Dulwich Hamlet Football Club planning decision - 27th July

[dulwichfolk]

Really appreciate the responses if someone had come on here before or even at the consultation answering the questions it would have potentially helped.

Appreciate the comment about the other parks in the area but I think there are differences, but understand it maybe personal preference.

Living in the area I only ever seem to see the various schools using those pitches for athletics / sports days / etc but maybe outside of the hours I visit as you say it used must be being used football.

So just to confirm if the application gets rejected the reason the football club will fail is due to Meadow wanting money from the club for using its land?

[savedulwichhamlet]

> If this application is refused...what particular

> cost will make the club fail?

The cost for keeping this current ground to an acceptable safety standard is, and will be a huge cost and will only increase year on year.

The current ground is a money swamp.

I was not a fan of the club when this ground was built (in 1982?) but I have been told by a lot of people it was built on the cheap and that is now showing.

The club and the trust have ensured the new design will be built at an acceptable standard of quality that will last years.

I do not have the costs to hand but we spent an absolute fortune making the club safe for fans after our return from Tooting and the club was only unoccupied for eight months

[YTC]

@dulwichfolk - As I said in the first post, we did have plenty of events and have tried to get this info out there as much as possible but we know we won't get to everyone! That's why I'm here today I guess!! So sorry it's a bit late.

I think we have to be realistic, Meadow are a property development company, not a stadium management company. They want to develop the land for houses. They either do it with us, in a brand new, 125 year lease stadium with the future of the club secure for another few generations, or without us with no club.They own the land, so can do that.

That is the choice we face here. It is that stark. The development allows the club to stay alive, and thrive in the future. If the application gets turned down, the club will fold. Our time at tooting and near insolvency proves that will be the case.

[YTC]

savedulwichhamlet Wrote:

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

> > If this application is refused...what

> particular

> > cost will make the club fail?

>

> The cost for keeping this current ground to an

> acceptable safety standard is, and will be a huge

> cost and will only increase year on year.

>

> The current ground is a money swamp.

>

> I was not a fan of the club when this ground was

> built (in 1982?) but I have been told by a lot of

> people it was built on the cheap and that is now

> showing.

>

> The club and the trust have ensured the new design

> will be built at an acceptable standard of quality

> that will last years.

>

> I do not have the costs to hand but we spent an

> absolute fortune making the club safe for fans

> after our return from Tooting and the club was

> only unoccupied for eight months

1992/3 - We had to delay our move in due to the fact they put *too much* sand on the pitch and it was unplayable, and this sparked our first ground share with our loathed rivals over at Sandy Lane (Tooting's old ground) for the start of that season

[savedulwichhamlet]

Cheers Tom, only ten years out!

[dulwichfolk]

Appreciate they are a property company hence different objectives.

So with regards similar planning permissions previously being tried when very similar consequences were mooted why is this one any different?

What I'm trying to get to is why does this planning application look like it might pass when others have failed what is actually different?

[eastdulwichhenry]

@YTC the astroturf and the land around it are a community resource, a wonderful wild green area where people from the densely populated neighbourhoods in the area go to unwind, walk their dogs and enjoy some of the untamed greenland. The lockdown has shown, if there was any doubt before, how important this is. I'd urge you to please go and take a look at the astroturf during the day tomorrow if you don't believe me. Children play there, there's room for sports, and groups congregate to chat (socially distanced for the most part, which the space allows). And others walk in the green areas behind. Please do this tomorrow, visit the astroturf and maybe it will change your mind about this development, which will kill off this important use of the metropolitan open land as it stands. It is not derelict land, it is an important community resource.

I'm very sorry to hear of the plight of DHFC and its battle with the sharks at Meadow, I attend games at the club too, but if the solution to those problems is to take open land from a commnunity that vitally needs it then that's the wrong solution.

