I agree that the sportsground has to develop. I was in favour of many aspects of the scheme, most in fact - but not cramming 3 pitches including 2 hard surface ones, into an unusual and attractive space. There were other ways it could have been done. They did consult on the scheme - they did it well and thoroughly, of course - and it would not of gone ahead with the inclusion of the houses, so they dropped those.

Personally I think the houses were actually the least destructive and obtrusive elements of the plan. It is possible to modernise something in a sympathetic and attractive way and given that this this is an unusual ground - a rare survival, indeed - I would have hoped they would use more care and imagination in the plan. There was never the 'either or' that you suggest.

Sport seems to be used as an excuse to tear up and rebuild in the most unattractive ways. Presumably because sport is 'healthy' this is seen to be OK - I find this strange and depressing. As far as I am aware there was no threat to the sportsground's survival: it wasn't a case of 'modernise or die' - King's simply needed more all weather pitiches having flogged on of their grounds to Chelsea.