Greendale development / DHFC

[yorksgirl]

Sainsburys was built on what was at the time supposedly protected green space with public access to the whole space. How the Southwark councillors and officers swore on their very lives, at the time, that there would be no further loss of public space or access, ever. Grim to have to say this as a lifelong Labour voter but think open spaces locally were better protected under Lib Dems.

[andrewc]

Where is the opposition to the use of public land in this plan?

[first mate]

In the consultation replies there is a letter from the local residents assn, presumably representing them, that states that the land is MOL and therefore cannot be built on.

If it is built on it sets precendent for more MOL to be lost in future.

[mikeb]

one of the arguments that the developers made last time was that Camberwell and southern Southwark have much more green space than other areas and so wouldn't miss this piece of encroachment

[AylwardS]

BrandNewGuy thanks for the link. Looks like they are more serious this time - three times as many documents but it took 4 consultations before the CPZ went in.

The documents will take some time to digest but the recent exhibition was better than the original application (apparently back in 2010), if not ideal.

In anticipation of this I?d been looking at some Council policies, the New Southwark plan has been submitted and is pretty good as these things go around protection for wildlife. There are a lot of documents on the application so in case it saves anyone some reading here is what I found that I thought may be relevant when the planning app came out.

The Southwark Open Space Strategy https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/1897/3.1.1-southwark_open_space_strategy_jan_2013_low_res_.pdf

Dulwich Hamlet is designated Other Open Space OS130

Dog Kennel Hill , OS119 is a Site of Importance for Nature (SINC) and Metropolitan Open Land (MOL)

Greendale Playing Fields, OS128 is also a SINC and Metropolitan Open Land

Greendale AstroTurf, OS129 is MOL

Table 8 in Annex 5 relates to Cleaner, Greener, Safer (I think its in Annex 5 anyway, I made the note some time ago and its not as clear now)

56 Open Space - MOL

P58 Green Infrastructure

P59 Biodiversity

P60 Trees

I also see one of the documents is a Travel Plan and the impact on local transport was something I?d noted to look at. I?d noted sections in the New Southwark Plan and Draft London Plan that might be useful

New Southwark Plan - amended policy P9 Optimising Delivery of New Homes

- account of additional infrastructure needs - public transport, schools, NHS? Draft New LONDON Plan, D6 when determining density of development connectivity - walking an public transport and capacity of infrastructure to be considered

This may be a bit early but may help when the time comes to comment.

I?m also going to contact the Parks department and express support for Green Dale Fields now the access is better and in my comments on the application refer to using this more and how its developing. Will the development impact this? The Council saw the value and spent money to redevelop Green Dale Fields. How is the development compatible with their plans could be questions to ask

[Earl Aelfheah]

yorksgirl Wrote:

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

> Sainsburys was built on what was at the time

> supposedly protected green space with public

> access to the whole space. How the Southwark

> councillors and officers swore on their very

> lives, at the time, that there would be no further

> loss of public space or access, ever. Grim to have

> to say this as a lifelong Labour voter but think

> open spaces locally were better protected under

> Lib Dems.

This ^

[ed_pete]

A I guess should be expected with a development of this size there are a huge number of weighty documents on the planning portal. However just to focus on the parking/car ownership.

There are planned to be 224 residential units as follows:

1 Bedroom - 2 Person 89

2 Bedroom - 3 Person 36

2 Bedroom - 4 Person 31

3 Bedroom - 4 Person 34

3 Bedroom - 5 Person 34

Apart from 7 disabled parking spaces (3%) there will no parking for any residents, which apparently is "is in accordance

with the draft New London Plan." There will also be no "on street resident and business car-parking permits."

There will be one - I repeat one - car club (i.e. zipcar-like) space.

This seems quite radical to me. I'm certainly no petrol-headed car-lover but a development that has no provision for parking for 224 flats, could damage their market-ability I would have thought.

