Dulwich Hamlet Football Club planning decision - 27th July

[almost peckham]

The astroturf is in poor condition (not derelict) because DHFC failed to maintain it. It is far from certain that the club's future will be secure with this development - there is a very real threat Meadow will reneg on building the stadium. Do you really trust a company that tried by law to stop DHFC using its own name? There was a lot of support on the planning portal for the development, true - from people in West Wickham, Croydon, Penge, Carlisle - lots of people persuaded by articles on sites like pitcheroo who know little or nothing about the local context. Most people who live close to or use Greendale were against it.

[Abe_froeman]

I sincerely doubt the club's future will be secured by this.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if in five years time there is no dulwich hamlet fc and it is replaced with a planning application to convert the disused stadium into rabbit hutch housing units.

[dc]

The conditions will provide for the fact that the new stadium has to be ?completed and operational? before work commences on the residential development. It?s rather hard to see that condition being circumvented in plain sight.

[redpost]

That'll be after they've salami sliced some more MOL to expand the stadium from 4000 to 5000, then run it down hill for housing.

[dulwichfolk]

I like that the press release from the club has the following line:

"We have been committed to engaging positively with all stakeholders to deliver the best possible scheme, which means the application that will be presented is submitted both with the support of the community and the positive recommendations from the council and other consulting authorities"

They just failed to state which community support it...!

Whoever works in the PR department for the club who went from lock the gates and don't use the name to this should be commended...

[EDguy89]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> @James McAsh - 'an estimated increase of 50 or so

> journeys per day' - how many extra car parking

> spaces are there going to be created please?

Planning application seems to state 19 car parking spaces.

here: https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/files/1FC901E7608249AD99623811998914E9/pdf/19_AP_1867-GROUND_FLOOR_PLAN_WITH_LANDSCAPE-889541.pdf

Here's a more pulled-back view of the development: https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/files/DFD16C3D564419392D9AFD6383221242/pdf/19_AP_1867-SITE_PLAN_WITH_LANDSCAPE_-_GENERAL_ARRANGEMENT-846159.pdf

If those links don't work, search 19/AP/1867 on Southwark's planning portal and review the documents specifically looking for site plans. Those will give the proposed end result.

[YTC]

Hello everyone, My Name is Tom, and I became a director of the club as we managed to gain ownership of the club itself during the battle with meadow a few years ago.

I?m here to dispel some pretty disappointing and disheartening myths and frank untruths I?ve read here.

1. The stadium will be expanded, then run down for more housing

The ground, which will be sat across two different land owners (Meadow and Southwark) will be leased to the club on an unconditional 125 year lease mirrored by both parties. So, this frankly cannot happen. The club (since 2018) has been owned exclusively by fans that came forward to try and save it in our darkest hour. This now includes a sizeable shareholding and board representation from DHST. The notion that our own fans would want to run down a stadium and build houses on it is not only ridiculous, it?s legally impossible should this dev be approved.

2. The Astroturf was run down by the club.

This is technically true yes, the owners before us were hardly fit and proper. This is why we fought so hard to gain control of the club, so we could make the positive changes we all wanted to see. Anyone thats been to Champion Hill since our return would attest to how much the match day experience has been improved, thats down to us working hard, listening to fans and improving what we could. The Council took the lease back of the astro turf before returning it to us as part of the deal for us to return, and recommended it be improved by replacing the astro with 3G and putting a fence around it so it can be managed. That?s exactly what we?ll be doing, albeit on a slightly larger scale. The addition of standing terraces around 3 sides and a main building which is predominantly on Meadow?s land. A gentle reminder that the slopes on the side of the astro turf are the remains of our original terracing, the astro is on the site of the *first* DHFC ground on Champion Hill, from around 1912 to 1929 we think.

3. The Council is giving Land to Meadow, a private company.

Untrue. The Council is granting the club a 125 extension on the land it has historically leased for over a century. The development of 3 sides of the stadium (standing terracing and associated fencing) will be on council land, that the club leases. The main stadium building will be on Meadow?s land, which they are in turn giving us a 125 year lease on. No land is being given to Meadow, Meadow own the land the club currently sits on.

