UK government blocks non league club’s new 8,000 capacity stadium plans over concerns

The UK government blocks a non league club’s new 8,000 capacity stadium plans after concerns were addressed earlier this week.

Two years ago, plans for a new stadium for Ebbsfleet United, with 3,500 homes were also to be built on brownfield land got the green light. See more on that HERE.

As part of the development, existing buildings and the current stadium would have been demolished, with the Northfleet Harbourside project also planned, which included a 300-bedroom hotel, a retail village, sports facilities, cafes, a nursery, medical services, and community venues.

Ebbsfleet however have been dealt with a huge blow, the government concerned about lead pollution, jobs and a safeguarded minerals wharf.

A statement on the club’s social media read:

NORTHFLEET HARBOURSIDE

Following the publication of the Secretary of State’s decision on Northfleet Harbourside earlier today, obviously we are surprised and disappointed at that decision and the timing of it.

This is particularly so given it is more than two years since Gravesham Borough Council approved the Northfleet Harbourside development and that the housing minister and Secretary of State have been very vocal publicly around their policy of promoting building and development – and reducing red tape – by fast-tracking planning decisions.

Angela Rayner said on 30th July, 2025, “We promised to get Britain building again and we meant it” and Minister of State for Housing and Planning Matthew Pennycock followed up on 14th August, 2025, to say “Ignore the naysayers; this Labour government is getting Britain building again.”

We will be taking time to fully digest the report, its implications and the reasons behind it and will have a more comprehensive statement about what this decision means and our future plans early next week.

CEO Damian Irvine gave his first reaction: “Oh, look. Our first reaction, this came through early evening last night after a 2-year appeal process or an independent inspectorate hearing. It was surprise and disappointment, just the whole system and planning process and show it operates is a surprise and disappointing to just have that thrown on a a planning portal without any prior warning or the timing doesn’t make a lot of logical sense to us. And it was just yeah, disappointing. With a lot of work, a lot of uh heartache, blood, sweat, and tears gone into that. So to have that negative decision come down at that time of the night and this close to the start of the season was pretty gutty.”

Interviewer: “And on the face of it, I mean, three very strong reasons from the inspector. I mean, particularly lead pollution, they’re talking about a minerals wharf there safeguarding jobs as well. Is there one that you’re more surprised about than the others in terms of that or is it are you surprised in total of the the reasons they’ve given?

Damian: I think the decision there were a multitude of aspects of that long report. There were a whole bunch of positives that were outlined as well in that report. Ultimately the secretary of state weighs up um the weight of each of those fors and against and comes up with a determination. I think the lead one of the highlights of it that that Britannia Metals down the road have have said is that the lead toxicity of the area as one of the main points to not build here surprised me greatly. I’ve been to plenty of meetings down there prior to this where I’ve not had to wear PPE or anything. And we’re sitting right within that zone as we speak, hundreds if not thousands of people live across the road. There are homes here, people live and breathe and work here every day. So, that’s certainly not a an issue which we’ve known to be in existence being in this community. If that is present, that’s a whole another dialogue about what the future looks like and how mitigate that or don’t. But that was probably the most surprising. We know of the mineral wharf um we feel that could have been worked around. The wharf wasn’t being lost. it was going to be used for pedestrian or uh passenger uses, but ultimately, look Matt, the decision is what it is. We could pick it to pieces, but that’s what’s happened the last 2 years. That’s what the process is for. Ultimately, has come down on the other side on this for us.

Interviewer: And obviously, it’s something you’ve been working towards a long time. How big a blow is this to the club’s future? because an 8,000 seat stadium, a new development is a massive thing for for the area, but for you as a club, where does that leave you?

