Hammersmith & Fulham Council have thrown their support behind the Blues increasing their stadium’s capacity rather than building a new ground elsewhere in west London
Chelsea have been told by their local council that remaining at Stamford Bridge would be more cost-effective than moving to a brand new 60,000 capacity stadium.
The west London club's ground is relatively small in comparison to their Premier League rivals but planning risks regarding any expansion have been deemed “insurmountable”.
However, Hammersmith and Fulham Council have argued against a move away, insisting that it would be financially beneficial for the club to expand their current stadium.
“Stamford Bridge is Chelsea's historic home and the council believes it should be their future home," said deputy council leader Nick Botterill in a statement on Friday.
“We want the Blues to stay at Stamford Bridge and, if it can be done sensibly without negatively affecting local people, increase the ground's capacity so they can retain their position as one of Europe's top clubs.
“We cannot comment on the financial conclusions [Chelsea] have drawn but it is very likely any move away from Fulham would cost far more than either the £600 million the club claim it would cost to rebuild their ground or the cost of upgrading and expanding the existing structures.”
The Blues face numerous hurdles if they are to remain at Stamford Bridge and extend the seat capacity, with the ground surrounded by listed buildings and areas that cannot be built upon or knocked down.
However, Botterill added: “We are proud to be the only borough in the country with three Premier League clubs [Chelsea, Fulham and Queens Park Rangers] and we do not want our local businesses and residents to lose out on the economic and social benefits this brings.
“CFC are a thriving business contributing significant benefits to the area and we will continue to work closely with CFC to explore all possible avenues for keeping the club at their original home.”