, in my view, give an indication of intent by the Chairman and his Board.

DomBFC1882 wrote:Its safe to say SD loves our club. Hes always thinking of the future and how things can improve. Absolutely love the man

I doubt any manager has the power (for want of a better word) than Dyche. He reminds me in a way of Fergie. He doesn't just manage the team he has dreams about moving us forward in all ways. I think if he stayed with us long enough he would be a director - he almost is in all but name now.

Now if only he would take cup games seriously.

Corky wrote:Quite right, they should never have terraced and put a roof on the Longside, should they?

Putting a roof on and terracing it was the right thing to do - knocking it down and building a stand was the big mistake.

BL should be demolished it’s an embarrassment , though where would people go to die if this happened ?

AlargeClaret wrote:where would people go to die if this happened ?

Would you like to elaborate?

As Ozzy Osbourne didn't say, no more tiers.

People say we can hardly fill the ground now, but I would extend.
I'd let young kids in for free, and reduce young teenagers to pocket money prices.
It wont make us any money now, but its investing in the future, just as much as Barnfield.
The next generation of fans will be the life blood of this and any other provincial team. Especially if one day we do go down. Catching them young is essential.

AlargeClaret wrote:BL should be demolished it’s an embarrassment , though where would people go to die if this happened ?

I’d argue that it’s our best stand. Plenty of room, great concourse and probably the best view of the pitch.

Burnleyareback2 wrote:I’d argue that it’s our best stand. Plenty of room, great concourse and probably the best view of the pitch.

I fully agree.

groove wrote:I fully agree.

I’m 30 and I’ve sat in every stand, it’s my favourite as well.

It’s just the roof stanchions that let it down, and if you’re going to replace the roof you may as well add a few rows to the back of the stand.

I’ve had a season ticket in there and it is probably the warmest stand in the ground in winter. You never get wet when you’re in there either.

That aside the stanchions really are a pain unless you get the right seat, so rather than replace the stand we should be looking to raise the roof and have a cantilever or goalpost design with a few extra rows of seats, or even exec boxes at the back. The latter goalpost design might be a struggle now we’ve built up at one side and is the down side of doing everything piece meal in the ground rather than having a grand vision and plan.

I just think our main stand should look the part. It should have better seats than the rest of the ground, have great sight lines, a an imposing entrance, possibly a glass facade and, right now, should feel Premier League.

Burnleyareback2 wrote:I’d argue that it’s our best stand. Plenty of room, great concourse and probably the best view of the pitch.

That’s not the issue , it may well have a great view ( it does) but it’s a 3000? Stand in a 10,000 space , and they can have as much leg room and formalahyde on tap but it does need sone serious overhaul at some point

mdd2 wrote:Maybe but obstructing light could be a problem couldn't it?
Then there is the closure of the bottom tier whilst the extra tier goes on which given the rate of progress of the disabled sections could take 3 or 4 seasons.

Right to light. As far as I know this isn't a planning issue. It is a provision under civil law matter.
As such, residents would have to bring a civil case against the club.
The old Brunshaw Rd stand looks far higher and far closer to the footpath than the current BLS.

Somebody has said would the BLS take the weight?
eerrmmm. You could build the second tier independent of the lower tier.
The weight goes straight to the ground on columns.
You could even build it and still use the existing BLS beneath it during construction.

I wonder what the average age is of those who appear content with the existing set up at Turf Moor. Those who think that the facilities currently offered if not great are nonetheless adequate. I bet they are well over 50. We desperately need to modernise and increase capacity slightly. As someone said we should be letting kids in for, if not free, a nominal charge. Get them now whilst we are in the PL.

Corky wrote:I wonder what the average age is of those who appear content with the existing set up at Turf Moor. Those who think that the facilities currently offered if not great are nonetheless adequate. I bet they are well over 50. We desperately need to modernise and increase capacity slightly. As someone said we should be letting kids in for, if not free, a nominal charge. Get them now whilst we are in the PL.

I fully agree. Once they’ve chosen their club it’s extremely difficult to change, so even if 50% stay with you that’s an increase in your fan base.

With regards to light it totally baffles me why this is brought up. There was an issue when the Longside went up I think because of the height affecting houses behind, but the Bob Lord is the south stand. The light won’t be affected at all for the residents on Brunshaw Road who love a distance further back than the old terraced houses did from the ground.

Claretforever wrote:I fully agree. Once they’ve chosen their club it’s extremely difficult to change, so even if 50% stay with you that’s an increase in your fan base.

