Planning application submitted for new DHFC stadium

[taper]

I don't understand why anyone would be disturbed by that. The stadium will improve that area hugely.

[thedukeofmonclar]

taper Wrote:

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

> I don't understand why anyone would be disturbed

> by that. The stadium will improve that area

> hugely.

The local people are disturbed by the loss of a third of their open space, which is a well loved natural environment and the building of a huge wall through the middle of the Green Dale. For reference, take a walk down the service road and have a look at a stadium wall with 'shielding planting'.

The latest drawing shows the claim that the new stadium will fit on the astro-turf is a fiction. It requires an extra 2733 square meters of Green Dale. This non astro-turf MOL at risk includes fifty trees, many of which are mature. They are an important green corridor and an area where hedgehogs have been tracked and several species of bats recorded.

The plans will loose the current astro-turf pitch, used regularly for footy and informally organised youth football training sessions. The replacement MUGA will actually be pre-booked expensive tennis courts for the luxury flats.

The large area of land needed to the North of the current astro-turf pitch is of particular local cultural importance, being the sunny open plot where 500 short films were made on outdoor wooden stages at the start of cinema history in 1904 by Gaumont. This area is covered in meadow ant mounds that signify the land has never been disturbed or developed. The proposal cuts 19.5 meters into this bank and will require thousands of tons of virgin land removed.

[taper]

Virgin land! Come off it. The asset of local cultural importance in that area is Dulwich Hamlet Football club. And if its future can be secured using a derelict piece of AstroTurf and insignificant and seldom used bits of the area bordering it, then so be it. If you were at the game yesterday, you will have seen a club that's the beating heart of its community. Fetishising this land risks all of that. And for what? The irony of course is that part of this plan are about bringing back greendale into proper public access and use; something we haven't seen for decades. Arguing it is some sort of precious wilderness that should be preserved in aspic is against the community interest.

[James Barber]

Hi taper,

That seems a bit disingenuous. DHFC have had control of the Greendale area for close to 25 years. So to criticise the community for DHFC not managing the area they've been leasing. Come on.

DHFC may be the beating heart for SOME in our community. But very far from universally. The tweets etc this weekend purporting to come from fans antagonising nearby residents makes it clear that some fans really do not want to have anything to do with the local community.

I'd very much like the club to be such a beating heart. But this planning application will work towards exactly the opposite.

If the application is approved with MoL being taken as proposed means all our parks and open spaces will become game for developers. They'd just need to find similar 'special cases' by threatening to close other popular clubs, etc.

[taper]

Examples off the Tweets? I didn't see any. Please tell me you're not talking about Mr Govier.

[almost peckham]

Hi Taper

"insignificant and seldom used piece of land"?? I've used it twice today. Dozens of people use it every single day. It'll be the end of the football season soon and then the stadium becomes far more seldom used than it is even now.

Significance is an assessment often made on a subjective basis. I think it is significant as a different type of space to walk and see things. What I think is significant is that DHFC already have a perfectly good football ground.

I don't understand how walling off and effectively privatising 2733 square metres of publicly accessible land improves an area. If DHFC are concerned about the local environment why, as James Barber says above haven't they done so over the last 25 years?

[taper]

I am not talking about the whole of Greendale, I'm referring to the strips around the edge of the AstroTurf. That's what are referred to in these calculations. I don't suppose you have used those today. The land as I assume you know has not been publicly accessible for a long time except recently. The recent history of Dulwich Hamlet has been very troubling and took it to the brink of ruin. The current plans are a golden opportunity to put it on a sustainable and community owened footing.

I'd be interested to see the tweets James refers to. The only abusive and decidedly troubling

tweets I have seem have come from Stephen Govier, who seems to be energised by this campaign. I'd really like to know how he is involved in the friends of greendale and this campaign.

[YTPC]

taper Wrote:

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

> I am not talking about the whole of Greendale, I'm

> referring to the strips around the edge of the

> AstroTurf. That's what are referred to in these

> calculations. I don't suppose you have used those

> today. The land as I assume you know has not

> been publicly accessible for a long time except

> recently. The recent history of Dulwich Hamlet

> has been very troubling and took it to the brink

> of ruin. The current plans are a golden

> opportunity to put it on a sustainable and

> community owened footing.

>

> I'd be interested to see the tweets James refers

> to. The only abusive and decidedly troubling

> tweets I have seem have come from Stephen Govier,

> who seems to be energised by this campaign. I'd

> really like to know how he is involved in the

> friends of greendale and this campaign.