The people purchasing the larger units are likely to be reasonably well-off and quite possible car owners already. Would they be prepared to sacrifice their car (or cars) ? What happens when you have a visitor (relative/healthcare/tradespeople) ? There doesn't seem to be any provision for that either.

I'd be interested to know if there are other similar developments in London, of this scale, that also have no car provision.

[Abe_froeman]

I guess they would have to park their cars in the unrestricted streets south-east of the so-called "East Dulwich Grove CPZ" if it hasn't already been expanded by the time these flats are built.

Adding parking pressure to a non=-CPZ area is something the council will relish and I can imagine this would encourage them to wave this application through, notwithstanding that three quarters of the proposed stadium seems to be located on the greendale playing fields around the edges of the existing astro turf.

[AylwardS]

We had a letter through to say the planning application (19/AP/1867) has been made. Details, and responses via the website https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9583549 The letter says the deadline for responses is 15 August which is earlier than the Standard Consultation Expiry Date on the website (not sure what the difference is)

[Borderlands]

Some dates seem to have now been provided on the planning portal but these don't include the standard consultation date or the standard consultation expiry date. Is this unusual?

BTW: I remember when Sainsburys' was built and I think that some of this land was owned by the Crown Estate via Kings College Hospital which made objecting very difficult. At the time the developers made a huge song and dance about the ickle park - as a community benefit- like the new developers with their silly, unsustainable, linear park (by which they mean a few flower beds and large pavements which are no use to wildlife whatsoever) and teeny weeny play areas for children.

But even then there were the usual concerted attempts to score cheap points about there being too much open space in the greedy south of the borough compared to the north, with the very decorative submitted plans including railway cuttings and privately accessed or limited access land to visually justify the reason to get rid of MOL that was wildlife friendly scrub land and so on. But I think the council's Development Plans at the time was also trying to open up more green space in the middle and north of the borough rather than go, yah-boo sucks to MOL in the south. This is surely the correct response to proposals to overdevelop in the low-rise south of the borough?

What can we do to at least counter the large scale and inappropriateness of these proposals? Everyone knows this is a trojan horse development that is using the DHFC malcontents to attack the need to protect the local area and it's green and open feeling.

[geh]

"DHFC malcontents"?

[Borderlands]

geh Wrote:

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

> "DHFC malcontents"?

I mean those who may be justifiably be annoyed at the state of their club facilities and may not be concerned about the proposed plans and the extent to which this would change the local area.

[AylwardS]

There is a notice on the fence next to the gate as you go into Green Dale Fields. Planning application 19/AP/1867. Details, and responses via the website [planning.southwark.gov.uk] This confirms the deadline for responses is 15 August.

[geh]

my view is that as a community focused club the vast majority of DHFC fans are acutely aware and concerned about the proposed plans and the extent to whcih any redevelopment will impact on the local area

[Borderlands]

Good. Pleased to hear it. I hope DHFC supporters will write and object to these out of scale development proposals and help prevent the loss of MOL as well.

Sadly, the careful timing of the public consultation looks suspicious when lots of people who might be interested are away.

Is there any particular group co-ordinating opposition to the proposals?

[geh]

Whilst I'm yet to review the application (and am not a planner!) the chatter seems to suggest that it avoids development of MOL. As in many planning applications compromise will out, however its always difficult to satisfy sometimes very polarised opinions.

If the redevelopment can mollify the MOL objections, allow DHFC - who are achieving gates of c. 3,000 for Saturday home games to remain in SE22 as an important cultural and economic driver and provide much needed housing, including the appropriate affordable quotient then the redevelopment deserves support.

[Borderlands]

I don't think the threat to MOL has been lifted at all in the new plans. Dunno why you think that.

And I would question your claim that the DHFC being an "important cultural driver" whatever that is. It's just a football stadium for goodness sake - let's not suggest this is the primary reason for residents wanting to stay here or that this is what attracts others to want to live and work in the area....

