Dulwich Hamlet Football Club planning decision - 27th July

[thedukeofmonclar]

OK Ben. I have seen the leaflet but I found the information in your business plan originally.

[squirrelmc]

I thought I saw in one of the docs that you were charging schools as well? ?36 an hour I think it said. Also ?175 or thereabouts for commerical hire of the pitch per hour and ?94 for a child to hire the pitch for an hour, at the community rate.

Sounds as though local groups have spent some time trawling through documents, only to receive your ire when they surface some of the detail. There are 400+ documents and some of these are 100s of pages long.. credit where credit's due IMHO.

If planning committee members are suppposed to ignore some bits of the documentation but not others, with no instructions, it makes it v difficult surely for them to make a decision? And just as hard for local people to know what to trust or believe.

[savedulwichhamlet]

School charging issue is clarified here (link below). The club will be covering that cost which amounts to around 500k over ten years for local schools.

__________________________________________________________________

"We got the council?s agreement to not charge the state schools and provide free access subsidised by the club. So number is on the plan but the school doesn?t pay. This had to be approved by council as a variation to their rate card."

"It?s part of the Sports England template business plan you have to submit for a development of a sporting facility. We then negotiated with the council to reverse that on the rate card and give it for free. You still have to give the commercial value, even if you offer for free."

[Ben Clasper]

Dear squirrelmc

To be clear you do did not see anywhere in the documents that the club would be charging schools you saw a number that showed the minimum cost for subsidised cost to a third party. Nowhere does it state that the schools would be charged.

Separately, and confirmed during the writing of the report is our commitment to free access.

In fact I think it would be good practice if everyone commenting either asked us questions as Duke does or reads the entire report and then comments.

Had you or Friends of Greendale read the officer?s report you will know that it includes a condition that ?children from the local state schools, including theirs [Charter Schools] have reasonable, free, and regular access.

So, the answer to your question is committee members will know the facts as they will have read the report prepared for them instead of digging around randomly and taking things out of context.

Kind regards

Ben

[Gary P]

thedukeofmonclar Wrote:

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

> 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?

I have a question relating to this point. I used to be part of a group that played organised 5-a-side football matches on the astroturf once a week (this was probably around five years ago). My memory of this is that in order to play our matches there we had to book the astroturf and pay a fee. The above seems to imply that this is not the case with the astroturf as it is today (no booking or payment required), but is that not only because the pitch has fallen into disrepair and neglect? Having it left there in that state, with no upkeep, no charge, and no booking required, was surely never going to be a long-term option. As Ben has mentioned above, the Southwark plan for the pitch is that it should be renovated and enclosed, which is the norm for astroturf pitches as far as I'm aware.

I think it's unrealistic to use the current 'informal' state of the astroturf as a reason to oppose a change. Surely, in the long-term, people who are looking to play informal sports and games on a completely free piece of ground that does not need to be booked, should be using one of the area's numerous park spaces?

[squirrelmc]

Hi Ben,

Sorry to bang on about it but i don't feel we've gotten to the bottom of this yet.

You mention that the Officer's Report says that schools will not be charged to use the new stadium pitch.

The documentation submitted by you/Meadow to the planning portal says the opposite (one doc says ?20 ph, another says ?36 ph etc).

Do any of the documents submitted by you (ie not Officer's Report and not a tweet) have the detail in them about you arranging to not charge schools? Or has all of this been done behind the scenes in emails etc?

Some clarification on this would be really good.

Thanks, appreciate your time on this.

[Ben Clasper]

Hi squirrelmc

There are two very important distinctions that should help. Firstly at no point does the documentation submitted 'say the opposite' about charging schools. We are compelled by the council to have a rate card for use (we are in breach of the lease if we do not'. The document you refer applies that rate card and is designed to calculate hours of use and also to give an indication of what it 'should' cost for different types of use. It does not state whether we will be charging anyone. That is the false claim that is repeatedly being made.

Secondly, a planning application process and officers' report is not based solely on submitted documents. There are many booked formal meetings to discuss the plans, make design changes and there are many email commmunications clarifying points, decisions and commitments. All of those are equally important and as formal parts of the prcoess as the supporting documents.

