Dulwich Hamlet Football Club planning decision - 27th July

[dontbesilly]

eastdulwichhenry Wrote:

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

> 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.

A consortium lead by Rio Ferdinand (who grew up nearby in Peckham) offered Meadow something like double what they had paid for the land, promising to safeguard the clubs existence and build affordable housing.

Meadow rejected their offer. Shame more people didnt pipe up then.

[DadOf4]

I am completely conflicted on this issue. I love the football club and the fact its in our area. I also see the preservation of open space in our city of utmost importance

I think its disingenuous to say "oh, we're just laying a new pitch and putting up a fence" - no, its a new football stadium - a fundamental change to the use of the space from current. Although a derelict astro-pitch isn't going to make it onto the Countryfile calendar , it is a much cherished open space.

If we're talking about misinformation - where did the ?30M come from ? I assume that is the value that Meadow have decided based on planning permission being granted (minus a couple M for building costs of new stadium) ? - I'd expect the value of the land without such permission to be more inline with what they paid for it

More than anything, I think allowing this sets a dangerous precedent - allow a developer to buy land from cherished local organisations (i.e. football clubs) with the intention of using that as leverage to build on MOL. This is an easy way out for Southwark and the GLA - standing firm with CPOs and the existing usage covenants could have worked IMO - but its clearly too late for that now

A very sad episode all in all. The football club and many in this community have simply been used.

[villager1d]

It is very simple. If the Council doesn't approve this plan, Dulwich Hamlet FC dies and all the excellent work it does with local schools and businesses goes down the pan.

Much as some would like it, there is no realistic alternative. The cost of rebuilding the current stadium and bringing up to the health and safety standards required today would be prohibitive and quite frankly it is fanciable to think that anyone is going to stump up the money for that.

We all complain that there is not enough housing in London, and yes not enough "affordable" homes are part of this plan, but here we have homes being built. It is somewhat Nimbyish to complain about a lack of housing and then complain when the houses are built near them.

So, let's help our local club. It does so much for our local community.

[thedukeofmonclar]

Hello Tom,

Here?s a reply to your several points. First, yes there are different opinions about the development. Both sides of the argument are peppered with questionable statements but I would like to claim the biggest offender here has always been the developers. For the entire discussion some of the fans have been shouting down any local objection as: untrue, NIMBY and claiming local groups refuse to engage with the club. These are bully tactics. We?re not on the terraces now.

You state you want to "dispel some pretty disappointing and disheartening myths and frank untruths" but then give us spin. Let us not forget you are financially and emotionally engaged with this and have a lot to gain from the planning application being passed.

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

Your statement that this 'can not happen' is untrue. As context, it is less that thirty years since DHFC were given a new stadium as part of a backroom deal to build a massive supermarket across open sports fields. The stadium was free to DHFC and protected with covenants. You're now arguing for flats across your pitch. The club has a history of poor management. Once this undeveloped land is developed it will be fair game for future development.

2. The Astroturf was run down by the club.

You admit this is true but then go on to dismiss this as previous management. Sorry, that's still DHFC.

Yes, the council took the lease back but had to release back when DHFC were dying in Tooting, homeless and desperate. Again, developers using a loved club to strong-arm favorable lease terms that laid foundations for their next application. The new lease does require DHFC to make good their duty to repair the astro turf but it is not specified to be a 3G pitch. The alternative discussed is like for like replacement. That is a low-impact astro turf on a sand bed (as is currently there) with chain-link fencing around. This is not as you suggest 'a slightly larger scale' but a massive development on undeveloped land. 9000sq.m of MOL are under threat. The astroturf is 6000sq.m. The remaining 3000sq.m is trees, scrub, grassland and habitat.

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

I think you've missed the point of this one. It's much more simple. The council are giving (125yr.lease) Metropolitan Open land to a private company (Meadow/DHFC). Instead, let us imaging Sainsbury's taking a 125yr, lease to fence off M.O.L. as a lorry park. Unacceptable.

4. Tower Blocks will be built on MOL

No, the tower blocks are to be built on the land with covenants protecting it as 'other open space' and limiting it for sporting use. The M.O.L. will however be fundamentally changed forever. The current astro turf is a bed of sand and a carpet. The new pitch will be sunk into the water table and so needs 2m deep foundation and drainage systems under it. There will be a lot built on M.O.L.