As a way to try and explain as simply as possible the lease deal, I?ll try and draw it out.

Stadium dev below:

(image attached)

4. Tower Blocks will be built on MOL

Again, frankly untrue. The only thing build on MOL, will be standing terraces for spectators and associated fencing around the stadium. All building will be on land Meadow already own.

5. The club could redevelop the current stadium

Technically this is true, if we had around 30 million pounds to 1) buy the land back off of Meadow and 2) spend the estimated 6-10 Million we?d need to tear down and rebuild the stadium to make it about the same as we?re proposing now. People do seem to forget that due to the club being run by an array of ?characters? over the years with no real interest in the football club, that we?ve been left in a situation where we do not own the ground the club sits on, nor do we have a stadium fit for purpose. The Current stadium building is falling apart. I say that with first hand (normally down a toilet or through a ceiling tile) experience. The costs of just keeping the place safe for the public are astronomical, and not sustainable. It?s just not true in reality that we could redevelop the current stadium. This development (and believe me, I fought against it) is the only way forward for the club, this time round we?ve actually be included in it, it?s a joint application, and we believe it?s good for us AND the local community, and southwark as a whole. We?ll be the stadium of southwark (literally the only one, as we are now) but with far better facilities to supply and support our community with sporting provision it currently lacks.

6. The Clubs future will not be secured with this deal

That?s a strong disagree from me. The club has operated on the edge since the 70?s, we?ve constantly had issues with tenure, grounds, leases. First Homebase(?), then the Sainsburys deal. We?ve been controlled by owners who?s focus has been on redevelopment for decades. We as a board, being made up of fans foremost (including DHST) only have the interests of the club at heart. Having a 125 year lease for the club is huge. We can draw down on FA funding we?ve previously not been able to get because we?ve been on short rolling leases, we can plan and run the business with more than a few years planning in advance as we won?t be in the midst of yet another battle. We?ll be able to develop further the academy and links to local schools. The revenue generation possible at the new stadium will allow us to mitigate the financial stress of running a non league football club, a business which is almost crippled by cashflow multiple times a season due to postponements, cup runs and injuries. We are a club that is currently just washing its face purely on our income alone. That means Gate money, hospitality and commercial partnerships. Why?s that so special? I hear some of you ask. In football, even at this level, most teams are bankrolled by their directors or owners. We run on what we make, and thats it, because thats all we have.

7. The Stadium will never get built/Meadow will reneg on the stadium

As the application states, the stadium has to be COMPLETED and handed over before the housing can even start construction. Again, legally impossible.

I, as all the other board members, DHST members and fans all appreciate concerns about this dev, we?ve had to make this choice given the stark reality that the club faces, but what I personally can?t stand by is just outright untruths. I put my life on hold to save the club, along with many others who volunteered 1000?s of hours of their time to keep us alive and to provide we hope a valuable asset to our part of London. The long and short of it is if we don?t get this through, we?re done. I would hope that despite peoples concerns, keeping a 127 year club at the heart of the community alive may be worth a little more than some concrete and carpet.

If you choose to oppose, you do chose death for the club. It is that simple unfortunately.


We had regular open meetings at the club (pre-covid) and 2 consultation events on this development but understand no everyone would have been able to attend these or get the information without trawling through a massive application, so please get in touch if you?d like to discuss anything.


I?ll check this thread a few more times before the planning date and try and answer any questions that come up. You can also direct any questions to [email protected] if you?d like to ask something privately or send me a DM here.

Tom Cullen - DHFC Director.

[ruffers]

Good post.

[savedulwichhamlet]

I can't add anything to what Tom has said but what I will say, if you have concerns please do get in touch with Tom.

He is very approachable and will be more than happy to answer your questions.

There seems to a be a lot of inaccurate information out there and this important community decision really needs to be made based on facts.

[geh]

Tom - thank you for your comprehensive post, like so many debates at the moment opinions on this seem dramatically polarised.

I am firmly in the support camp, but I also sincerely hope that if the development proceeds, securing a long term sustanable future for the club, that the community outreach and other good work the club does will not only continue but expand, to the extent that even ardent opposers of the redevelopment may look back in a few years time and conceded on balance it has had a positive impact.