After meeting the Charter School heads right back at the start of this process in which we told them that the club would like to make club facilities available to them for free we took that proposal to the council, again in a formal meeting and asked for their position on whether they would release us from our obligation to charge under our lease with them. We were given an indication that they believed no one would object to us providing hours for free to the schools. I believe the officers followed up with schools directly and they also came back to us, again, formally in writing, prior to writing their summary. We re-confirmed in writing that it would still be free if the council allowed us to. The officers confirmed that position and included it as a condition in the report which is then published for all to review.

So, an application is not a one way process based only on submitted documents, it is also inclusive of meetings and written submissions and emails none of which is conducted 'behind the scenes' and then officers insert all of the agreed positions as conditions of the application whether that is free use for state schools or that the stadium for the club and community to use must be completed prior to the residential development starting etc. I would encourage you therefore to read the full report as it is a superset of information including final agreed positions not just on submitted documents but all other formal inputs.

For what it's worth I think the council came up with lots of ideas that in my view improved on the scheme as it evolved and resulted in revisions that add even more benefit to the community. And so yes, there is an audit trail of written commitments from the club to provide free access to the state schools.

Kind regards

Ben

[squirrelmc]

Hi Ben,

Thanks for your message. I had indeed thought that the planning documents submitted to the committee were meant to outline everything that had been agreed. I hadn't realised that agreements were made that were then not submitted to the committee and then published on the planning portal for the public to see.

To save me considerable time, could you let me know which paragaph(s) in the 166 page Officers Report deal with the free school access? Then my mind will be at rest.

And when you say "we are in breach of the lease if we do not" can you tell me which lease you are referring to? Your current lease on the astro turf or a future lease for this application? If a future lease - is this available on the planning portal and could you let me know which document it is? They have strange acronyms and names so it's hard to find sometimes.

KR

[yoginilucy]

I have a question for the owners of DHFC. I can see that you are in a difficult situation for the club but I oppose the proposal as I think greendale is a much loved green space and whatever way you look at it having a stadium in the middle of it is going to take away from its wildness. Aside from that though, my main concern is the noise and light pollution. We own one of the flats that looks onto greendale and no one has consulted with us on the proposal. When the game was televised for the FA cup the lights were shining directly into our living room and it was impossible to relax or get our one year old daughter to sleep. I find the noise of the games loud but it?s going to be so much worse now that they?ll essentially be happening in our back garden. There are hundreds of occupants in the flats on cleve hall estate and lots of us have balconies or back gardens that back directly onto greendale. What do you propose to do about the light and noise pollution? What do you propose to do for those of us who own flats and therefore will have a reduction in property value because of this?

[Ben Clasper]

Hi squirrelmc

Please refer to clause 84 of the planning officer report called 'The Charter Schools Education Trust' which is on the 59th page of the 268 page PDF Public Reports Pack Document. This includes the statement 'The planning application should only be granted on condition that children from the local state schools, including theirs, have reasonable, free and regular access during term-time to the football pitch and other sports facilities, including the gym'

The lease I am referring to is our current lease to the Green Dale astroturf which outlines our obligations to operate access to the new pitch and includes the following clause about charging 'The charges which the Tenant may levy will be in line with the Landlord?s charges for its own sports facilities and will be agreed with the Landlord in advance and reviewed annually' (Southwark being the landlord) That is the clause we needed to ask for exemption for to allow free access to schools.

Kind regards

Ben

[dontbesilly]

mate, the BBC coming down to broadcast at Dulwich Hamlet was a once in a lifetime occurrence- i wouldnt worry too much about your sleep for the next 50 years.

Also- if you find the noise of the games loud then you should have thought moving next door beside a stadium through a bit better, unless of course you moved into your flat before 1912, which is unlikely.

Finally your 'property value' has more than likely gone up by 1000% since you bought, so its a little rich to moan about it potentially falling due to some development (although we all know it wont fall anyway!).

[Ben Clasper]

Hi yoginilucy

First of all I believe all of the addresses in the Cleve Hall Estate were included in the neighbour consultation by the council sent in July 2019 after the application was submitted. I have checked their document and there are certainly the addresses there for all of the residences between Sainsburys and the top of Champion Hill.

On the floodlight comment the FA Cup was a one off event in which the BBC erected their own lighting (which incidentally was 6 times more powerful than our lights). This year the club has invested in new LED directional floodlights to replace the old lamps which also reduces light pollution. In terms of the noise, there were separate noise pollution studies that officers were satisfied with but it is not my area of expertise so well worth reviewing.