5. The club could redevelop the current stadium

You admit this is true but point out that due to DHFC mismanagement, you can?t afford it. DHFC has collectively decided to support the plan as you can see no other way to survive. This is crucial. You are right up against the wall as should be being pretty humble about that. Instead, you?ve decided to spin the whole project as a ?good? thing, claiming it?s also ?good? for the community while the community fight back against you. Can I remind you, you are stuffed and are actually asking to be helped out again at a cost to local open-land.

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

Every football club at this level runs on a financial knife edge. DHFC management history reads like a bad joke. Do you think a board made up by passionate club fans is a stable and reasonable body? I don?t. The development may look like an easy fix to some pressing concerns but claiming it secures the future of the club is wrong. As an obvious quick reference, let me remind you we are currently in a world pandemic and we don?t know if mass gatherings will even be possible in the coming years.

How can you type the line ??we?ve had to make this choice given the stark reality that the club faces?? and then attempt to spin the whole project as positive. It?s a mess of DHFC?s making, featuring developers who have shown themselves to be ruthless, local people targeted by football fans and potentially 9000sq.m of MOL threatened to be developed.

The astro turf is more than ?some concrete and carpet?. It is a community space where people play infomal sports. Exactly the sort of resource a local football club should be holding as sacred.

[thedukeofmonclar]

In essence a football stadium is a pitch and space for fans to watch. The current stadium could be renovated quickly and cheaply. The current stadium was built on the cheap by Sainsbury's in 1992 as a sweetener for pushing a big development through. The next stadium will be built (on the cheap?) by Meadows as a sweetener for pushing a big development through. Why do you think the new stadium is going to be any better built than the last?

[thedukeofmonclar]

The developers have suggested the new flat owners are going to be discouraged to own cars. They therefore have only provided a few parking spaces. I imagine that will mean all the surrounding estates will be where they park.

[thedukeofmonclar]

Hello Dontbesilly,

Your post shows your propensity to generalise, stereotype and dismiss people with different views. That's really not helpful in a discussion of such significance. Believe this. Thousands of local people oppose the development as it develops an undeveloped area that is well used and loved. The thing that dog walkers have in common is that they walk dogs.The reality of the situation has been made very clear for everyone. Pass this application or the club goes under. Why then attack locals and dog walkers?

[thedukeofmonclar]

Hello Ben,

The very similar application from two years ago was withdrawn before a decision was made but the council did say at the time it would have been refused. Here are the five reasons they gave on 21 APRIL 2017...

That officers resolve that had the Council been in a position to determine the application, it would have been refused on the following grounds. These will form the basis for the Council?s evidence at the upcoming Public Inquiry:

1. ?The proposed football ground with its associated boundary treatment, terracing and floodlighting is an inappropriate development which would fail to preserve the openness of the Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) within which it would be located. Insufficient ?Very special circumstances? have been demonstrated by the application to justify inappropriate development on MOL. As such it is contrary to Policies 3.25 `Metropolitan Open Land' of the Saved Southwark Plan (2007), Strategic Policy 11 ?Open Spaces and Wildlife? of the Core Strategy (2011) and

Policy 7.17 ?Metropolitan Open Land? of the London Plan (2016)?.

2. ?The residential blocks and stadium building would be located on land designated as Other Open Space (OOS). The development is not ancillary to the enjoyment of the OOS, is not small in scale, would detract from the prevailing openness of the site and fails to positively contribute to the setting and quality of the open space. Land of

equivalent or better size and quality would not be secured and the development would therefore be contrary to policy 3.27 ?Other Open Space? of the saved Southwark Plan (2007), Strategic Policy 11 ?Open Spaces and Wildlife? of the Core Strategy (2011) and Policy 7.18 ?Protecting Open Space and Addressing Deficiency? of the London Plan (2016)?.

3. ?The proposed development would involve a reduction in sports facilities across the site. As such, it would fail to contribute to the health and well-being of borough residents contrary to saved policies 2.1 ?Enhancement of community facilities? of the Southwark Plan 2007, Strategic policies 4 ?Places for learning, enjoyment and healthy lifestyles? and 11 ?Open spaces and wildlife? of the Core Strategy 2011, and Policy 3.19 ?Sports facilities? of the London Plan 2016.?

4. ?The proposed residential blocks, by reason of their height, scale and massing would result in an overly dominant and visually intrusive development which would be out of character with the prevailing built form of the locality. It would be overbearing when viewed from the adjacent open spaces and appear as an alien form within the local townscape. It would therefore be contrary to saved Policies 3.11 ?Efficient Use of Land?, 3.12 ?Quality in Design?, 3.13 ?Urban Design?, and 3.27 ?Other Open Space? of the Southwark Plan (2007), Strategic Policies 11 ?Open spaces and wildlife? and 12 ?Design and Conservation? of the Core Strategy (2011) and Policies 7.4 ?Local Character?, and 7.6 ?Architecture? of the London Plan (2016)?.

