Planning application submitted for new DHFC stadium

[thedukeofmonclar]

Just to be clear, the most recent application 16/AP/4051 is not linked to the previous planning application 16/AP/1232 for a new stadium. This is a stand alone application with it's own code, even though they share a planning statement. It will be possible for the council to agree to the removal of the protective covenants without agreeing to anyone building a new stadium on MOL, which is looking increasingly unlikely to go ahead.

Also, the title deeds for the current stadium (page 6 of 6) mentions a different 106 agreement created in 2003 but this has not been made public. Has anyone seen this document or can get hold of it? It might not be relevant but equally, it might also contain some vital info.

[mikeb]

Re Meadow Residential, this appears to be controlled by Meadow Partners LLP

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/OC400730/filing-history/MzE3MzQ4NTA4OGFkaXF6a2N4/document?format=pdf&download=0

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/OC345550/filing-history/MzE4NzE5Nzc5OWFkaXF6a2N4/document?format=pdf&download=0

See related parties note for link to Meadow Capital Management LP, which is registered with the SEC at the address for Meadow Capital

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1673868/000167386816000001/xslFormDX01/primary_doc.xml

Meadow Capital is a property fund run by ex-Westbrook people. A quick search on Westbrook comes up with this

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/nov/21/westbrook-partners-new-era-flats-hoxton

though to be clear, this article dates from after Kaplan left (although he was probably there for the Dolphin Sq acquisition). More background on Meadow Capital

http://therealdeal.com/issues_articles/new-yorks-upstart-investors-find-big-profit/

[updated to refresh links to source documents]

[ed_pete]

For the avoidance of doubt, am I correct in assuming that the Peter Bennison associated with Meadow Residential is not the same person as the local heating engineer ?

http://www.pmbennison.co.uk/

[mikeb]

Yes that's right: different people.

Peter Michael Bennison, heating engineer: http://www.pmbennison.co.uk/Home/EthicsAndTestimonials, born October 1971

Peter James Bennison, property developer: http://www.meadowres.com/who-we-are?id=148089, born January 1970

[BrandNewGuy]

:-) You are correct. Pure coincidence.

[thedukeofmonclar]

I believe objections to the latest application to remove the protective covenants that prevent development on the Dulwich Hamlet stadium site will be accepted until this coming Saturday the 27th Nov. Do please write in and object if you haven't yet.

[BrandNewGuy]

The murky ownership/control situation might be illuminated by these details (below) that were posted to the DHFC fan forum. I can't vouch for their accuracy, but they haven't been challenged. It confirms that Hadley Property Group are off the scene completely (thus rendering null and void the already virtually meaningless Memorandum of Understanding about building a stadium and handing the club over to fan ownership). More intetestingly, the Club does not benefit financially either from bar takings or other rents (ie the car wash). In my mind, this helps the controlling interests paint a grimmer view of DHFC's finances in order to put themselves up as saviours and to suggest that the major development is the only option for the survival of the club.

Greendale Property Company Ltd / Owners and Funders

Meadow Partners: 75% Shareholder

- Project lead by J Andrew McDaniel

Simon Benedict - Northfleet Ltd (Isle of Man) 25% Shareholder

- Previously 100% Owner of Champion Hill Stadium > Sold 75% to Meadow Partners late 2013.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hadley Property Group

? Previously co-owned and led by Peter Bennison

? Previous Development Managers from 2013

? No longer involved in Champion Hill Stadium from early 2016

Meadow Residential (new company July 15)

? Lead and owned by Peter Bennison and Meadow Partners (J Andrew McDaniel)

? Peter took Champion Hill and few other projects from Hadley early 2016

? New Development Managers for Dulwich Hamlet

? Responsible for Dulwich Hamlet FC Financial Operations - Keeley Birch

Healey Development Solutions (new company October 15)

? Director: Peter Bennison

? Receives All Bar Income

? Receives All Rent Income from various businesses at Dulwich

Dulwich Hamlet FC Ltd

- Owned by Nick McCormack, Run by Meadow.

- Receives all match day income, (except for the Bar income)

- Receives FA prize money and Transfer fees

- Receives all Sponsorship

[taper]

"the Club does not benefit financially ... from bar takings "

You sure about that?

[BrandNewGuy]

Yes. I was speaking with Chris Taylor from the club this afternoon and he confirmed that the club are responsible for all directly football-related income and outgoings, but not the bar or rental income.

[BrandNewGuy]

thedukeofmonclar Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I believe objections to the latest application to

> remove the protective covenants that prevent

> development on the Dulwich Hamlet stadium site

> will be accepted until this coming Saturday the

> 27th Nov. Do please write in and object if you

> haven't yet.

The web page now says that it's closed to public comments.

[taper]

But do the club benefit financially from bar sales?

[kiera]

The planning application website has been closed to comments for a very good reason - the application has been decided.

The removal of clauses from the Section 106 agreement has been refused.

