Quantcast
Anfield Road Planning Permission re-submission - Page 3 - FF - Football Forum - The Liverpool Way Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Jarvinja Ilnow

Anfield Road Planning Permission re-submission

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Doctor Troy said:

It just seems very costly just for Anfield. 

 

The money to open the whole line to passengers with all the old stations reinstated would be enormous and would require a lot from the government. 

 

Then you have the problem of blocking the port taking extra capacity on the railway line. 

Think that may have passed you by there Doc? Monorail, cruise liner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit more detail:

 

 

https://www.thisisanfield.com/2020/12/anfields-new-capacity-will-be-61015-with-summer-2023-the-aim-for-completion/

 

 

Anfield’s new capacity will be 61,015, with summer 2023 the aim for completion

More details on Liverpool’s expansion of the Anfield Road End reveal what Anfield’s new stadium capacity will be once work is complete.

A new planning application for the Anfield Road Stand has been submitted to Liverpool City Council by Liverpool FC and architects KSS, revealing more details about the expansion.

 

The proposed capacity of the Anfield Road End would be just short of 16,000 (15,967) – which is almost 4,000 more than the Kop.

The new two-tier stand will be the same height as the Main Stand and will create an imposing view from Stanley Park.

Pending approval, work should begin late next year, with completion in summer 2023, in time for the 2023/24 season. Liverpool would likely request their first two games of that season to be away from home, as they did when the Main Stand was completed in 2016.

 

AnfieldRoadCompare1-450x450.jpg

 

Key redevelopments, such as removing the existing roof of the stand and the current upper tier, will be undertaken out-of-season, in the summer of 2022, to allow minimal disruption to matchdays – as with the Main Stand expansion between 2014 and 2016.

“We are looking at minimal seat loss on matchdays, hopefully virtually nothing,” explained managing director Andy Hughes previously.

There will be approximately 7,000 seats added, with 1,800 of those being ‘premium’ seats.

 

AnfieldRoadCompare2-450x450.jpg

 

A new, large ‘fan park’ will be created below what will be the new upper tier, effectively on the current Anfield Road itself.

Liverpool anticipate the work to take 22 to 23 months to complete – which is five months longer than the original, slightly smaller design, planning application which expired this year.

So in order for the expansion to complete for the 2023/24 season, work will need to begin in mid-to-late 2021.

Liverpool will also apply for permanent permission to host concerts and other sporting events beyond their current agreement of six events in two years, which could see American football games held at Anfield.

 

AnfieldRoad6-600x402.jpg

 

embedded3420684-600x403.jpg

 

stanley-anfield-road-600x335.jpeg

 

The expansion is expected to cost around £60 million and would see owners FSG fulfil on their promise to deliver a 60,000-seater stadium for Liverpool supporters.

Liverpool had initially planned to submit their plans in spring 2020, with completion in summer 2022, the coronavirus pandemic put those plans on hold and the final completion now should be 12 months later than originally hoped.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, niallers said:

Could they not utilise the corners and get in a few more seats? 

No because the roof supports for the Main Stand and SKD roofs are there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hilarious seeing Evertonians reaction to the plans sneering at them in favour of something that has been through about 57 public consultations and fuck all has happened. 

 

Also, they seem to still believe they owned Anfield and built it. Despite being mingebags and flouncing off not paying the rent.

 

It's like me moving into a flat then telling the landlord to fuck off a few years later when he put the rent up.  Then rambling on like a knobhead telling everyone I built the flat and owned it after I moved out.  Despite someone else owning it after I'd gone. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, dockers_strike said:

Looks very impressive.The owners should be congratulated for keeping us at Anfield and increasing the capacity befitting this club.

Yep, will have took longer (14yrs) than anticipated but they will have delivered on the promise they made when they took over. Also gave us a state of the art training ground and delivered klopp who then ended our 30 yr wait for a title. All in all things are now looking very good for the future. 
 

They’ve made a number of fuck ups but all in all I think FSG have done a good job and deserve some credit. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/12/2020 at 14:23, dockers_strike said:

I think the train idea is a non starter when you examine it closely. You either need a lot of frequent, short trains, say 4 carriage units like the Tyne and Wear Metro or longer trains of 6 or more carriages for capacity but run less frequently. But the problem you have is getting the trains to run at short intervals so you can rapidly move people from one place to another.

 

Even the Tyne and Wear Metro trains into the dedicated St James' station are about 10 minutes apart and the service isnt really increased on matchdays. You also have the practicalities of running a railway with no 2 trains in the same 'block' or stretch of track. using St James' after a game is pure carnage.

 

If you've had to wait for the fourth train at 10 minutes intervals, that means you're kicking your heels for the best part of 40 minutes before you get moving. Faced with that, people will decide to drive, get the bus etc.

 

Then, as you say, there's the issue with it's current use and capacity.

You'd also have to factor in the speed that Network Rail take to get any major capital schemes approved and delivered.  You'd basically add an extra year or two (at least) to your programme, which would mean that the business case disappears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

You'd also have to factor in the speed that Network Rail take to get any major capital schemes approved and delivered.  You'd basically add an extra year or two (at least) to your programme, which would mean that the business case disappears.

I think even 2 years is on the low side, Id say nearer 5 to 10. Look how long they are taking over the lines identified as the best best for re opening. Skipton Colne would make a massive difference to some comuters but they're still talking about it and doing virtually zilch.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×