dulwichfolk

The is a oneoval too. There they highlight how the decision makers live in the new traffic free areas

Must just be Lambeth then.

Will be interesting to see the councillors/decision makers being held to account on their voting actions in relation to local residents. If indeed the votes are publicly available.

Strange though I was mainly there in the morning.

The traffic in dulwich village seems to have reduced a fair amount. Doesn?t this imply the majority of the issues are school related?

I think main point here is the new owners of DHFC kindly came on here to answer/put across their views on some of the statements which is useful. The last set of questions asked of them by thedukeofmoclar I think if answered as they seem to have some quite specific points would definitely clear up lots of the issues many locals have. Left unanswered it raises suspicions

Would house prices actually go down due to these closures, surely a quieter road at the expense of other roads would make the prices go up on court road etc?

Hi Ben I should have been more specific. When I meant planning rejection I meant over the years various proposals were put forward, DIY shop, BMX track, etc The ones which were refused noted on the decision notice things such as Building on MOL Increase in traffic at DKH Reducing the openness of the MOL Just wondering why now these don?t seem to be a concern for the council.

Appreciate they are a property company hence different objectives. So with regards similar planning permissions previously being tried when very similar consequences were mooted why is this one any different? What I'm trying to get to is why does this planning application look like it might pass when others have failed what is actually different?

Really appreciate the responses if someone had come on here before or even at the consultation answering the questions it would have potentially helped. Appreciate the comment about the other parks in the area but I think there are differences, but understand it maybe personal preference. Living in the area I only ever seem to see the various schools using those pitches for athletics / sports days / etc but maybe outside of the hours I visit as you say it used must be being used football. So just to confirm if the application gets rejected the reason the football club will fail is due to Meadow wanting money from the club for using its land?

The club is pretty successful (gate receipt/attendance wise) in comparison to others in the division. If they cannot make this viable how are other clubs making it viable? If this application is refused...what particular cost will make the club fail? The attachments show of the left of the red line another football pitch...as I understand it this is a school sports ground which has never had football played on it, was it drawn to make the new pitch location not stand out so much? Looking at the drawing I can't see a replacement size wise for the current artificial pitch regards somewhere away from the pollution to walk, cycle, play football/cricket for free. Is this in the plans?

Thanks for the response. so 'not legally strong enough' I find this a bit arbitrary...seems strange that something are put in place which don't actually matter. Why has the ground development been refused in previous attempts and how is anything different this time? With regards 3G pitch benefits...if as I'm sure most supporters want the club to prosper and get promotion isn't it the case that currently 3G pitches are banned at the higher levels. If that was to happen what is the plan and where would the benefits to the community go?

Is there a section something (legal) notice on the current pitch area which means the area it sits on can only legally be used for sport and recreation? If housing is going to be built on it (breaking the legal position) what validity do any of the legal positions which you highlight to say prevent the club getting back into this position in the future hold? Couldn't the council legally buy back the club from the current owners as was suggested when the current owner prevented the use of the name and kicked the club out. Sorry for any misunderstanding regards owners/land owners but appreciate you coming on here to answer the questions.

Forecasts are all good and well but things don't always play out as they look. At least the facts as of now should hold some (major) sway regards the way forward....and not be fudged to give the answers wanted. Such as closing/limiting the car use on the street you live on at the disadvantage of the majority of other people.

I think the statistics actually show car use going down....before any changes to the junction etc. If you query the council on this, which has been done many times on here, they then seem to disappear.

I like that the press release from the club has the following line: "We have been committed to engaging positively with all stakeholders to deliver the best possible scheme, which means the application that will be presented is submitted both with the support of the community and the positive recommendations from the council and other consulting authorities" They just failed to state which community support it...! Whoever works in the PR department for the club who went from lock the gates and don't use the name to this should be commended...

Northcote road is a weekend only closure...and where are the bikes suppose to go safely amongst all the people?

I like how the map hides/doesn't show Matham Grove...as if no one will now use that road if wanting to travel south on Lordship Lane...