[savedulwichhamlet]

eastdulwichhenry Wrote:

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

> @YTC the astroturf and the land around it are a

> community resource, a wonderful wild green area

> where people from the densely populated

> neighbourhoods in the area go to unwind, walk

> their dogs and enjoy some of the untamed

> greenland. The lockdown has shown, if there was

> any doubt before, how important this is. I'd urge

> you to please go and take a look at the astroturf

> during the day tomorrow if you don't believe me.

> Children play there, there's room for sports, and

> groups congregate to chat (socially distanced for

> the most part, which the space allows). And others

> walk in the green areas behind. Please do this

> tomorrow, visit the astroturf and maybe it will

> change your mind about this development, which

> will kill off this important use of the

> metropolitan open land as it stands. It is not

> derelict land, it is an important community

> resource.

>

The choice here is a derelict piece of astro turf which is not fit for purpose and the end of a 126 year old football club or a state of the art community and sports centre which anyone can use.

If the astro turf was ever refurbed to a high standard, it would be fenced off. The only reason it is not fenced off now is because of the state it is in.

[almost peckham]

Thank you Tom for clarifying that, in summary, DHFC has a long history of poor governance and inept decision making from within including most recently and leading to the current situation allowing itself to be taken over by Meadow. The solution as DHFC now see it then is for them to be bailed out, to wall off and restrict access to a piece of publicly owned land (MOL). To repeat, DHFC sold their football ground to meadow - what on earth did you think was going to happen?

Your full and eloquent post sets out DHFC's self-made plight very well but says nothing to those people who use the space every day for a whole range of reasons from kids learning to ride bikes to dog walkers to say nothing of the environmental impact on the many species of birds and animals in the area. Yes, there are some other places for people to find the space for games playing, as you suggest. But why should local residents have to travel to use an open space? By the same measure there are also other places to play a football match once every two weeks, as recent history has shown. Maybe trying to think of other clubs who want something like the same thing as DHFC as something other than 'loathed rivals' might help here.

Does DHFC still have the highest player wage-bill in their league and the league above? This is a genuine question, I think it was true a season or two ago. Long term control of outgoings might have been a good way of ameliorating any reduction in receipts.

[almost peckham]

savedulwichhamlet

Over the last few months the astroturf has been been 'fit for purpose' for playing football, volleyball, kids riding bikes, for dog walkers, cricket matches, running laps, circuit training, bmx tricks, and just being in an open space with a wider horizon than might be seen from a window. Broader, less controlled, possibly more human usage than a 'state of the art sports centre' . It has been vital.

[savedulwichhamlet]

almost peckham Wrote:

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

> savedulwichhamlet

>

> Over the last few months the astroturf has been

> been 'fit for purpose' for playing football,

> volleyball, kids riding bikes, for dog walkers,

> cricket matches, running laps, circuit training,

> bmx tricks, and just being in an open space with a

> wider horizon than might be seen from a window.

> Broader, less controlled, possibly more human

> usage than a 'state of the art sports centre' . It

> has been vital.

My point is, something is going to be done with that land regardless. If it is refurbed, it will be fenced off, if Dulwich build their stadium, it will be fenced off.

[Ben Clasper]

Hi dulwichfolk

Like Tom I am also a fan and director. One quick clarification, there hasn?t been any previous refusal for these plans, the last application was withdrawn when the council did not take it to committee, it was never determined.

So, what else is different? This application has a recommendation to approve because we have worked hard with the council on what is best for the community and the council have done a great job fighting for whatever is submitted is to the greatest benefit to all. The recommendation to approve has been the result of listening to a lot of hard working experts at the council after we have all had our say, for and against. The attacks on the council for making a decision is a worrying trend towards the sort of politics we as a community in Southwark should be joined together to fight. The club has always said it would accept the recommendation of the officers, it?s a shame others groups have decided that they will now adopt the ?experts know nothing? line when the outcome is not to their advantage, personally I have seen enough damage in the past few years from that stance and hope our local community does not become the latest victim.

