Planning application submitted for new DHFC stadium

[thedukeofmonclar]

The planning application has now been validated (back dated to 18th April)

The consultation expires on the 11th of May

It's time to send your objections in using the online form http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9565663

or by writing to: Amy Lester, Southwark Council, Chief Executives Department, Planning division

Development management (5th floor - hub 2) PO Box 64529,LONDON SE1P 5LX. -Planning Application reference: 16/AP/1232

[jay66]

Not sure if you know but there is a Spring Walk and Community Picnic in DKH Wood and Green Dale tomorrow (Sunday 24th).

All welcome.

More info here: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?6,1666747

[Alex K]

Right -- comment submitted at Southwark Planning. (Not yet up on their website, but acknowledged.) The usual: Breach of covenant, takeover of metropolitan open land, bad idea either way.

[BrandNewGuy]

We have longer to make our comments known. I received this from the case officer in reply to my query as to why we only apparently had 12 working days in which to give comments:

"The validation date is the point at which the Council received all of the required information to enable the application process to start. It is not the start of the public consultation period, which has not yet begun. The formal consultation period will run for 21 days from the date of the neighbour consultation letters, site notice and press notice, whichever is the latest date. We also always accept letters after the formal close of the consultation period and I am already accepting representations before it has started."

The web page is still misleading, as it states:

"Standard Consultation Expiry Date Wed 11 May 2016"

So watch this space for full dates. In the meantime, however, you can still go onto the site to comment or write to the planning committee.

[jay66]

The public consultation is now open until 27th May and you can comment on the proposals here:

http://ow.ly/4n3HDX

8121 square meters of Metropolitan Open Land will be taken if the application is approved. The Green Dale is a beautiful area of open land, that is home to woodpeckers, bats, hedgehogs and countless wildlife species (during the Spring Walk on Sunday we saw Chiff Chaffs nesting as well as Blackcap, Dunnock, Greenfinch and Goldfinch). It is being maintained by the local community but needs residents to speak out to help protect it.

MOL is the inner city equivalent of Green Belt and therefore protected land, but in recent years there has been an increase in permission given to develop on MOL and so all our protected land is under threat. The Campaign to Protect Rural England has further information on this:

http://www.cprelondon.org.uk/resources/item/2319-the-strongest-protection

Information can be found about the application on the Friends of DKH Wood website:

http://www.friendsofdkhwood.org/greendale/

You will find all the documents the developers have submitted in an easy to read and organised page (unlike the documents the developers submitted to the planning portal), along with other relevant information to the case. There is also a helpful list of reasons to object to the proposals.

Filing an online objection is a relatively quick and simple task. Please join your voice to the campaign to protect this open space for future generations.

[taper]

Can you file support for the proposal via the link?

[BrandNewGuy]

Of course you can, taper. But I suspect you knew that already.

[taper]

Thanks.

[jev]

It's interesting that the ultimate beneficiaries of this deal have chosen to base their business in Hong Kong.

Hong Kong is an offshore tax jurisdiction in 2nd place for secrecy according to the 2015 Financial Secrecy

Index (see Tax Justice Network report: http://www.financialsecrecyindex.com/PDF/HongKong.pdf)

It tends to beg the question what do they have to be secretive about?

Their application and recent PR also seek to portray a proposal with concern for the local community. Surely a basic first step in fulfilling one's responsibilities for the surrounding community is to pay one's taxes locally and transparently.

[mikeb]

Just to check, is the final deadline still 27th May?

[BrandNewGuy]

It was ? until last Friday when it went back again, to June 12th. It's bizarre and annoying how this date has changed at least half a dozen times ? the earliest date given was, I believe May 11th. It seems even more odd given that the process for such a large development seems to be the same as it would be for someone applying to build an extension. No public meetings or other proactive ways of engaging with local people.

[jev]

Deadline to comment on planning application for DHFC / building on Green Dale Fields is this Sunday 12th June.

[MarkT]

Thanks for the reminder, jev. Many good arguments have been well put by others, I felt repetition would be unhelpful. I've just submitted my objection as follows:

"The existing stadium site is designated in Southwark's Policies map as Other Open Space so replacing the stadium with flats is contrary to Southwark's Saved UDP Policy 3.27. The site is within the Suburban Zone so, under the London Plan Policy 3.4 and Table 3.2, development is limited to heights of 2-3 storeys. TFL maps show the site to have a PTAL of 3 so, under the London Plan Policy 3.4 and Table 3.2, density is limited to 250 hr/ha."