I can confirm that 'Stephen Govier' has systematically targeted and harassed at least 40 people on twitter, including those of club officials and media outlets claiming 'the Chinese property developers will be the death of 'hamlet'' and has added people to lists on twitter called 'the slave project'. Given Mr. Goviers previous history with lobbying for apartheid with the Conservatives in the 1980's, these seem to be very sinister, and rather unhinged moves from someone claiming to be a 'friend of greendale/DKHW'.

If anyone here has anything to do with the campaign against the proposed redevelopment of DHFC and knows Mr. Grovier, you could mention to him that these actions are being collated and monitored by many. As fans of our local community football club we will not be harassed or bullied online by someone claiming to be a voice of the community. However we feel about the proposed plans, we must be able to have a dialogue free of these tactics.

[taper]

It is very unpleasant stuff indeed from Mr Govier.

Might James Barber clarify whether it is these Tweets he is refering to? It may be he mistakenly thought Govier was the victim. But he needs to clarify because he made quite an accusation about some Hamlet fans.

And can Friends of Greendale clarify what role Govier is playing in their campaign?

[BrandNewGuy]

I can confirm that he is not a member of Friends of Green Dale and thus is not in any way speaking on our behalf. I will respond more later but am currently practically offgrid...

[edulresident]

I?ve been absolutely shocked by the behaviour of DHFC fans towards local resident Mr Govier. It is disgusting how this ?beating heart of the community? has taken to social media to troll and abuse someone who has been vocal in their opposition of the plan to build on Green Dale. DHFC fans seem to delight in raking up aspects of his past as if this bears any relation to the planning application that Hadley have just submitted. Yes he has a past conviction: so what? Hadley have just spent thousands of pounds on a PR Company to make DHFC appear to be a football club with community at their heart. This has translated into football matches in support of refugees, marches in support of the Carnegie Library Occupation etc but as soon as fans are left to their own devices they revert to trolling and abuse. If Four Communications, Bellenden and Hadley had suggested that DHFC play a game to support charities that offer help and advice to prisoners as they are released from prison to integrate them back into society, it would have been championed as evidence of how community minded DHFC are. But in practise they find someone locally with a chink in their armour and push him to the edge of insanity. How on earth are any of these abusive tweets helping your cause DHFC?

Mr Govier has been accepted into the local community because he has more than shown his commitment to it. He was a dedicated councillor who actively helped many local residents with their problems. He used to be a member of Friends of Green Dale (there?s your answer Taper) and a quick google shows that he is the ?Meadow Manager? for Friends of Dog Kennel Hill Wood, which explains why I constantly see him working in the wood and meadow. There?s nothing more to it, why the hounding and constant questioning about his role in the FOGD as if there were something sinister at play?

If DHFC fans put all the time and energy that they are expending on abusing this one local resident into reading the 236 documents that form the planning application we might then be able to have some real worthwhile discussion on here about the plans, which is why this thread was started in the first place.

[Liam]

edulresident, very selective use of things on Twitter. I am one of those who has been targeted by Mr Govier just for making mention of DHFC. Unfortunately, people's pasts cannot just be erased and, whilst I would like to give Mr Govier the benefit of the doubt, his posts are illogical and mischief making. Again, if these are the exchanges that Mr Barber is referring to then once again he has got it wrong, just like the drumming that did not exist.

[taper]

Indeed. An inversion of the truth. On Saturday there were various examples of Mr Govier jumping in on the back of tweets about the game (not remotely aimed at him or on the subject of Greendale): at best to complain about the impact on the peace and quiet of DKH; at worst attempting to get someone sacked because of an innocent reflection about a terrace chant. All of this utterly unprovoked and pretty aggressive. In between there were various accusations about Chinese property developers, the Welsh, the gentrifiers of Urban 75 (!), drug-dealing in the ground, corruption in the Labour party (sic) and the upper middle classes that frequent this site. He has also targeted people who post about Dulwich Hamlet and made totally unprovoked comments.

[edulresident]

Liam, yes agreed.. his posts are illogical, strange, rude etc but show all the signs of someone under huge stress and mental strain. There's only 1 of him but 4000 DHFC fans. I would suggest blocking him, ignoring and leaving well alone. Let's get back to the planning application.

[YTPC]

He is systematically targeting anyone discussing DHFC on twitter, as well as going back a significant way through peoples timelines and making absurd remarks on things that are no way related to DHFC. People are entitled to respond as they like when they see 10's of messages from a man they don't know insulting them and harassing them. I have chosen to block SG. Many I know have done the same.

