• Sport
• Football
• Chelsea

Chelsea mull over building new stadium on Battersea power station site

• It is prudent to look at the site again, say Chelsea
• Architectural firm hired to draw plans for 60,000-seat venue

• • reddit this

• Dominic Fifield
• guardian.co.uk, Thursday 24 November 2011 18.17 GMT
• Article history


Chelsea say the time has come again to explore their options and that includes the Battersea power station site. Photograph: Oli Scarff/Getty Images

Chelsea have appointed a leading developer to explore the feasibility of building a new stadium at the site of Battersea power station on the south bank of the Thames.

The Premier League club have yet to buy back the land upon which their current home is built from Chelsea Pitch Owners plc (CPO) – a company founded in 1993 to safeguard the then financially vulnerable London club's future at Stamford Bridge. Chelsea would need to secure the freehold and sell that site before they would be in a financial position to switch to a new ground.

Yet the club have appointed Mike Hussey, chief executive of Almacantar, as their development partner to ensure they would not miss out should the area in Battersea emerge as the most viable option if they do indeed choose to relocate.

The architectural firm Kohn Pedersen Fox has been hired to draw up plans for the potential construction of an arena that would house between 55,000 and 60,000 spectators, to be situated to the south-east of the Grade II listed power station, with commercial operations such as hotels and shops to be housed within the building. Any plans would have to be passed by Wandsworth council.

A Chelsea spokesman said: "In the past, we've talked to various people with interests in Battersea power station but we haven't had any substantive discussions with anyone regarding that site for several months. However, in light of current developments, we now think it prudent to look again at the feasibility and potential for the Battersea power station site to be developed for a football stadium.

"We have made no decision to leave Stamford Bridge and we continue to discuss with the local council any economically viable options to expand the Bridge, but we will continue to investigate various options close to Stamford Bridge."

Interest is maintained in land at the northern end of Earl's Court, whose owner, Capital & Counties plc, is pursuing residential and commercial developments of the site, while White City, near the home of Queens Park Rangers, is another potential area.

The new instruction issued to Almacantar, a development firm set up by Hussey with backing from Italy's Agnelli family, will add further intrigue to the complicated negotiations already surrounding the future of the power station. The site, owned by Real Estate Opportunities (REO) – itself largely owned by Treasury Holdings of Ireland – has been empty for nearly two decades. REO has been attempting to attract an equity investor for a year to fund a proposed £5.5bn redevelopment, yet the site is already saddled with around £300m of debt owed to Lloyds Banking Group and Ireland's National Asset Management Agency. That debt can be called in at any time.

SP Setia, a Malaysian investor, has apparently offered to buy the senior debt for £255m at 85p in the pound, though agreement has yet to be reached between Lloyds and NAMA over those proposals. It is in that climate that Chelsea have formalised their interest in the area, though there is an acceptance that the club must seek to secure the freehold of Stamford Bridge if they are realistically to move to a new home.

Shareholders in CPO rejected the club's proposals to buy back the pitch, the turnstiles and the land on which the stadium's four stands are built at an extraordinary general meeting last month. Chelsea are considering how best to revisit that issue, though no new proposals are anticipated at CPO's annual general meeting, which has been put back to January following a reshaping of the company's board.

A concerted campaign had been conducted by CPO shareholders aimed at blocking Chelsea's plans – something achieved relatively comfortably at the EGM – with concerns subsequently raised by the Say No CPO group (SNCPO) over the bulk sale of shares once the club had made their proposals public. Solicitors working for SNCPO wrote to the Takeover Panel earlier this month expressing those worries, though the independent body has since indicated that no investigation is to be carried out.

A spokesperson for SNCPO added: "Given that Battersea power station falls within the three-mile radius as originally set out in the recent proposal put by Chelsea FC to Chelsea Pitch Owners, Say No CPO welcome the club's potential interest in purchasing the site, as well as their continued efforts to explore options regarding the expansion of Stamford Bridge. We are, however, disappointed that the club did not take the opportunity of the EGM on 27 October to make their intentions clearer with regard to any potential relocation sites."