Damian: It’s not specifically around the development um as to what the blow is, whether it’s a 6,000, 4,000, 8,000 seater-stadium. It was all around sustainability. We had a job here to solve the I mean, we’re we’re very good or bad. It depends how you look at it, example of the football pyramid. We’re at a position on the pyramid which is the worst part of the waterfall where it breaks off from the EFL. Central funding and revenues fall right away once you come out of League Two and below National League and are step one and two, and that’s fine. That’s life. What what doesn’t fall away, Matt, is the wage costs. wages in in National League and League Two are very commensurate and and and vicariously down through National League and National League South. So, we’re a great example of where those gaps are in funding the player wages and it’s not sustainable. It hasn’t been since the day I walked in here. The only way to sustain it at the level and be competitive is to incur great debt. So, we had a job to fix that, this plan did that because it brought a whole lot of other revenue into the club that wasn’t football related. Now that that’s not been granted, the ownership of the club have decisions to make on what football at Ebbsfleet looks like. Is it part-time again or is there a new owner coming in which is muted and certainly processes in place for that who still wants to invest at that level and maintain the wage scale, and the other being full-time incurs a lot of other costs besides player wages. So that that’s what the future looks like and that’s a decision which will be made and I spoke with the directors today and last night and I’ve made clear the fact and they totally agree with me that we need a very strong statement and an outline on Monday once this is all digested about what their plans are, what they have in place, the supporters more than anyone deserve to know that and see where where we’re going.

Interviewer: Obviously the the new ownership is in the background at the moment which means that the present owners were looking to walk away at least from it. Is that still the your understanding is that that they they will not be the owners in the long term.

Damian: Incumbent owners have been very clear on that and very open and honest around that. They said this time last year that they would fund the club through to the change of ownership. Obviously a part of that was the planning application was upcoming and the club was still in flux until that had happened. So you need clarity before you make big changes and now there is clarity not that not the side of clarity we wanted but there is clarity so I think that will expedite my indications are from them that will expedite a change of ownership. So nothing’s changed in there and they’ve been good they’ve been good a good family who have kept the club going to this stage they didn’t budget for nor plan for a 2-year delay having succeeded in a local government plan application in July 24 and if there’s one thing that’s brutal around this is that that delay in the process, the longevity of the process, the massive cost associated with that shouldn’t be the case in my view, we’ve gone through that now and we’ve come out of the wrong sides. So, I kind of wish we’d have known 18 months ago that was the government’s position on a lot of these points and we could have moved on then.

Interviewer: So, just to reiterate by early next week, you want to let the supporters know what the future is to the club, whether that is living entirely within its means rather than being funded by an outside source.

Damian: Yeah, look, I think that’s a little more black and white than what I think it will be. Matt, football isn’t black and white. The nuance and the gray in between is generally where the result is. Most clubs will need some kind of top up or owner funding. I think to expect any club, let alone United, to be fully sustainable and selfunding within a 2-year period, I think it’s a little ambitious. Should always be the goal, by the way, but I think that would be ambitious. So yeah, look, that’s that’s what I raised and asked for from them today and and and to be fair to them. You know, they’ve been a good owners as I’ve said and they’ve they’ve committed that on Monday we’ll get something out which will give clarity which which I need which our staff need, our players need and all of our supporters need and I appreciate the need for that but also quarter 5 on a Thursday night the week out from the start of the season for that just to drop without notice. I also understand and I fully understand the need for to digest this and and and get the plan in place and then come out with the right plan.

Interviewer: This has come in the same more just a few days after the HMRC winding up order on the company’s house site. I mean again that’s going to be worrying for supporters isn’t it seeing those two things you know it doesn’t it wouldn’t it wouldn’t be a huge reach for people to start make putting two and two together there. What can you tell us about that?