5. ?The development fails to contribute the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing to meet the needs of the Borough, London and the UK as a whole. The development has not demonstrated that it could not support the expected level of affordable housing whilst remaining viable. It is therefore contrary to Policy 4.4 ?Affordable Housing? of the saved Southwark Plan (2007), Strategic Policy 6 ?Homes for people on different Incomes? of the Core Strategy (2011) and Policies 3.12 ?Negotiating Affordable Housing on individual private residential and mixed use schemes? and 3.13 ?Affordable Housing Thresholds? of the London Plan (2016)?.

These are pretty clear. Numbers 1,2,3and 4 still look like they have not been addressed in the latest application. Could you answer if you think they have been?

You finish this post with a plea that we should all accept the recommendations of the planning officer when this application has repeatedly been attempted with very minor changes. You say "groups have decided that they will now adopt the ?experts know nothing? line" (a topical argument normally levelled at blond right wing leaders) but surely this is an attempt to stifle discussion?

[Abe_froeman]

Duke, the council and the mayor b8th think these points have all been addressed now which is why the application will pass.

If any energy is to be spent now to stop this, it wpuld best be spent crowd funding a judicial review of the imminent decision in favour of meadow.

[thedukeofmonclar]

You are right Abe, but I'm still interested to hear if Ben feels these issues have been dealt with.

[EDguy89]

thedukeofmonclar Wrote:

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

> You are right Abe, but I'm still interested to

> hear if Ben feels these issues have been dealt

> with.

You're clearly invested in this development and have spent a good amount of time researching and thinking about the proposed development. That's commendable.

From my perspective, I don't know what Tom/Ben would stand to gain from responding. The plans have been submitted to the council and the decision will be made by them. Ultimately, the council's decision would satisfy your query about whether the issues have or haven't been dealt with.

[squirrelmc]

Hi EDguy89 tis a bit odd that you try to shut down any answers from Ben/Tom when they came on here to "dispel myths and untruths". Probably best to let them speak.

[squirrelmc]

So Ben, you say:

"Hi ?almost peckham?...The MOL you refer to has never been ?public land? it is the club?s land under a lease. "

This is absolute rubbish! Green Dale Fields and Green Dale Astro turf are owned by the Council. Southwark are the freeholders, therefore it is 'public land' exactly as Almost peckham says. If you have any doubts I suggest you either check the land registry or you can check out this amazing map: https://maps.london.gov.uk/public-land/

A screenshot of which I attach.

Why would you try to cover this up? Perhaps because you want public land to be given over to a privately owned, limited company whose shares are owned mainly by...you?

[EDguy89]

squirrelmc Wrote:

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

> Hi EDguy89 tis a bit odd that you try to shut down

> any answers from Ben/Tom when they came on here to

> "dispel myths and untruths". Probably best to let

> them speak.

I appreciate the laugh so early in the morning.

I haven't shut down anything. I'm just some guy giving my opinion on why I wouldn't respond if I were them.

[Gary P]

thedukeofmonclar Wrote:

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

> Hello Dontbesilly,

> Your post shows your propensity to generalise,

> stereotype and dismiss people with different

> views. That's really not helpful in a discussion

> of such significance. Believe this. Thousands of

> local people oppose the development as it develops

> an undeveloped area that is well used and loved.

> The thing that dog walkers have in common is that

> they walk dogs.The reality of the situation has

> been made very clear for everyone. Pass this

> application or the club goes under. Why then

> attack locals and dog walkers?

There may well be thousands of local people who oppose the development, but I think you also have to accept the fact that there are thousands who support it. Ultimately, it's not going to be possible for everyone to get what they want.

Regardless of who is to blame and how we got to this situation, the fact is that this is where we are. DHFC has relatively new owners who have acknowledged the mess made by previous owners and are now doing their best to find a way forward. You suggest that fan ownership is not necessarily stable ownership, and you may well be right about that, but unless a wealthy benefactor with the club's interests at heart is going to step forward from somewhere, it's the best available option there is.

Can I ask what you think the solution should be from here?

[thedukeofmonclar]

Hello Gary,

I'm very aware there are thousands who support the application. They are the club's fans. Directed by internal advice and understandably tribal and adversary in their attitude.

