thedukeofmonclar

I've redone the technical drawing to calculate the ground taken by the proposed development using the original data from the submitted planning application. Where my last drawings were as accurate as possible given the total lack of dimensions offered in the public consultations, these are totally accurate to Hadley's/Farrell's own drawings. The alarming figures are: Total Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) taken in new stadium development - 8121 square meters Area needed beyond existing astroturf pitch - 2733 square meters (one third of total MOL needed) Area of MOL to be built upon (covered terraces, infrastructure, 2.4m concrete wall) -1282 square meters. This final figure equates to more than 16 average UK house sizes built on MOL. I've again attached a representation of the drawing to illustrate the figures. I urge local residence to object to this planning application by leaving a comment on the Southwark planning page, and also by writing into the Planning department to object.

BrandNewGuy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is indeed already listed as an Asset of > Community Value. Moreover, its community value is > also covered in a sense by the 'restrictive > covenant' on the use of that land for anything > other than a football/sports club. I don't think Dulwich Hamlet is an Asset of Community Value. It was granted it but then it was taken away again as the club was insolvent at the time of application. The trust has the option of applying again but hasn't for some reason. The web link is http://dhst.org.uk/about/trust-activities/trustandground/

mikeb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is a prescient post from 2014 > http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/dulwich-haml > et-fc-2013-2014-season-chat-rumours-reports.310974 > /page-59 The fans on the urban75 forum in 2014 seem to have been in agreement with most of the posts on this thread. Namely that Hadley are winning fans hearts with some property developer small change and they are not to be trusted in delivering a replacement stadium and that MOL is unlikely to ever get planning for a stadium. The locals voices on here seems to be consistent in saying they want the club to stay where it is and that it's an important part of the area. What's the result of the DHST poll? Has there ever been an alternative to the Hadley plan suggested by the DHST? We seem to just be getting one side of the story from Hadley loud and clear but no alternatives.

taper Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That looks like quite a bit to me. But hard to > tell. Perhaps there's some quid pro quo here > after all. > Greendale seems to be a bit of a side show to me > given that the large majority of the stadium's > footprint appears to be on a well developed, > rarely used and unlovely bit of Greendale. The presentation visuals did show lots of green but this is not the 'giving more that we're taking' swap Hadley have suggested. They've added a wood on the Sainsbury's access road which is a fiction, there are 'private gardens' accessed from the blocks of flats and a much smaller sport cage, again serving the flats really, and there is a 'linear park' built on the current public path, which equates to trees and lighting running along the new private road. This again is landscaping for the luxury flats. Where has this idea that the astro-turf is "well developed" come from? Hadley. They did try this line a year ago but it didn't hold water. They didn't mention anything about 'previously developed MOL' in this recent presentation. What happens if Hadley get planning to build on the current pitch but the proposal to build on MOL is turned down again, like the last attempt? Dulwich Hamlet IS a sustainable club, but it is in the hands of property developers. It is Hadley who have told us our club is not sustainable.I'm amazed how some of the fans have swallowed the myth and agree that building blocks of flats on the pitch is a good idea. Moving to a much smaller footprint stadium is a bad idea. Not turning our backs on the current grounds should be an instinct. Not risking the future of the club on a planning application that has failed already is more like common sense.

I've just revised the drawing to include the radiused corners of the proposed stadium shown in the presentation visuals.It doesn't cut very much off. Revised area figures are: Area of proposed stadium 8353m Area of total MOL taken 7900m Area of astro-turf used 5143m Area of virgin MOL used 2763m Area of astro-turf returned 857m Still over a third of suggested stadium land is not astro-turf. Also attached is a section view of the pitch, run off, terraces and wall, showing the proposed 18m cut into the non astro-turf bank to the North and the requirement to impose a 2.4m (8')concrete wall and terracing.

I?m a resident living near to the Hamlet football ground. Yesterday I went to Dulwich Hamlet and saw the presentation of new plans for development by Hadley Property group. They still want to build six storey blocks of flats on the pitch and move the stadium onto Green Dale Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) next door. While I love DHFC I also love the Green Dale. There was a terrible lack of detail or dimensions in the presentation, particularly about how much MOL was going to be used for the new stadium. Following this disappointment I went home and drew up the stadium myself, following easily accessible online guidelines about pitch size and standing terraces for fans. Hadley's architect at Farrells gave me the names of the sites to check. Here?s the result: The minimum pitch size for anyone playing in the Ryman league is 100m x 64m. Add to this the minimum ball run off around sidelines and goal lines of 2.25m, a radial walkway of 1.2m. Add to this room for 3013 standing on terraces (I used the maximum allowance of 47 people per 10m2), which works out as a tiny 2m deep terrace of five 400mm steps all the way round. Then the wall. This makes the minimum size for the new stadium site 75.3m x 111.3m. Farrells the architects have positioned the proposed stadium at an angle to the existing astro-turf pitch in order to create a route onto Greendale from the southern path. The stadium clubhouse will be built on the current goal of the club and a corner of the pitch also cuts into the old grounds. The proposed stadium must be surrounded by a 1.83m concrete or similar material wall, not shown in the presentation. I pasted my drawing of the minimum possible stadium over the O.S. map of the area. I was then able to calculate and compare the areas of MOL in question. I must remind all who read this again, these area measurements are my own calculations. Not from Hadley or Farrells, as none have been released. The drawing is attached to scale. Area of minimum new stadium (not clubhouse): 8380m Area of current astro-turf MOL: 6000m Area of total MOL used in proposal: 7967m Area of MOL astro-turf used: 5149m Area of virgin MOL used: 2818m Area of astro-turf returned to green pathway: 851m So more than a third of the proposed stadium site is untouched Green Dale fields. Hadley?s claim that more astro-turf is being returned to nature is clearly false. I urge people to remember, the atro-turf is designated MOL, a public space and an important part of the diverse, open and well-loved Green Dale. Do not let Hadley hold our club to ransom, ?Your MOL or your club!? Let us see a proposal for a new stadium and housing on the site Hadley own rather than on our MOL. Ref: FA Green Guide: stadium paths, walls and terrace calculations. http://www.safetyatsportsgrounds.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/green-guide.pdf Ref: Ryman league pitch size and stadium capacity info. http://thepyramid.info/misc/ground.htm