[YTPC]

edulresident Wrote:

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

. This has translated

> into football matches in support of refugees,

> marches in support of the Carnegie Library

> Occupation etc but as soon as fans are left to

> their own devices they revert to trolling and

> abuse. If Four Communications, Bellenden and

> Hadley had suggested that DHFC play a game to

> support charities that offer help and advice to

> prisoners as they are released from prison to

> integrate them back into society, it would have

> been championed as evidence of how community

> minded DHFC are. But in practise they find someone

> locally with a chink in their armour and push him

> to the edge of insanity. How on earth are any of

> these abusive tweets helping your cause DHFC?

All of the above 'PR funded' activities have actually been supporter lead and organised, DHST for the Charity game with FC Asyria, and the Carnegie Library march was spearheaded by Mike Urban of Urban75/Brixton Buzz.

If you have a look at the Urban75 forum for DHFC, you'll see that many fans have gone through the document with a very fine tooth-comb, even measuring up walls, exits and the like. It's all well and good presuming that we don't care, but at least back that up with some facts.

In regards to SG's mental health, he certainly is in need of some aid. The consensus from many is to block and ignore, but HE is the one that has targeted 00's of strangers. Not everyone will be so forgiving.

[taper]

Agreed, Stephen Govier shouldn't detract from this thread.

I only brought him up because James Barber referred to Tweets from DH fans on Saturday, "antagonising nearby residents," adding that they made it clear "some fans really do not want to have anything to do with the local community." I think he was referring to Tweets inspired by Mr Govier's trolling. And if he was, he should say on here he was mistaken and retract what he said about DH fans.

[BrandNewGuy]

taper Wrote:

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

> Agreed, Stephen Govier shouldn't detract from this

> thread.

Indeed and to answer some previous points:

Yes the club has had a chequered history with regards to finances and ownership. But why is the one plan that maximises the property developers profit at the expense of Metropolitan Open Land the plan which should be supported?

No, the areas of MOL to be taken by this scheme are not just the 'strips' around the current astroturf. And they are also include the astroturf itself.

The overriding principles of Metropolitan Open Land are no substantial development and no harming the 'open' nature of the area. The current scheme falls a long way short on both counts.

And whatever its past, Green Dale is indeed a vaulable area for both local people and wildlife. Southwark Council would not be in the process of designating it a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation otherwise ? with more than 40 species of birds and 60 species of plants and trees recorded on site. Compare this with, say, St Francis Park to see the difference.

And as someone who both enjoys Green Dale and has been a regular at DHFC for more than 20 years, I hope we can get back to discuss the application and not fall into the 'us versus them' trap.

Incidentally, the application still has not been validated by Southwark Council so isn't strictly speaking 'live' yet and it seems the uploaded documentation is incomplete too.

[Burbage]

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

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

> Yes the club has had a chequered history with

> regards to finances and ownership. But why is the

> one plan that maximises the property developers

> profit at the expense of Metropolitan Open Land

> the plan which should be supported?

It's the only plan on the table - though all the financials, including the club's (un)viability, are still very much under it.

DHST and the council may know better, though the council's probably not been given much information on the club, and neither are at liberty to release any detail. And DHST, whatever they do know, are relying on a members' poll, informed only by fancy drawings and expensively warm piles of words, to determine whether they'll support the plans or not. And that's an all-or-nothing thing, according to the memorandum of understanding (MoU). If the members' poll's in favour, DHST is pledged to wholeheartedly and publicly support the entire development plan as it stands. In other words, they seem to have cut themselves out of both asking awkward questions and making helpful suggestions during any consultation.

In return for this, the MoU grants DHST promises of 'best efforts' to put DHFC on a sound financial footing and gift it to the community. The MoU, however, isn't with HPG or GPC but with HDML (Hadley Development Management Ltd - assets: ?1, turnover: ?0). Sure, it's a wholly-owned subsidiary of HPG, but parent companies can't be held liabile for the promises of insolvent subsidiaries, and HDML, at least on paper, is less than a bus-fare from financial doom. What their promises are worth, therefore, is open to question.

All that aside, the big question is what guarantee there that the stadium will be built. This isn't just anti-capitalist needling, but a real issue. We're all familiar with housing developers who run out of money before the 'affordable' quota has happened - despite rigorous planning controls - so it's worth asking what's to stop the flats being built and the new stadium not being built.

The council has some power. They could order that the flats not be built or sold till the new stadium is in place. But if the plans rely on the sale of the flats to build the stadium (remembering that nobody in this whole exercise seems to have any money), that would probably have the same effect as refusing the whole project.