With regards to light it totally baffles me why this is brought up. There was an issue when the Longside went up I think because of the height affecting houses behind, but the Bob Lord is the south stand. The light won’t be affected at all for the residents on Brunshaw Road who love a distance further back than the old terraced houses did from the ground.

And the living rooms are on the other side to....

If I remember rightly the issue with local residents wasn't about light (apparently legally you have no "right to light" and can't normally object to building work on these grounds anyway, but I may be wrong) came when the Jimmy Mac went up and those close by couldn't get TV reception. Allegedly nobody noticed until Corrie came on and then they all went off on one!! (So not sure if an ariel of sorts was put on the stand??)

Dark Cloud wrote:If I remember rightly the issue with local residents wasn't about light (apparently legally you have no "right to light" and can't normally object to building work on these grounds anyway, but I may be wrong) came when the Jimmy Mac went up and those close by couldn't get TV reception. Allegedly nobody noticed until Corrie came on and then they all went off on one!! (So not sure if an ariel of sorts was put on the stand??)

Wasn’t the ‘right to light’ part of the argument put up by one family against the development of Stamford Bridge?

I think it’s been settled now, but I’m sure that was part of the issue.

DCWat wrote:Wasn’t the ‘right to light’ part of the argument put up by one family against the development of Stamford Bridge?

I think it’s been settled now, but I’m sure that was part of the issue.

That may be where I heard about it, but I feel sure (could be wrong?) that it's been said that there is no "right to light" and when neighbours complain about planned extensions etc they often mistakenly focus on the light they will potentially lose, but it's not a valid argument.

Dark Cloud wrote:That may be where I heard about it, but I feel sure (could be wrong?) that it's been said that there is no "right to light" and when neighbours complain about planned extensions etc they often mistakenly focus on the light they will potentially lose, but it's not a valid argument.

I had a brief look at the link below, but to be honest, I got bored!!

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... s-to-light" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

DCWat wrote:I had a brief look at the link below, but to be honest, I got bored!!

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... s-to-light" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Agree and haven't trawled through it either, but looking at the date it seems to coincide with a time when the government were actively trying to stimulate construction work, whether it be huge projects or small scale home extensions and they wanted to make it easier to get PP and less easy for neighbours to object.
On the subject of the guy who took on Chelsea, I suspected he was a clever chap and he knew enough to keep plugging away and be a thorn in their side until eventually they simply paid him off and he did more than ok out of it thanks very much.

Dark Cloud wrote:That may be where I heard about it, but I feel sure (could be wrong?) that it's been said that there is no "right to light" and when neighbours complain about planned extensions etc they often mistakenly focus on the light they will potentially lose, but it's not a valid argument.

Right to light is a legal easement so is definitely an issue. It’s very unlikely to affect domestic extensions but obviously with a structure twice the height of the Bob Lord Stand it could come into play.

I know an organisation, who a while back were looking to acquire London basement properties adjacent to development sites with planning approval for a building which could affect their right to light, with a view to taking legal action at a later date.

Rileybobs wrote:Right to light is a legal easement so is definitely an issue. It’s very unlikely to affect domestic extensions but obviously with a structure twice the height of the Bob Lord Stand it could come into play.

I know an organisation, who a while back were looking to acquire London basement properties adjacent to development sites with planning approval for a building which could affect their right to light, with a view to taking legal action at a later date.

The Bob Lord is on the north side of the properties? What light is it affecting exactly considering the distance?

Not sure its needed tbh. Look at our friends down the road, stuck in mid-table in the Championship with a 30 thousand capacity stadium that is barely half full.

Claretforever wrote:The Bob Lord is on the north side of the properties? What light is it affecting exactly considering the distance?

Right to light relates to daylight, not sunlight. You get daylight from all directions.

Bob lord stand is a bit embarrassing. The club has to show more ambition. I’m not talking about 30000 seat stadium but surely we can achieve 25000 or even 27000. That takes us up to comparable clubs. The club would be foolish to stand still on this front.

Dark Cloud wrote:Agree and haven't trawled through it either, but looking at the date it seems to coincide with a time when the government were actively trying to stimulate construction work, whether it be huge projects or small scale home extensions and they wanted to make it easier to get PP and less easy for neighbours to object.
On the subject of the guy who took on Chelsea, I suspected he was a clever chap and he knew enough to keep plugging away and be a thorn in their side until eventually they simply paid him off and he did more than ok out of it thanks very much.

Right to light is a civil matter. Any window (whether to residential property or commercial property) accrues a right to light after 20 years. This right exists outside the planning sphere, meaning something that is acceptable in planning terms may still be injunctable in Right to Light terms.