Allowing a company to develop 9000sq.m of M.O.L. and building tower blocks across a loved club's home ground (with protective covenants) because the developers have held the club to ransom is old school gangster stuff.

While i encourage your ongoing search for alternative solutions, i fear you may be asking me in order to dismiss any suggestions, because you feel this will justify the position you and some of the fans have been forced to take. Let's be honest. Not all DHFC fans support the plan. Those that do have all had to swing fully behind it, and here you are campaigning for a property developer who evicted you, stole your name and will build across your home ground and destroy natural habitat and community used sports facility at the same time.

[thedukeofmonclar]

Hello ACSJ,

The new proposed stadium has a smaller footprint and tighter terraces than the existing stadium.

[Gary P]

thedukeofmonclar Wrote:

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

> Hello Gary,

> I'm very aware there are thousands who support the

> application. They are the club's fans. Directed by

> internal advice and understandably tribal and

> adversary in their attitude.

> Allowing a company to develop 9000sq.m of M.O.L.

> and building tower blocks across a loved club's

> home ground (with protective covenants) because

> the developers have held the club to ransom is old

> school gangster stuff.

> While i encourage your ongoing search for

> alternative solutions, i fear you may be asking me

> in order to dismiss any suggestions, because you

> feel this will justify the position you and some

> of the fans have been forced to take. Let's be

> honest. Not all DHFC fans support the plan. Those

> that do have all had to swing fully behind it, and

> here you are campaigning for a property developer

> who evicted you, stole your name and will build

> across your home ground and destroy natural

> habitat and community used sports facility at the

> same time.

I'm supportive of the plan, but reluctantly. I'm a DHFC fan but I wouldn't call my attitude tribal or adversary. I think that's a bit of an unfair generalisation. I actually agree with many of the points that have been put forward in opposition to the project, and I certainly have no enthusiasm for the idea of letting Meadow have their way after the way they have behaved. However, at this point I genuinely see no other alternative which won't result in the club's demise, which is why I asked you if you have an alternative in mind. If you don't have an alternative in mind, then I'm struggling to see what it is that you're actually arguing for.

[Abe_froeman]

After the way Meadow were reported to have behaved I don;t hold out much hope for the future of the club anyway. I know these new directors seem to trust them now but I'm not sure I would.

Especially given where the economy is going and given what happens to land values, property prices and development during recessions.

Good luck to them though.

[dulwichfolk]

I think main point here is the new owners of DHFC kindly came on here to answer/put across their views on some of the statements which is useful.

The last set of questions asked of them by thedukeofmoclar I think if answered as they seem to have some quite specific points would definitely clear up lots of the issues many locals have.

Left unanswered it raises suspicions

[Ben Clasper]

Hi Duke

On your five points, yes, they have been addressed and this is why the club have been happy to allow such a long time for the application to be heard - there have been many meetings and views incorporated since the initial plans and that work with the council officers is the difference between the last submission and this one. Sorry for the formal bullet points but easier to tie back to your note.

1. It is now the position that those special circumstances are deemed to apply and whilst I know some people will want to respond with the fact that the future of a community club should not qualify need to accept that is only their opinion and not the consensus. We should also note that the Southwark plan for the MOL is the same as the club's, to renovate and enclose the astro turf, that was the obligation we agreed to take over with the new lease.

2. Again, the position on this development is different and great emphasis was placed on the size and location of the blocks and the surrounding green space, I do not pretend to be an expert in this area but I can testify to the work done to maximise the green space as well as incorporating other offsets to secure the recommendation.

3. The sporting provision will now increase significantly, the football stadium will include more facilities and the squash courts, gym and boxing gym relocated to larger spaces in the new stadium. The sports provision with the new pitch will deliver new opportunities for local clubs and schools who do not have access to similar facilities. The level of use of the astro turf is a hot topic and the new space was designed to provide a facility that matches what we observed over many months - that when in use it is usually small groups playing football.

4. Again, changed. And again a lot of feedback on reducing height and the layout was even completely revised during the feedback sessions.

5. Increased and above the 35% policy with the opportunity to provide more and so yes, this is has been addressed.

Also, it's a fair point - there is a difficult line between asking people to respect others and stifling debate and that is certainly not the intention. I am not hear to tell anyone that wanting to keep the status quo of a run down pitch instead of delivering a sports facility sorely lacking in Southwark is an invalid opinion but I do not think it is acceptable to dismiss the hard work of people with years of experience whose job it is to independently assess these things to justify that opinion.