[dulwichfolk]

Hi Ben

I should have been more specific.

When I meant planning rejection I meant over the years various proposals were put forward, DIY shop, BMX track, etc

The ones which were refused noted on the decision notice things such as

Building on MOL

Increase in traffic at DKH

Reducing the openness of the MOL

Just wondering why now these don?t seem to be a concern for the council.

[Ben Clasper]

Hi ?almost peckham? I do wish we had real names to speak to

Some interesting points so important for some fact checking.

The club never sold the land to Meadow. The land has changed hands numerous times before the current situation.

The MOL you refer to has never been ?public land? it is the club?s land under a lease. it is a football pitch now and was a football pitch 100 years ago. The banks around it are our old terraces. I have no issue with people wanting to argue for its value in its current state, i.e. you would rather keep that piece of land open than have a football club, that?s a valid opinion but people need to stop pretending it is anything other than that stark decision.

Let?s also be clear on the space, how does renovating our pitch stop people walking their dogs or playing on the majority of the land on Green Dale that will be unaffected, is there not room for that and our beloved community club? I assume you have not believed the misleading statements that the whole of Green Dale is under threat?

On the wage bill. Oh my word, I wish. It is fair to say all of our income goes to running the club on and off the pitch but I would love to introduce you to the owners that fund their clubs beyond matchday income and perhaps you can convince some of them to throw some cash our way. We have no funds other than matchday income and we are miles off what you claim.

[Ben Clasper]

Hi again ?almost peckham?

?Over the last few months? is a phrase I have heard a few times. I don?t like it. If you are going to use that to justify why DHFC should be killed off, what next? Will you campaign for closing libraries, playgrounds and community centres because of lack of people going to them since shutdown in March? We took photos of the Astro turf use last summer of every day we played a game during the planning consultation period, height of summer, middle of the day, no one was there on any of the four days.

I hope you will not be exploiting the fact that our thousands of fans not being able to go to games is evidence of lack of value to the community in the same way you claim increased use ?over the last few months? is as a positive for our Astro turf.

[Ben Clasper]

Hi

All of those have been a huge concern for the council, they have considered everything. What we are struggling to understand is why there is such a lack of respect for the work the planning officers do. In any application there are dozens of conflicting factors and you come to a conclusion based on the balance of all of them. That is all we have ever asked for - review the plan and make a decision on whether you want a football club. If the decision is ?No? then that?s their call.

I think anyone who has a different opinion should respect the opinions of others and stick to the facts that support their position

[almost peckham]

Ben. I am not sure if you have deliberately misinterpreted my post. My point was that the astroturf has been heavily used over recent months thus making clear its amenity value. I said nothing of the stadium being underused - of course it hasn't been available to use - just like everything else that has been shut.

How you then groundlessly extapolate that I might campaign for the closure of libraries and community centres is baffling and offensive. I would like you to retract this false claim. It is one of the reasons some prefer not to use real names - in case someone makes baseless claims that might spread.

At the moment Meadow have everyone where they want them. They have set up a false bi-partisan, binary situation of splitting the greater population into the two camps of for the club and for the open space with implied counter views of wanting the demise of the other. This, in my experience is not true. Most want the continued survival of the club and the continued existence of the open space. But Meadow have everyone over a barrel, fighting each other.

I do not believe DHFC should be 'killed off'. I joined many of the protests to show support for the club over the last few years. My view was, and still is the club should be supported to remain in and redevelop the existing ground without further encroachment on open ground and without the building of a six storey block.

At the least, I think the decision should be postponed and for the following reason: No-one yet knows if a return to mass attended, closely populated events will safe in the post COVID landscape. We are still waiting for expert (and yes I do listen to read and otherwise engage with the views of experts) opinion to shape how our behaviour might have to change. We don't yet know if 4000 people can stand, shout, be together safely, and it might be foolish to build a stadium until we know one way or the other.

