Greendale development / DHFC

[AylwardS]

It looks like the issue was they were introducing a new planning portal. The application is available online again on the ?OLD? planning portal at https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications-old/applicationDetails.do?keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9583549&activeTab=summary

Tomorrow was the deadline given in the letter we received, though the expiry date online is 27 August and as the post above says email comments will be accepted until the start of September.

[taper]

pjm100 Wrote:

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

> I was able to log in and add my comments to the

> website yesterday.

>

> I am concerned as a lot of the comments support

> this proposal - when I read them it is DHFC

> supporters who want a new stadium - not local

> residents.

>

> I support a new stadium but not the building on

> Green Dale or the flats at all - as a resident in

> the St.Francis Estate access on Edgar Kail way is

> already difficult when Sainsbury's is busy and I

> really don't think that there is the

> infrastructure to support so many more people

> living in the area - Buses, Trains, GP surgeries

> etc.

>

> It is sneaky to put in a proposal for so much to

> be done in one go.

Don?t you think most ?DHFC supporters who want a new stadium? are local residents? I?m certainly in that camp

[pjm100]

I should have been more specific to St.Francis Estate Residents - local was too wide

[villager1d]

There is no such thing as Dog Kennel Hill Wood. Are they even Southwark or Dulwich residents?

[creditwheredue]

It?s that bit of scruffy no go area when it?s dark north of Sainsbury?s car park, not affected by the planning application

[thedukeofmonclar]

Wow, unbelievable. villager1d and creditwheredue are your really sinking to this? Part of an ugly slander campaign by DHFC fans to discredit a local community groups who's objectives are directly opposed to the club's hopes to build a stadium on protected land. The friends group you are referring to have been running for nine years and made significant changes to the area and organised many diverse community activities. I can assure you the wood exists and is neither scruffy nor a 'no go area'. It is an area directly affected by the planning application, being part of the same area of MOL. Maybe you should visit the areas you seem so intent of destroying?

[thedukeofmonclar]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> It looks from the plans that the MOL development

> is not only the footprint of the existing

> astroturf but also building three sides of the

> stadium on the perimeter of that land. Those three

> sides they are trying to keep 'open' so they arent

> impinging on the openness of the MOL but as a

> sports fan, despite the glossy pictures, to me the

> 'stadium' is going to be more sunday league than

> the dated current arrangements.

>

> I cant understand why the club would put up with

> that.

>

> It looks so temporary and disposable.

The application does indeed extend well beyond the astroturf. It covers an additional 3000m2 of Green Dale, felling 25 mature trees and cutting 16m into the grass bank.The attempt by the developer to claim the sides will be kept open are spin. The FA require a 1.83m high solid opaque wall around the entire site and this will be topped with a wire fence stretching 4.5m up.It will significantly affect the openness of the MOL.

The argument from the club that these are requirements from the council lease are also untrue. The lease does not state they need to enlarge the pitch or build a solid wall around it. Also, the lease specifics are clearly drawn up by the developers, having a revised boundary that fits the new stadium build exactly. The reason the council agreed to these lease demands was that DHFC were locked out of their own ground and everyone wanted them back home.

Yes, the new stadium is going to be as cheaply built as possible and will be only what's needed to get their application through. FA reg's state it needs to be 4000 with ability to go to 5000 but this does not feature in the plans. Where are these extra people going to fit? They're not going to move the clubhouse back into the tower-blocks. There will be new applications from the club to take yet more MOL for expansion, and to add covers to terracing.

Object to the application. Protect the local green spaces, accessible sports pitches and defend DHFC's home ground.

[eastdulwichhenry]

> Don?t you think most ?DHFC supporters who want a new stadium? are local residents? I?m certainly in that camp

And why do you want a new stadium, when the club already has a perfectly decent one? This is all about a property group making good on a gamble it made years ago, that it could hoodwink people into allowing it to develop on greenfield land and it seems they've succeeded.

As a local resident you should be as horrified as everyone else by this proposal, even if you don't live in the immediate vicinity. If DHFC proposed to build over part of Dulwich Park, Peckham Rye, Dulwich Wood, or Sunrays Park for their new stadium I would be equally opposed, even if I don't live near those, because our community green space should not be up for grabs.

[first mate]

It will also set precedent for development of MOL in other areas...do we really want that?

[lukejamie07]

oh great ,keep it up.

[ladyH]

It?s awful that the application has so many supporters. I just cannot understand why people can?t see what the developers are doing here. There are many locals and community groups that use the MOL every day, why would anyone want a beautiful piece of open land built on when it?s a space that we can all use for free. If you?ve never walked there please go early morning and you?ll see why so many locals are so dismayed at the thought of losing this space.