An alternative would be to rely on their ability to pursue the freeholder should things go awry. But that's tedious, expensive and often not worth the candle. When the Carlton Tavern in Kilburn was demolished without permission a year ago, Westminster ordered the offshore-owned developers to rebuild it within 18 months. A year later, and the developer's planning appeal has yet to be heard. If they win the appeal, they'll build some aspirational flats. If they lose, I expect they'll simply fold (they have no seizable money to lose, after all), leaving Westminster to compulsorily purchase the land (at healthily market rates) and reconstruct a loss-making boozer out of expensively heritage materials, all at taxpayers' expense. Obviously, there's no suggestion anything like that would happen here but, equally, I don't see any guarantees that it wouldn't.

[rendelharris]

"What's to stop the flats being built and the new stadium not being built?"

Spot on (like the rest of your post) - the use of an apparently paper-only subsidiary is most worrying, as is any developer promising their "best efforts" to do something - by what yardstick are these "efforts" measured, and what penalty if any would there be in the unlikely event anyone could prove they weren't their "best"?

[Liam]

Any support from the football club for a development is based on the fact that the club will not be required to ground share and move out of the area. On that basis it will be necessary for the club's stadium to be completed prior to any development on the current site.

[Burbage]

Liam Wrote:

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

> Any support from the football club for a

> development is based on the fact that the club

> will not be required to ground share and move out

> of the area. On that basis it will be necessary

> for the club's stadium to be completed prior to

> any development on the current site.

That's true. And so, if HDML fail to make good on that promise, DHST could withdraw their public support of the planning application.

The trouble with that is HDML are only bound to anything once the the application is approved, after which DHST's support would be no longer needed. So what's to stop them deciding to dissolve the memorandum once that's happened? Sure, HPG own the club, and may have made pledges on their own behalf. But, equally, those pledges could be read as an intention to offload the (allegedly lossmaking) club back to the community once it's of no further use as a bargaining chip.

It may be that, in projects like this, there are no cast-iron guarantees. But I don't think it ever hurts to ask, nor to assess the risks as rigorously as the benefits.

[mikeb]

BNG, I agree: there is another option that is clearly possible: Hadley is told by Southwark Council that they can't develop the football ground (the use of which is restricted by covenant to be only ever for sporting purposes) and told by Southwark Council that they can't develop /privatise Metropolitan Open Land (which is to be treated the same as greenbelt). Hadley can continue owning the club if they like or pass it on to DHST if they get bored.

All this takes is a firm stand against the natural desires of property developers to develop property.

Or alternatively, they can provide full financial disclosure of why the club cannot be sustainable on the current site and why it can only be sustainable if their plan goes ahead and no other. Until then, I will remain sceptical that the club with the most attendance of any in its division or two leagues above is actually one of the most at risk of going under.

[Liam]

It is clear that if Hadley decided to demand repayment of the money they have put in then the club would be in danger of going under very quickly. Additionally, the current site would then need some expensive improvements to ensure it could continue to host football at its current level; these being the installation of new floodlights and major refurbishing of seating. It think it would also be fair to say that to make it viable at its current level of football (or higher) it would also need to install a state of the art 3G pitch to replace the current grass one. I would suggest that little lot (including Hadley investment to rescue the club) wouldn't give much change (if any at all) out of ?1 Million.

In terms of sustainability on its current site I think a quick look at the accounts at Companies House give a few clues as to its ability to make losses.

[mikeb]

I have no doubt that Hadley or others can put this club into administration if they choose to. Shareholders can always do that particularly if they have also made shareholder loans. And I can quite easily believe that DHFC was mismanaged for some years before Hadley got involved, potentially deliberately in order to 'prove' that the club isn't viable without development.

The abbreviated accounts for Dulwich Hamlet Football Club Limited do show that the club has been loss making given the accumlated losses. However, they also show the club profitable in each of the years ended Sep-2009, Sep-2010, Sep-2011, Sep-12 and Sep-13 (i.e. a decrease in its accumulated losses). The most recent accounts filed are only for the year to Sep-14 which show a net loss of c. ?26,000 in that year.

However, there is not enough detail to see why this is the case - this is simply the accounting net loss figure after all accrued expenses including interest and tax even potentially dividends. Some issues with this

* it has not been audited

* no split as to revenues, operating costs and other expenses

* there is no verification that the expenses are all arm's length and properly incurred e.g. should include full related party disclosure

* no guidance on remuneration of directors or shareholders

* no disclosure as to cash flows

Until Hadley provides full transparency on the club's affairs (including an independent audit), I see little reason to provide the 'in kind' public subsidy that would be represented by overturning covenants and established planning policy, irrevocably changing our local community and providing Hadley with a multi-million pound payday.

I hold no ill-will to Hadley, Matt Rimmer or even its Hong Kong shareholders. Property developers develop property, that's what they do. But they hold no long-term stake in the local community: they are not residents or long-term DHFC supporters and once the development is complete, they will probably move on (unless they remain as non-resident landlord).