[YTC]

geh Wrote:

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

> Tom - thank you for your comprehensive post, like

> so many debates at the moment opinions on this

> seem dramatically polarised.

>

> I am firmly in the support camp, but I also

> sincerely hope that if the development proceeds,

> securing a long term sustanable future for the

> club, that the community outreach and other good

> work the club does will not only continue but

> expand, to the extent that even ardent opposers of

> the redevelopment may look back in a few years

> time and conceded on balance it has had a positive

> impact.

Thanks Geh.

This is not only our intention, but our promise. We've registered our own charity (The Edgar Kail Trust) to help facilitate just that. We want nothing more than to continue to grow the work we already do.

[BrandNewGuy]

YTC Wrote:

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

> 2. The Astroturf was run down by the club.

>

> This is technically true yes, the owners before us

> were hardly fit and proper. This is why we fought

> so hard to gain control of the club, so we could

> make the positive changes we all wanted to see.

Meadow took over the Green Dale lease four years ago and what did *they* do in that time with the 'derelict' astroturf? The only people to blame for the state of it are the club's previous owners and Meadow. It didn't become 'derelict' by accident - it was run down by neglect.

[dulwichfolk]

Is there a section something (legal) notice on the current pitch area which means the area it sits on can only legally be used for sport and recreation?

If housing is going to be built on it (breaking the legal position) what validity do any of the legal positions which you highlight to say prevent the club getting back into this position in the future hold?

Couldn't the council legally buy back the club from the current owners as was suggested when the current owner prevented the use of the name and kicked the club out.

Sorry for any misunderstanding regards owners/land owners but appreciate you coming on here to answer the questions.

[YTC]

dulwichfolk Wrote:

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

> Is there a section something (legal) notice on the

> current pitch area which means the area it sits on

> can only legally be used for sport and recreation?

>

>

> If housing is going to be built on it (breaking

> the legal position) what validity do any of the

> legal positions which you highlight to say prevent

> the club getting back into this position in the

> future hold?

>

> Couldn't the council legally buy back the club

> from the current owners as was suggested when the

> current owner prevented the use of the name and

> kicked the club out.

>

> Sorry for any misunderstanding regards owners/land

> owners but appreciate you coming on here to answer

> the questions.

Absolutely no problem, I think this is an important point - we must seperate the owners of the club and the owners of the stadium. The owners of the club are myself, the chairman (Ben Clasper), DHST and various minority shareholders that have put their own money into the club to keep it going over the last few years. All fans of the club.

The owners of the Stadium (and the land it sits on) are Meadow Residential. The previous owner of the club (Nick McCormack) was very hands off, and let the stadium/club be managed by Meadow Res before we negotiated with Nick to regain control and look after the club ourselves.

The covenant you're referring too is not legally strong enough to protect the pitch in my understanding, which is unfortunate, but the position we are in. This development does replace said pitch, and make it more sustainable by making it 3G, allowing up to 60 hours use a week that will be available not only to the clubs teams, but groups of individuals, charities, schools, and other sports teams to use. That is one of the many benefits this scheme supplies.

In regards to a CPP by the council, had there been legal grounds strong enough to do it, I believe it would have already happened. So read into that as you will. It's a no go.

[YTC]

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

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

> YTC Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > 2. The Astroturf was run down by the club.

> >

> > This is technically true yes, the owners before

> us

> > were hardly fit and proper. This is why we

> fought

> > so hard to gain control of the club, so we

> could

> > make the positive changes we all wanted to see.

>

> Meadow took over the Green Dale lease four years

> ago and what did *they* do in that time with the

> 'derelict' astroturf? The only people to blame for

> the state of it are the club's previous owners and

> Meadow. It didn't become 'derelict' by accident -

> it was run down by neglect.

Again, untrue technically. DHFC always had the lease, but NM who owned the majority of the club let Meadow manage the club in it's entirety. Did they keep it up? No, but did Nick, and the Fisher Owners previously? No. No one can in any seriousness look at that pitch and say 'this has all happened in the last 4 years' - it's a state, and has been for some time.