[mlteenie]

http://tiny.cc/greendale

[intexasatthe moment]

From link above

** UPDATE 23rd August**

Case Officer Wing Lau has closed down the commenting system for the planning application 4 days early. When questioned, she stated that it was possible to enter comments but on a different website address. This new URL is not linked to from the planning application page so no-one will know it exists. It also does not have any of the other comments appearing there. The main planning homepage on Southwark?s website wrongly informs people to use the ?old? planning register for planning application 19/AP/1867 but in fact the new comments section is on the ?new? planning register. So not only have the council closed comments early, they have opened up a separate commenting section on an area of their website which contradicts what the planning page says. All of this happened on Friday afternoon before August bank holiday so there is no-one around to fix the mess before the new extended deadline of Tues 27th August is reached.

Our advice now is to email your comments to planning.applications@southwark.gov.uk mentioning ref number 19/AP/1867. Ask for confirmation they have received it as the comments section on the ?old? page has not been updated for 10 days (since 13th August) so we cannot even be sure that comments being sent in are being logged.

[AylwardS]

Inthettexas moment thanks. I?ll resend my comments to the email address - I submitted mine on 14 August as the letter we had said the deadline was 15 August

[sjsl]

I emailed planning.applications@southwark.gov.uk with the ref number 11 August, asking for receipt confirmation in reply, not heard from them. As I'm concerned they're not logging these I have copied the email and resent via the online contact form https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-applications/planning-appeals?emailUsContact=1511 again asking for confirmation of receipt.

[AylwardS]

Following the posts on here about the planning application moving and only showing comments until 13 August I rechecked and comments from 4 - 24 August are on the old portal and comments from 25 August on the new so it would appear all the comments have been lodged. I have however sent an email to planning.applications@southwark.gov.uk and copied in the Councillors for the area (Peter John, Leader of the Council peter.john@southwark.gov.uk and Sarah King sarah.king@southwark.gov.uk) about a discrepancy regarding the number of comments in the two portals and asking for confirmation all comments will be taken into account.

In case it is of interest this is what I found on the portals when I went in

The two portals show differing numbers of comments on the application and although I understand this will change the numbers don?t make sense.

I looked at the old planning portal this morning and it showed 400 Comments (Objections 120, Supporting 277)

I then looked at the new planning portal which showed 290 Comments (Objections: 36 Supporting: 251) The portal was only showing 5 comments, the earliest from 23 August.

Two questions I asked of the Council were:

1. Can the Council confirm that the deadline for comments will be extended given the issues with the planning portal?

2. Can the Council confirm that all comments submitted on either the old or new planning portal and by email to planning.applications@southwark.gov.uk will be reviewed before the decision is taken on the application?

[thedukeofmonclar]

If you failed to get a comment into the council portal before the deadline of last tuesday don't worry. It seems comments are still being accepted here.

https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=ZZZV0JKBWR961

[thedukeofmonclar]

A letter has been added to the documantation for the application from Simon Bevan, head of Southwark planning. It looks pretty conclusive and seems to agree with everything the local campaigners have been saying. Have a read of it here.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ed1m6RfA3Ok1z7foZxlymov6QYfa27Mq/view

[sjsl]

The letter is very good news, it seems to uphold the concerns about the MOL, as well as those raised about the arrangement, density, height etc of the new development, and the future of the Hamlet football club. I am much relieved at this detailed response.

[hpsaucey]

Hi. I managed to add comments yesterday - 1st September (just). Didn't say anything about extended deadline but if you're thinking of commenting worth trying.

HP

[intexasatthe moment]

duke thanks for posting link to planning letter .

It seems comprehensive .

Covers many of Southwark's concerns and the many omissions and what seems to me to be deliberate obfuscation by the developers .

[thedukeofmonclar]

The decision is still to be made and it could go either way. In all likelihood, the developer/club will now wait to see if the application is refused and then if it is, appeal straight to the Mayor. Sadiq has a record of pushing these applications through regardless of council refusal and local objection. Also, the club have been saying they have the mayor's support. It would be useful if Sadiq heard some voices of the objectors at this point. He's unlikely to know the details of the application or the point that are controversial. The developers keep pitching it as "only regenerating the old astroturf", and talking about 'Green links'. Be good if he knew it was 9245m2 of MOL, only two thirds of which were the old pitch and that the green link was nothing more than a path through the closely clustered tower blocks.

[thedukeofmonclar]

Oh dear, A rather partisan article written in the Dulwich Diverter out today. The first third of the article seems to be direct regurgitation of the Meadow's spin. There are some objections from Friends of Greendale, witch is good to see but the article then finishes with two supporting statements written by fans. It is the developer who has pitched this planning application as DHFC fans v local residents. Don't fall for it. We locals love the football club but don't want nearly ten thousand meters square of undeveloped greenfield MOL concreted over so developers can ignore covenants and build over the current stadium.

[almost peckham]

Construction company proposes building multi-storey block of flats on top of a public amenity and by way of compensation offers to also build on top of adjacent open public space.

It's a bit like Brass Eye.

[TheTruthisOut]

It's still possible to comment on this application by logging in to the new online planning register.