Loss of daylight to neighbouring residential windows is a planning issue. There are long established tests and methodologies for assessing losses of daylight, usually based on Vertical Sky Component, and these are set out in a Building Research Establishment document used by all planners. Losses of up to 20% of VSC are usually considered acceptable in planning terms. Beyond that, it becomes problematic. However, a Council can still grant planning permission for a development that has a detrimental impact on its neighbours provided the 'offending' development provides a tangible planning benefit which outweighs the harm. Hence, Burnley Borough Council could grant permission for an enormous new tier on the Bob Lord Stand which wipes out a huge amount of daylight to the neighbouring houses if, for example, the Council considered the economic benefits of another 3,000 visitors to Burnley outweighed the harm to three or four houses opposite.

As for the objector at Stamford Bridge, I happen to be working with the Right to Light consultant who represented Chelsea FC. The objector did quite well out of the deal, but he was holding out for a hell of a lot more until Hammersmith and Fulham Council threatened him with compulsory purchase of his property by invoking a provision in the Town and Country Planning Act that is designed to prevent right to light objections from stopping development.

On TV the Bob Lord and the view over it is Burnleys' USP.
It marks us who and where we are - underdogs, working class, pure Claret town etc etc

Cricketfield first is most likely.

[quote="chekhov"...to expand the Bob Lord ...extend the existing rake out the back of the stand as now is...[/quote]

I've never really looked/considered that or any other idea in any detail, nor indeed have I watched that many games in the BL stand but from what I recall I could see that idea being worthier of investigation than the addition of a second tier; just the work required to investigate/prove the existing foundations for the latter would likely require the stand to be at best restricted and possibly closed completely for several months - a whole season perhaps? - after which you'd need to at best finalise or perhaps completely revise your initial plans, then submit an applications for approval, which'd be another season gone before you can even start the tender process.
My career was in construction, predominantly the management of refurbishment and alteration/change of use projects and one thing that's consistent: If time is a key factor then provided that there's no restriction to the contrary or specific need to retain a facade, then just knock it down and start from scratch, it'll be much faster and your out-turn cost lower too. That said, I'm still of the opinion: Why bother?
The extra capacity created would be utilised for perhaps half a dozen games per season at best so it would be many years, if ever, before BFC recovered their investment and my impression is that bums on seats at the match itself, particularly at the EPL level, are no longer a major factor in a football club's finances? Something that's perhaps confirmed by the way BFC are consistently able freeze/restrict price increases on their season ticket prices?
I'm sure most folks would like a larger capacity and improved stadium - I for one think the Bob Lord stand's bloody awful - the major reason that I don't know it well enough to be definitive - but if I were to advise BFC on a way forward, my suggestions would be (a) demolish and rebuild completely (b) look to increase ticket prices throughout the stadium to recover the cost of the works. I suspect that I wouldn't be the only professional consultant to see it that way, so it's best to ask yourself how much more you'd be prepared to pay for your tickets to see an improved and increased capacity BL Stand

Rileybobs wrote:Right to light relates to daylight, not sunlight. You get daylight from all directions.

Okay but still, the houses are so far away from the stand that their daylight shouldn’t be affected?

Whilst I agree the Bob Lord stand is outdated and there's those in favour of demolishing it and others wanting to extend it.
The first thing to consider is the logistics, IF it's demolished. You've possibly more than 2,000 season ticket holders to move to other parts of the ground, for probably 2 seasons, therefore losing walk on income.
The offices and maybe the club shop will have to be moved elsewhere. The function rooms bookings and revenue will be lost for some considerable time. Besides the cost of building the stand, considerable expense will need to be spent to replace all the fixtures and fittings again.
The directors would probably be housed in centre hospitality boxes area of the James Hargreaves. It would also present an opportunity to build the dressing rooms into the stand.
What should also be asked of any architects, is to design a new BLS to incorporate a wrap around into a new Cricket Field stand.
The only problem spending that amount of money, is it will leave the powder keg empty and transfer fees will be affected and as already pointed out and prices will increase for all of us.

Claretforever wrote:Okay but still, the houses are so far away from the stand that their daylight shouldn’t be affected?

Most probably not. I was just clarifying as a few posters had mistaken right for light with overshading, which obviously wouldn’t be an issue as the BL Stand is directly to the north of they properties in question.

It would need to be considered though. Bear in mind there is a 45 degree rule and increasing the capacity of the stand would not only make it higher but also deeper and therefore closer to those properties.