MarkT

[edulresident]

Looks as though some of the fans are grappling with the morality of having an estate agent as their sponsor:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/fans-of-hipster-football-club-dulwich-hamlet-slam-club-for-accepting-estate-agent-sponsorship-a3268806.html

etc etc

Funny thing is... they just voted in favour of a property developer, whose company is registered in an off-shore tax haven, to build 155 flats on their stadium, whilst shirking the requirement by the council to build a *minimum* of 35% affordable housing (they are proposing 16% because building the stadium for the ethical DHFC fans means they can't provide Southwark's minimum). The property developer also got creative with their viability assessment to make it all look less feasible so that they can pocket even more profit from the scheme. And I haven't even started on the fact that their planning application includes building on protected green space that they don't even own.

How ethical is that??!

http://35percent.org/2016-06-08-dulwich-hamlet-unviable-but-profitable/

[mikeb]

This is interesting: GLA comes out in support on condition of more affordable housing (which Hadley will no doubt say they can't afford) and a greater density. They seem to have accepted at face value Hadley's contention that the club isn't viable now but will become viable in the new stadium - wonder if they got any other information from Hadley to support this.

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

[thedukeofmonclar]

There has been a rather worrying addition to this story. The developers have submitted another application and keep it very quiet. The new application (16/AP/4051) asks the council to remove the protective 106 covenants that currently state that the stadium site can only be used for ?leisure, recreational and educational purposes?. Why would they be doing this now, before the original case has been heard? Without these protective covenants, the ground can be sold onto third party developers at any time, without needing to think about the future of our football club.

The protective covenants were placed on the land following the controversial Sainsbury?s build in the 90?s, and their job was to secure the future of the club in the area and prevent opportunistic developers playing fast and loose with the prime land. They are just as valid today as it was then.

If you want to see a future for DKFC at Champion Hill or are worried about the area, please follow the link and leave an objection on the Southwark planning website.

http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=neighbourComments&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9569339

[Mugglesworth]

.

[Siduhe]

It's worth looking at the accompanying letter to the application (which I've attached here). What the developer seems to be saying is that the discharges are needed to allow the development they've applied for to go ahead, and that provision of the replacement facilities will "be secured by a new section 106 obligation". But crucially they don't say what that replacement s106 will be and whether it will be equivalent to the existing s.106.

Rather than objecting outright (unless you also object to the development entirely), I think what fans might want to ask for is that the s106 is not lifted unless there is a legally binding commitment from the developer to enter into an equivalent provisions in the new s106 for the new facilities, so that the protections are equivalent.

[Abe_froeman]

On the face of it, that application, if granted, could allow them to knock down the existing facilities without having built the replacement yet. Which would mean no football club, so no need to build replacement facilities or enter into a new s106 agreement.

Is that right?

[mikeb]

Thanks Duke.

@Abe - certainly appears that way. At the very least, I would have thought the discharge needs to be linked or conditional on resolving the wider situation.

For the record, I think we should dispute the assertion that "For reasons set out in the 2016 Application and the documents accompanying it, that development is not only entirely acceptable and in accordance with policy, but also in the public interest."

To my mind, they have not demonstrated this. In particular Hadley has never demonstrated that (a) the club is non-viable without the development *and* (b) the club will be viable after the development. It has always seemed odd to me that a club with regular paying crowds of 1,500-2,500 is not viable today but will certainly be viable after a redevelopment. More likely most football clubs spend up to the limits of resources available, so they are always on the brink of viability.

I will be objecting again.

[thedukeofmonclar]

Better make it quick. I think objections will only be accepted before this coming Wednesday, the 23rd of November.

[mikeb]

Already done. What a shambles

[jay66]

The Friends of Dog Kennel Hill Wood have put together some info on this latest planning application to try and help people comment:

http://www.friendsofdkhwood.org/respond-to-16ap4051/

http://www.friendsofdkhwood.org/greendale/hadley-property-group-plans/

[BrandNewGuy]

According to a source at the football club, although the proposed development and the two related applications are in the name of Isle of Man-based Greendale Property Co Ltd, they are no longer being 'driven by' Hadley Property Group but by an outfit called Meadow Residential, headed by ex-CEO of HPG Peter Bennison and staffed by what looks like a number of ex-HPG people:

http://www.meadowres.com/who-we-are

If this is true, we've every right to be even more worried, both as supporters of the club and defenders of Green Dale's open space. What now are the status of those Hadley promises and the 'memorandum of understanding' with the club?

I'm contacting Meadow Residential and LBS today to try to find out more.

[Abe_froeman]

Some of the covenants which this application intends to discharge are also binding on Sainsburys as well as the developers.

I wonder if historically there has been any communication between the club or the supporters trust and Sainsburys to get them on side? I can't imagine it would be a good look for them if they passively allowed facilities that encourage a healthy lifestyle to fall prey to property development.