[BrandNewGuy]

So, just to confirm, that means VLA (Variation: legal agreement) and VNMC (Variation: non-material changes) are 'not agreed'. Does that constitute a rejection of the application?

[kiera]

(Deleted as duplicate post)

[kiera]

The application has been refused. I took this information from the decision notice, which explains the decision and is easier to understand than the abbreviation you quoted, so, e.g.

"Refused for the following three reasons:

1. The obligations contained within the S106 Agreement dated 16/10/1990 being Clauses 4(3), 7(3), 7(4), 8 and10, which the applicant is seeking to discharge still serve a useful planning purpose. These being:

- Clause 4(3) - the all weather pitch at Greendale Park has been constructed and provided in accordance with the terms of the 1990 Agreement and it is still open to the members of Dulwich Hamlet Football Club and others to make reasonable use of the facilities.

- Clause 7(3) and 7(4) - Dulwich Hamlet Football Club is still in existence, has a licence to use the Dulwich Hamlet Football Ground and still uses it.

- Clause 8 - Dulwich Hamlet Football Ground is still is use by Dulwich Hamlet Football Club, the land is still being used for leisure and recreational purposes.-

- Clause 10 - The all weather pitch and football ground have been constructed and are still in use.

There are therefore no grounds upon which the authority may determine that the obligations shall be discharged pursuant to S106A(6)(b)....."

[mikeb]

Report on decision now filed. Makes clear that they would only look at these obligations in the context of proposals of the wider site.

http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!M7cXVlP2hd7I0%2bNow5xzKA%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d

[BrandNewGuy]

Meadow Residential or one of their associated companies has lodged a planning appeal, ref. W/16/3164823, dated Wed 07 Dec, relating to the main planning application:

http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-applications/appealDetails.do?activeTab=dates&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPPEAL_1659

It?s a 'Planning Non-determination Appeal' and the associated procedure is 'Public Inquiry'. An applicant has the right to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate if they believe that the council has taken too long in deliberating/discussing an application. The 'appropriate time limit' is regarded as 8 weeks for minor applications, 13 weeks for major applications or 16 weeks in the case of applications requiring environmental assessment.

This looks like an attempt to put pressure on the council, as a public enquiry could prove quite costly...

The appeal has been lodged but not yet validated and there are as yet no associated documents.

[BrandNewGuy]

Interestingly, despite the developers' alleged close relations with the club, the Dulwich Hamlet Supporters Trust and the "Support Our Stadium" campaign (dormant for the last six months), all of the latter appear to be in the dark about this latest development. If they're not, I'm sure they'll be happy to come on here and tell us what's going on.

[Abe_froeman]

Non determination was exactly the same fiasco with the m and s building. This looks like very bad news for anyone opposed to the original plans.

[taper]

Southwark are taking too long to make a decision. This is meant to expedite presumably. I think we'd all like to see a decision.

[first mate]

Could this be a Southwark MO to nod things through without seeming to be in support. Yes, M&S development got through on non determination, how odd the same thing should happen again here.

[Burbage]

taper Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Southwark are taking too long to make a decision.

> This is meant to expedite presumably. I think we'd

> all like to see a decision.

Non-determination appeals aren't quick, so I'm guessing Meadow have chosen this moment to freeze things where they are. From this point, Southwark can no longer negotiate further concessions, restrictions or conditions (such as affordability etc) and the issue is now entirely in the hands of the Planning Inspectorate. The process will take three months at least, but if Meadow reckon the council can't justify the delay, and can persuade the Inspectorate of that, then the Inspectorate will have to approve the application.

The appeals have now started with the Planning Inspectorate at:

https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?Caseid=3164823&CoID=0

There are two of them, the second being one against the council's decision not to remove the restrictions.

The main appeal is against Southwark, who now have to justify their delay and give reasons why permission would have been denied (assuming it would). If the Inspector accepts these, then all is well. Otherwise, Southwark will have to pay the costs and the application will be waved through as it stands.

Southwark should shortly be notifying interested parties (including prior objectors) of the appeal and providing copies of all the documents and representations to the Inspectorate. Interested parties can, however, make additional representations directly to the Planning Inspectorate through the link above, and have until March 7th to do so.

[taper]

Thanks. That's very useful. So is this a tactical switch by the developer from a position of strength or weakness do you think? It suggests to me they would rather take their chances with the PI than Southwark.

[dc]

Burbage Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Southwark should shortly be notifying interested

> parties (including prior objectors) of the appeal

> and providing copies of all the documents and

> representations to the Inspectorate. Interested

> parties can, however, make additional

> representations directly to the Planning

> Inspectorate through the link above, and have

> until March 7th to do so.

I rather hope that prior supporters will also be involved.

[BrandNewGuy]

Planning inquiry rules state:

5.1 The LPA [in this case LBS] will send us copies of any letters of support or objection it received about the application while considering it. These will be fully considered by the Inspector who decides the appeal.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/514292/taking-part_planning-inquiry_April_2016.pdf