Damian: Well they’re kind of interlocked and they’re kind of not. But I mean this isn’t the first time in the last 12 months that PAYE has been overdue at the club and that triggered a winding up petition back in May, which was immediately settled and the ownership have told me that this will also be settled next week. The league have been very good with us and understanding but forceful as well with the needs to be up to date with that and and I get that. That’s a symptom of of the current owners who have said they’re on the way out. They’ve had their own business issues and personal issues and all of that and it’s been quite public. They signal their intention to leave two years ago, you know, on the back of what was a successful property planning application at Gravesham Borough level, it’s expensive to run the club as it is and their cash flow hasn’t been as strong as it would be or had been. Um so those HMRC debts are as a result of that. um it’s not right and it’s not proper and it needs to be done but there is a reason for it and I think the property delay is linked with that well it is linked with that but so be it that’s something that needs to be tidied up um but that’s just how it is in the facts it is tough, I did say in May at the last one Matt that we’re a good club in that we we don’t pay under the table we don’t pay off the books we don’t top up with the cash expenses which clubs do do in our league. And when you pay a lot of cash and you don’t put everything on the books, every month your PAYE national insurance bill is tiny compared to a clubs who’s all on the books. If you’re not paying VAT on that revenue that comes in as well, there’s another 20% turnaround. So, you know, we do it the right way and it’s no excuse for being late, by the way, because that’s how businesses should operate. They should pay on time. But, there’s a 20 to 34% more costly expense than any club in our division or any other division who’s paying it in cash in the other way. So, yeah, we’re behind and we shouldn’t be, but we also do it the right way.

Interviewer: And we talked about the the ownership, we talked about the um the supporters here, but also there are staff here whose livelihoods will depend on whose jobs will depend on what happens next. I mean, this has got to be an emotionally worrying time, I guess, for for you guys.

Damian: Do you know for me I’ve been here six years and that’s, these people that every day go above and beyond Matt like you wouldn’t believe. And I don’t think there’s enough understanding or empathy with that out there with supporters of other clubs or people online who just want to take the easy route, the cheap route and and sink the boot in when a club’s having trouble. And I say that the same about our fans who want to have a go at another club who’s might be in trouble financially or going through an uncertain time. Uncertainty is cruel and it’s hard on on people. The back office staff, the front office staff that are in here every day, they’re not footballers. They’re not out there getting the glory and playing on Saturday. They work very hard. They go above and beyond. They do hours, which is unbelievable to run a full-time football club. And you’re right, that’s the forefront of my mind every morning. But they’re ever so brilliant all the time and they keep turning up and they’re patient and they’re understanding and they’re properly here and that’s all you can ask. I think they’re tremendous.

Stop Northfleet Harbourside Development said via Facebook: On the planning refusal, Damian Irvine, chief executive of Ebbsfleet United, said: “It is four to five years of hard work and we are digesting the decision this evening and what that means for the club and the community. We will put a further statement out early next week.”

Last night our community won. The people won. There is NO need for a further statement, there is NO need for a new planning application to expand Irvine’s stadium that doesn’t even fill its seats now.

We created this account to protect the businesses. Over the course of the last 18 months we learnt about the public health impacts, the effects on our roads, the effects on the NHS, and so much more.

We are pleased with yesterday’s decision you can read about here: https://www.thetimes.com/…/rayner-rejects-plans-3500…

⚠️ Reading the decision: part 2

Public health was one of the primary reasons for rejection.

The developer’s own Environmental Statement LEFT OUT LEAD-RELATED AIR QUALITY OUT OF ITS ASSESSMENT altogether despite the fact the site sits upwind of the neighbouring refinery.

This is an active decision.

And a decision that in the inquiry was challenged by the experts who said it was the HOTTEST HOTSPOT FOR LEAD.

So Damian Irvine telling BBC News that findings on lead toxicity in the report were a “major concern” and “that one was confusing to us” acting as if that was news to Ebbsfleet and the developer is concerning.

We are pleased the Secretary of State rejected the scheme on public health grounds.

There was no evidence before the inquiry of a “safe” level of lead in air or soil — and the refinery is licensed to operate at levels well above what it currently emits.

(Source: Secretary of State’s decision letter, para 26; Inspector’s Report, IR14.98-14.99, IR14.101)