Kind regards

Ben

On the comment on property value I am sure different people would argue different things. There has been a football club on this site for over 100 years now (including a period when the stadium was on the AstroTurf site itself) and so it is not a new event for there to be crowd noise and secondly whilst I respect the views of those that would prefer the astroturf to remain unmanaged and continue in its run down state that is not usually something that has a positive impact on surrounding property prices unlike new sports and leisure facilities which do. But I appreciate everyone has differing views on that.

Kind regards

Ben

[pk]

good luck DHFC

Ben - i admire your diligence and patience

[creditwheredue]

pk Wrote:

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

> good luck DHFC

>

> Ben - i admire your diligence and patience

I second that.

[jay66]

[Abe_froeman]

Lol that extract says that the condition shoild be for all Southwark schools should have free acces not just the charter school. How are they going to manage and finance that?

[lpool]

The bit I am unclear about regarding the Southwark Council requirement to include an hourly rental cost is why it was not agreed to use a peppercorn amount instead. Whilst this would not eliminate any future risk of charging, it would at the very least minimise any future charge. Normally the rental charge would in part be to cover the maintenance and operation of the pitch when used by 3rd parties. This cost annually will be significant if used extensively. Is the club saying that it will be providing facilities for free ad finitem plus no overhead charge? If so, how is it being addressed within the business case for the club?s finance going forward? Exactly how is this all being contracted between all the different parties to protect both Southwark and the club in the future? I think some of the questions that have been raised on this are valid, albeit making the mistake of looking at it from an extreme position. If the council chooses to grant planning permission then it would be sensible to have the caveat that it will only be fully granted when all legal documentation between each party has been signed and verified as representing what was previously stated as intent. This is a position I would expect the club to require.

[matttee]

This application received five hours of detailed scrutiny by a committee that by law couldn't be whipped to vote along party lines. The questioning of the propersers, objectors and community supporters was extermely robust. The objection to thhe scheme by local councillor and current council leader Peter John was very strongly expressed. In the end it passed by 5-2 with one abstention. One Labour councillor voted against, the two LibDems split. The votes are completely public, you can write to any councillor involved. I'm delighted and I know others aren't. That's what a robust planning process is supposed to resolve and tonight it did.

[savedulwichhamlet]

Absolutely agree Matttee. It was a long old session but it needed to be and it was heavy on the scrutiny.

Let's all come together and make this work for everyone now.

[Siduhe]

I was also pretty impressed by the level of scrutiny at the meeting - both that relating to the serious issues discussed on here (like use of MOL and charging schools for the facilities) and the not so serious (like the discussion about the impact on the blackberry bushes on Greendale and when realistically they would start bearing fruit again that people could pick after the works were completed).

It certainly wasn't a rubber-stamping exercise! Everyone involved in the decision - including those who were very opposed to any changes to the astroturf area - made clear they saw it as a balancing exercise.

I didn't watch the whole thing from the beginning - was Meadow present at the meeting or did they leave it to DHFC to make the case to the proposal? Smart tactics if they didn't attend I guess, as they would have been grilled by the committee but doesn't say a lot for their willingness to engage with the community or the process on a go forward basis if there was no-one from Meadow at that meeting.

[dontbesilly]

They actually wasted time talking about blackberry bushes?! No wonder it went on so long. This was probably the result of 1 person trying to throw a spanner in the works, writing in crying to the council about a precious blackberry bush. what a shame this plan did not bear any fruit.

[Siduhe]

It was part of a discussion about the impact of the development on the ecology of Greendale but it did make me laugh. I guess everyone comes at it from the point of view of what's important to them. But I did learn that green woodpeckers like feeding on ants which end up on astroturf so it wasn't a totally wasted hour of listening in... ;-)

[Cyclemonkey]

I love blackberry bushes but they grow like weeds everywhere in SE London. We have one at the corner of our garden that no matter what we seem to do keeps on returning.

[sally buying]

At the end of the meeting what was the result. Going ahead or not? or more meetings

[savedulwichhamlet]

sally buying Wrote:

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

> At the end of the meeting what was the result.

> Going ahead or not? or more meetings

Going ahead!