I appreciate your approach.

Kind regards

Ben

[Ben Clasper]

Hi squirrelmc

I hope I can clarify. Southwark own the freehold to the whole area, the club has the lease to the astroturf (and before that had the lease to playing fields as well).

Southwark Council own the freehold to a lot of other land including land on which many private houses are built and those owners have leases from Southwark for their plots. A council owning the freehold to a piece of land does not make it public land especially when a lease is granted to someone else by the council.

Kind regards

Ben

[Ben Clasper]

Hi Duke

I would like to question one of your statements. Firstly our fans are known for how welcoming they are which is why attendances have increased to make us the largest community sporting event in Southwark each game. We have enormously strong relationships with local groups and other clubs. I have never seen anything at the club that could be described as 'tribal and adversary'.

I also want to go back on record with what we have said all along which is we have not briefed people to support the application, we have informed them and encouraged them to support if they are supportive. We have not lobbied and we have not written stock notices to be copied and pasted. We asked them to say whatever they wanted and you are right I know fans that are not supportive and I hope they would testify to the fact that I have always engaged with them and welcomed their opinion as I believe firmly in a community working together not apart and there are conflicting opinions on all issues.

People should remember the reason that there are thousands of people in support is because the club has given support to thousands, it has been outward looking and offered a home and help wherever it was needed. It has grown organically by those groups coming together and then bringing more people themselves from an average of fewer than 200 10 years ago to over 2,000 today and last season alone welcomed over 2,000 different children and families from Southwark schools, communities and charities to games for free. If the application is approved that will be increased again with the availability of a pitch and classrooms. We won the national award this season for our work in the community and so passionate about our community, yes, tribal, no.

[thedukeofmonclar]

Hello Ben,

Thanks for the official line on how you've navigated the previous rejections. I too think it?s really useful to hear difficult but civil discussions, questions and answers.

I?m sure you understand, this is a very large chunk of well loved, well used land, much bigger than the astro turf. A lot of local people want to hear your answers.

Is the club's financial position now deemed a ?special enough circumstance? to build on M.O.L? I?ve not seen or heard of it explicitly stated. Am I right in saying the mayors office actually gave a different justification for building on M.O.L?

I think it?s unjust to imply the lease requires DHFC to build anything like a stadium on M.O.L. As I understand it the lease was negotiated right when the Hamlet were homeless and drawing their last breath. For me it?s the most blatant example of hostage negotiation. I feel for you man. You must be sore.

The clever architects have managed to fit 219 flats in six story tower blocks, more subtly into the open land than the previous lot who failed with 170 flats in 4 story blocks? Maybe they will be flats for smaller people?

I know the epidemic may have helped more people see the value of the open sports field but its value has always been there and more importantly may not be there in the future. I?m really going to struggle with how 30 people doing different sports are going to fit on the new multiuse games area. It?s only a 20th the size of the astro turf and has to be booked, as will the stadium. So that?s a total loss of all informal sports use? Do you really think that checking the astro turf use over four winters days, is going to give you a measurement by which to decide the future of this space forever?

Last question. What?s you opinion on the carcinogenic properties of the new 3G pitch you?re charging the school to use daily Ben? I understand they are made from 20,000 used tires in each pitch and heard reports they are so dangerous they are being phased out in Europe.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/body/are-artificial-sports-pitches-causing-cancer/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/35585392I?m

I didn?t mean to cause offence claiming football fans by their definition are tribal and adversarial. It?s just that being part of a group who loyally support their team and want them to win, can be seen as tribal and adversarial. Online exchanges from fans can be fairly spicy.

[Ben Clasper]

Hi Duke

I?m afraid your response includes a claim that we have contacted Friends of Greendale about which is their false accusation that schools will be charged. This is a very serious false claim. They have made the claim as a result of misunderstanding the purpose of a document used to calculate hourly use. The club committed to local schools prior to the application that if they saw value in using the new facilities we would offer that for free. This was then requested by us as a variation to our obligation to use the council rate card for charging for use. All of which is on record and confirmed with officers prior to their report. A leaflet in Friends of Greendale?s name is now being distributed to houses after they were put on notice that the claim was false. We are taking advice on this action while we wait for a response from the primary contacts at Friends of Greendale. I will get back to your other points ASAP but hope you understand that the severity of this situation has taken over.

For you and others the club is not charging schools something we know, the council know, the schools know and sadly so now do Friends of Greendale but no apology or retraction has been published.

Kind regards

Ben