[ACSJ]

The point about the rest of Greendale being untouched is an important one - and one that I've seen misrepresented many times (eg on the banners on the Greendale fences which have coincidentally appeared during lockdown), so thank you for clarifying @Ben Clasper. It's really good to know that there will still be lots of open space and wild areas as only the astro and the historic terraces will be used for the stadium.

I agree the logic that we shouldn't be using the usage of public amenities during lockdown to measure their intrinsic worth because, as you say, the extension of that logic is that spaces that haven't been used could be considered surplus to requirements. And we can't pick and choose the bits of a logical position that we like.

For me, it comes down to the fact that match days see average crowds of over 2,400. I can't think of anything else in the local community that engages that number of people so regularly. And such a cross-section too!

Just a thought: if the future is a world in which attendances at sporting events are capped/attendees need to be more socially distanced then having the new stadium with it's 4000 capacity and up-to-date facilities will surely be even more vital to the Club's survival?

[Abe_froeman]

If this application is rejected (as previous efforts have been)it would finally be clear that there is no prospect of building houses on the football pitch or new football stadium terraces and fencing on MOL. The current football stadium site (with its sporting use covenant) will then have absolutely no value to a property developer. It would be worthless to anyone except a football club

[Abe_froeman]

Anyway, all these discussions are moot. The council will rubber stamp this without a second thought.

It's what happens then that will be interesting to watch.

[ladyH]

'The point about the rest of Greendale being untouched is an important one - and one that I've seen misrepresented many times'

This is just not true.

How can the rest of Green Dale remain untouched - imagine the building stage of this and how it will affect the place...imagine looking across this space and seeing a huge stadium with 6 stories of flats behind. I can honestly say that I have walked Green Dale almost everyday for the last 6 years - it is an amazing place. I and many others are utterly devastated by this. I would suggest passing on this wild space, as it is, to future generations is a duty we should all have to carry out. Imagine a future with more pandemics and needing this type of space more and more - once it's built on - that's it - it's gone. Only a couple of years ago the council were supporting Green Dale as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) in their New Southwark Plan. Southwark could lead the way and show that it cares for its community, their health and future in ways that we may only just be discovering are so important.

[dontbesilly]

i dont believe for one second people are actually bothered about a decrepit bit of old astroturf- they just want to object and argue about it to have a purpose right now and in life generally. Dog walkers are a particular bunch who think that they have untold amount of rights to public space because they need to exercise their captive animal. They would probably object to a brownfield patch of ground that once house a nuclear power station and is wildly radioactive. "I object to this patch of land being developed- its where i walk my dog each day!"

[Gary P]

almost peckham Wrote:

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

> My view was, and

> still is the club should be supported to remain in

> and redevelop the existing ground without further

> encroachment on open ground and without the

> building of a six storey block.

Can I ask how you would expect that to happen? I think it's already been explained that redeveloping the current Champion Hill isn't an option. Even if the money required to do that was available, Meadow would need to be supportive of it, and why would they be?

I understand that some people don't want the development to happen for their own reasons, and that's totally fair enough, but what I don't understand is what realistic alternative they have in mind.

[eastdulwichhenry]

If the council make it clear enough to Meadow, in black and white terms, that they will never sanction the eviction of the club from its site and allow them to build flats there, then eventually the penny will drop with them. They made a gamble when they bought the stadium, that eventually someone would buckle and allow them to build. That gamble doesn't have to be successful though. If they realise it's never happening, then they'll just sell the land on to someone else (a custodian of the club or similar) at whatever rate they can get for it. For the directors of the club and Southwark council to be giving in to the sort of blackmail they've used here, at the expense of residents of the area, is mind-boggling.

[savedulwichhamlet]

If we had a custodian of the club with a spare 30 million or could find a property developer who was going to buy the land that they could not get any planning permission on that would be excellent... but it is not realistic.

And that does not solve the problem of the current stadium being in the state it is in.