What we're talking about here is planning permission for a large (compared to the mixed housing of the surrounding locality), every-expense spared design. It's not just that the proposed new estate is completely out of keeping with the district, but it pays scant regard for any consideration to do with parking, traffic, access to schools and healthcare.

It proposes a number of 6 storey blocks - although the actual height in the existing landscape isn't clear from the pics in the submitted plans - but looks as if these will loom large above the existing estate. And, if we agree that we need more new homes in the area, these proposals aren't about providing social housing for families - which is what's needed around here ie., low rise family houses with gardens. Ain't going to happen - this is all about money, money, money.

Take a look at 35%'s old blog about the Hadley Scheme: http://35percent.org/dulwich-hamlet-stadium/

[geh]

in response:

Borderlands Wrote:

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

> I don't think the threat to MOL has been lifted at

> all in the new plans. Dunno why you think that.

My post indicates "the chatter seems to suggest that it avoids development of MOL"

>

> And I would question your claim that the DHFC

> being an "important cultural driver" whatever that

> is. It's just a football stadium for goodness sake

> - let's not suggest this is the primary reason for

> residents wanting to stay here or that this is

> what attracts others to want to live and work in

> the area....

Actually what I said was DHFC is an "important cultural and economic driver" The outreach initiatives are well documented, rasing awareness, money and support for sometimes under represented causes - in my view worthwhile.

Added to this is the direct economic benefit to local business, assisting in supporting the vibrant and independent nature of the same, which in fact I do consider to be one of the reasons residents want to stay/move here!

>

> What we're talking about here is planning

> permission for a large (compared to the mixed

> housing of the surrounding locality),

> every-expense spared design. It's not just that

> the proposed new estate is completely out of

> keeping with the district, but it pays scant

> regard for any consideration to do with parking,

> traffic, access to schools and healthcare.

Parking and traffic will I suspect be considered via the planning process in the normal way, although taking the football club in isolation, my feeling is most supporters walk/use public transport.

Access to schools/heathcare is not within the scope of an individual developer, however contributions towards the same can be raised via S. 106 payments. Last time I looked, East Dulwich had 3 new(ish) schools and a new health centre/hospital under construction.

I agree, perhaps 6 stories is too much, however there are a number of similar scale developments of 4-5 stories throughout East Dulwich - East Dulwich Road, and Lordship Lane to the south

>

> It proposes a number of 6 storey blocks - although

> the actual height in the existing landscape isn't

> clear from the pics in the submitted plans - but

> looks as if these will loom large above the

> existing estate. And, if we agree that we need

> more new homes in the area, these proposals aren't

> about providing social housing for families -

> which is what's needed around here ie., low rise

> family houses with gardens. Ain't going to happen

> - this is all about money, money, money.

Sadly, it is about money, and if schemes don't stack up, they won't get built. Agreed we probably do need more family homes for rent, but is this the site for them? Southwark are pursuing direct developments of existing garage sites for these uses. The only way that will happen here is if the scheme were to be subject to a CPO, and despite the previous threat, that seems highly unlikely.

>

> Take a look at 35%'s old blog about the Hadley

> Scheme:

> http://35percent.org/dulwich-hamlet-stadium/

Sadly the provision of social housing is now primarily left to the private sector (exceptions as I've noted above)whose primary motive is profit, I don't think its right, the publication of viability assesments does at least open them to challenge which is a good think.

Ultimately stalling the redevelopment of this site which will accommodate the long term security of DHFC and provide new homes will help no one. Ensuring the suitability of the design and scale of the proposals is what the planning system is there to do.

[Borderlands]

I don't argue for no development just appropriate design - scale, position and purpose. I don't see that the way ahead for DHFC improvements means accepting the current proposals as they stand or with slight alterations that still mean the loss of MOL, and I don't have the faith in the planning system and those who steer decisions through, that you may have. There are plenty of examples of poorly thought out developments in London, and yes, even in Southwark, that lie behind my concerns.