I wish I could tell you that the custodians of the club had done a better job in the past, but that isn't the case. Thats why we as fans took the action we did to gain control of the club and make the best of the situation presented to us.

[dulwichfolk]

Thanks for the response.

so 'not legally strong enough' I find this a bit arbitrary...seems strange that something are put in place which don't actually matter.

Why has the ground development been refused in previous attempts and how is anything different this time?

With regards 3G pitch benefits...if as I'm sure most supporters want the club to prosper and get promotion isn't it the case that currently 3G pitches are banned at the higher levels. If that was to happen what is the plan and where would the benefits to the community go?

[YTC]

It's a good point, currently EFL rules mean 3G pitches are a no go, but there's a lot of work going on around that currently. A large number of clubs in the National League have 3G pitches, so it's a pressing concern with promotion and playoffs happening every year.

I agree, but take the case of Newbury Town FC's Faraday road for example. The Council wanted to redevelop the land itself, it had a similar covenant on it, and all they did was allow one tennis court on it for a few months before approving a full scheme on it after kicking Newbury Town out. We did looked at trying make recommendations to amend the school playing field act (I think thats what it's called?) and associated legislation to try and strengthen these covenants, but to no avail.

I'm no fan on playing on 3G personally, but for the good of the club and community, it's a no brainer. If we ever got promoted to League 2, I feel we'd be in the position of a) Making a legal case for the inclusion of a 3G pitch or b) looking to supply a 3G pitch elsewhere in dulwich to replace the loss

[Earl Aelfheah]

EDguy89 Wrote:

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

> rahrahrah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > @James McAsh - 'an estimated increase of 50 or

> so

> > journeys per day' - how many extra car parking

> > spaces are there going to be created please?

>

> Planning application seems to state 19 car parking

> spaces.

>

> here:

> https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applicati

> ons/files/1FC901E7608249AD99623811998914E9/pdf/19_

> AP_1867-GROUND_FLOOR_PLAN_WITH_LANDSCAPE-889541.pd

> f

>

> Here's a more pulled-back view of the development:

> https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applicati

> ons/files/DFD16C3D564419392D9AFD6383221242/pdf/19_

> AP_1867-SITE_PLAN_WITH_LANDSCAPE_-_GENERAL_ARRANGE

> MENT-846159.pdf

>

> If those links don't work, search 19/AP/1867 on

> Southwark's planning portal and review the

> documents specifically looking for site plans.

> Those will give the proposed end result.

Thanks for this

Just realised that the documents have been removed.

[Earl Aelfheah]

It's so difficult to navigate the planning application and the hundreds of associated documents.

@YTC - thanks for trying to clarify what's being proposed.

I am not sure I fully understand what the development will look like. I'm very happy if it secures the clubs future, but can't help resenting Meadow getting their way after their awful behaviour.

[YTC]

No problem at all, and don't get me wrong, I've been on that Journey too. People have moved away from it their end who made some bad decisions, I spent almost 2 years battling them in the press. It's safe to say there was no love lost between me and the higher ups at Meadow, however we've moved past it for the sake of the club, and the future of the community built around it.

I sincerely hold the view posted above, this is the only way forward for the club, and since our return to CH and the negotiation that took place for us to return, the people at Meadow have been as good as gold to us, and the club as a whole. The relationship is one of partnership, and not subservience as it once was under a distant former owner.

I stuck my life on the line for this, it was me who was getting the legal docs sent to my house! It was me that would have been dragged into insolvency proceedings. I wouldn't say this lightly.

@rahrahrah - Please do ask any other Q's, you're right, it's a lot to get through (as is with all planning apps) - took me long enough to get through it!

[EDguy89]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> It's so difficult to navigate the planning

> application and the hundreds of associated

> documents.

Yeah for some reason most council's planning application portals are all stuck in 1995. It's awful.

The links worked for a short amount of time. I would have attached the PDFs to the comment but the files are too large.

Anyways, I took a snapshot of the two documents i was referencing earlier.

With one you can see the proposed changes from a distance where you can see what aspects of Green Dale will change.

The other is just a closer shot of the stadium's seating/club house/facilities and the resi properties.

[YTC]

EDguy89 Wrote:

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

> rahrahrah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > It's so difficult to navigate the planning

> > application and the hundreds of associated

> > documents.

>

>

> Yeah for some reason most council's planning

> application portals are all stuck in 1995. It's

> awful.

>

> The links worked for a short amount of time. I

> would have attached the PDFs to the comment but

> the files are too large.

>

> Anyways, I took a snapshot of the two documents i

> was referencing earlier.

>

> With one you can see the proposed changes from a

> distance where you can see what aspects of Green

> Dale will change.

>

> The other is just a closer shot of the stadium's

> seating/club house/facilities and the resi

> properties.

This is really Helpful, Thanks @EDGuy89 - The Red line you can see running down the stand side of the pitch shows the line of divide I crudely created in text in my first post, so you can clearly see that only the terraces and fencing will be on MOL.

[savedulwichhamlet]

I was quite heavily involved in the campaign against Meadows (nowhere near as involved as Tom) and I too have put all that behind me.

Holding it against them at this stage is not a battle that is going to be beneficial to the club when they are working with us as a partnership.

I am sure they have regrets at the way it was handled but the way forward is to leave that in the past and to work for the future of the club because without this development, the club has no future.

[dulwichfolk]

The club is pretty successful (gate receipt/attendance wise) in comparison to others in the division. If they cannot make this viable how are other clubs making it viable?

If this application is refused...what particular cost will make the club fail?

The attachments show of the left of the red line another football pitch...as I understand it this is a school sports ground which has never had football played on it, was it drawn to make the new pitch location not stand out so much?

Looking at the drawing I can't see a replacement size wise for the current artificial pitch regards somewhere away from the pollution to walk, cycle, play football/cricket for free. Is this in the plans?

[YTC]

dulwichfolk Wrote:

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

> The club is pretty successful (gate

> receipt/attendance wise) in comparison to others

> in the division. If they cannot make this viable

> how are other clubs making it viable?

>

> If this application is refused...what particular

> cost will make the club fail?

>

> The attachments show of the left of the red line

> another football pitch...as I understand it this

> is a school sports ground which has never had

> football played on it, was it drawn to make the

> new pitch location not stand out so much?

>

> Looking at the drawing I can't see a replacement

> size wise for the current artificial pitch regards

> somewhere away from the pollution to walk, cycle,

> play football/cricket for free. Is this in the

> plans?

Let's be absolutely clear here, without this dev, we don't have security of tenure. That means we'll be out of the league, and playing in a park 4/5 divisions below where we are now, a shell of the club we are, if we can even muster that together. Meadow do not owe us a lease, as stated above, we have no ownership of the stadium and land it sits on other that the signage. This is the unfortunate state the club finds itself in.

As I stated in my original post, almost every other club operates with bankrolling from owners/individuals with money to loose. Look at any accounts of any club and you'll see the directors loans pouring in every year. It's common practice. Some use it as a tax write off, some have ambitions of league football and the money to chase that dream. Last year, with record attendances at this version of champion hill, we made ?7K profit. Remarkable, but not sustainable in the long term.

In regards to a 'replacement' astro turf pitch, there is only one, thats in the stadium. There is a MUGA in the plans too. Another reminder that if you look at the Greendale Management plan, it clearly states the council (if they were still the lease holder) would be replacing the astro with 3G, fencing it off and managing it. So, only difference is, we do it, and the club stays alive. We are lucky to live in a particularly green part of london, so would suggest one of the various parks within 10-20 minutes walk for some impromptu sport. (Dulwich Park, Peckham Rye, Belair Park, Burgess Park, Ruskin Park to name but a few).

I can tell you from working with St Saviours (who we use as a training ground) that the smaller field is specifically designed as a small football pitch for junior use (there are goals in there, if you have a closer look), our academy used it last season, then as the summer comes it turns into a small athletics field that Charter use too. The groundsman has shown me images of cuts and designs he placed on the field as far back as 2016/17, so would be untrue to state it has never had football played on it...

The Main field to the left of that smaller field as you walk down the path has been unused for years, until the club took it over as a training ground with 2 full sizes pitches on it at the start of this season.