1. So the threat to MOL is not a concern to you? Surely this is an important designation that should be respected. We all benefit from open green space.

2. I'll look up S. 106 payments - no idea what these are.

3. Can't see why social housing would not be acceptable as long as the design/density was of a good standard this would be welcome.

4. I can't comment on the plans for the football stadium, but this kind of development of sports fields/ grounds seems now to be considered almost inevitable as green space and public land disappear and unstructured green space is seen as some kind of luxury: lucky times for the developer and friends.

5. BTW, about the proposed height of the 6 storey blocks: the actual height of the development in relation to nearby properties is not made clear. There are not pictures detailing graphically what the views from around the site would be. I am not a planner, or an architect or a developer, but I've seen enough applications for building where this lack of information has had to be challenged to reveal the likely effect on the skyline or to the local townscape.

6. Public transport is part of the mix for movement in and around the site perhaps, but the idea that current levels of buses and trains can facilitate an entirely new estate - rather than just football fans - is not something addressed in the plans that I have found yet.

[Abe_froeman]

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.

[jay66]

The Friends of Dog Kennel Hill Wood are putting up some easier to read documentation about the planning application 19/AP/1867 as well as some suggested angles for objecting to it:

http://www.friendsofdkhwood.org/greendale/respond-to-planning-application-19-ap-1867/

[AylwardS]

Thank you jay66 I?ve had a quick look at the information the Friends of Dog Kennel Hill Wood have put together and I?m sure I?ll use some of it in my response.

http://www.friendsofdkhwood.org/greendale/respond-to-planning-application-19-ap-1867/. The documents on the official planning site are daunting - over 200, the Friends versions are more user friendly.

If you want to respond to the planning application 19/AP/1867 details should be on on the Council?s website https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9583549 but the planning register is currently down for ?service improvement works?. Deadline for responses is 15 August.

The Friends of Dog Kennel Hill website looks worth a look for documents related to Green Dale / wildlife in the meantime.

I?m still working through the documents on the website but in case this saves anyone time, given the deadline is Thursday and the website is down so accessing the documents is a challenge if they are not on the Friends of Dog Kennel Hill Wood website, here?s what I?ve found of relevance to various areas and worth reading if it what?s covered is of interest to you

- Design and Access Statement Part 1 gives an overview (Part 2 is just plans of the flats)

- Statement of Community Involvement shows they?ve engaged with at least some areas of the community and the development will provide improved sports facilities and an Outdoor Gym

- Car Park Design and Strategy Part 1 gives details (Parts 2 & 3 are plans of predicted vehicle flows - swept vehicle paths - if it particularly interests you)

- Stadium Management Plan includes how they see spectator management and parking impact on match days

- Special Needs Case is actually Sporting Needs Case and provides detail on the facilities that will be available to the community / public. Improvements will be made to the indoor leisure facilities 3.8 admits the MUGA is smaller than the current Astroturf but says it will be safer and therefore expected o be used more

- Landscape Design Statement parts 1 & 2 have information on how it will look / impact of development on MOL / planned mitigation - bird & bat boxes etc

- Transport Statement 1 will be of interest to those accessing the housing estate via Abbotswood Road or who will use the linear park to get to GreenDale / Bessemer Grange School

- Transport Statement 6 relates to public transport and PTAL

- Transport Statement 11 relates to Healthy Streets and walking / cycling

I?ve only looked at things of interest to me and your interests may be different.

[sjsl]

It's a bit frustrating/worrying that it's impossible to comment at the moment, it currently says "This application is no longer available for viewing. It may have been removed or restricted from public viewing."

[jay66]

sjsl: apparently the whole planning website is down and has been since Friday at least. V frustrating.

The officer in charge of this application has said that she will accept comments up until the beginning of September.

You may also email your comment to Southwark: [email protected]

mentioning ref number 19/AP/1867, your name and address.

If you don't want your name and address to be displayed, please tell them that.

[pjm100]

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.