Dulwich Hamlet Football Club planning decision - 27th July

[dontbesilly]

the result was that the good people of Dulwich are going to loose a couple of Blackberry bushes (boo hoo!) and some shabby AstroTurf no one cares about (until now oddly enough), but will retain a local football club which has been on the site for over 100 years.

[scarlettbanks]

dontbesilly Wrote:

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

> the result was that the good people of Dulwich are

> going to loose a couple of Blackberry bushes (boo

> hoo!) and some shabby AstroTurf no one cares about

> (until now oddly enough), but will retain a local

> football club which has been on the site for over

> 100 years.

I care about the shabby AstroTurf (and the blackberry bushes) for what it's worth. I think the decision to approve the stadium may well have been the correct one (sounds like the football club needed this to survive, and is important to many people), but please don't taunt those that 'lost' or belittle their concerns. Taught my kids to ride their bikes on this Astroturf, fly kites there, play frisbee and football, picking blackberries this weekend, etc etc, visit several times most weeks, including pre-pandemic. Of course these activities can be done elsewhere once the stadium is built (and most blackberry bushes will survive!) but the decision is still a sad moment for me and many others. Won't stop me from bringing kids to Dulwich Hamlet matches once the pandemic is over, hopefully bridges can be rebuilt etc etc...

[taper]

I agree with that. I'm pleased the stadium has been approved. But equally I use Greendale and know it is of huge value to the community. I think in ten years time the stadium will come to be seen as enhancing Greendale. But a lot of hard work and bridge building will be needed if that is to come to pass.

[guyfield]

Very happy for the club but sad to be losing the Astro - a unique space that I have been using multiple times a week this last couple years for exercise and recreation. I know may others will feel the same too.

When will the building works / demolition be starting? Just wondering for how much longer i'll be able to use the Astro before the diggers roll in.

[savedulwichhamlet]

guyfield Wrote:

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

> Very happy for the club but sad to be losing the

> Astro - a unique space that I have been using

> multiple times a week this last couple years for

> exercise and recreation. I know may others will

> feel the same too.

>

> When will the building works / demolition be

> starting? Just wondering for how much longer i'll

> be able to use the Astro before the diggers roll

> in.

I would say fairly soon as the investors have been getting itchy teeth for quite a while now.

On another note, whichever way this went, the astro turf would not have been left as a free for all much longer regardless of the decision last night.

[ED_moots]

This must be the best outcome for the club given the situation it ended up in ie. Beholden to an unscrupulous, greedy developer with no real interest in preserving Dhfc (indeed actively trying to destroy it at one point). The development doesn't seem too different from the original proposal in terms of size and scope (Meadow will still make a lot of money) but the difference this time must be the assurances secured for the future of the club and a better design for the outside space. For those lamenting the loss of the AstroTurf (we'll miss it too) it's worth checking out this plan for the public rec spaces now included in the design (link below) . 219 new households is a big addition to the area so I hope transport can improve in step.

https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/files/B17C356624DD40BAC8EE8D89DEE4B9FC/pdf/19_AP_1867-SPATIAL_DEFINITION_AND_PLAYSPACE-906922.pdf

[lpool]

It?s a shame to see people on here and especially on Twitter mocking those who spoke against the proposed development. Now is the time to be acknowledging that for some the decision will not have been the right one and recognising that they equally are entitled to an opinion.

This is still only a first step. There is still a total reliance on the developer to build a football ground fit for purpose and not revisiting its plans at a later date with revised proposals. You only have to look at the way the developers at Elephant and Castle steam rollered Southwark planning to extract more value to know this has a long way to go. The old DHFC was left with a stadium by the previous developer that was badly built and not efficient to run.

The developer has zero interest in the future of the club and would probably prefer not having a noisy football ground built next to its luxury development. There may yet come a time again when all of East Dulwich has to unite to safeguard the future of DHFC. So don?t go mocking the very people who you may be turning to at a future date For support if things start to go wrong.

[JohnL]

ED_moots Wrote:

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

> 219 new households is a big addition to the area

> so I hope transport can improve in step.

>

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

> ons/files/B17C356624DD40BAC8EE8D89DEE4B9FC/pdf/19_

> AP_1867-SPATIAL_DEFINITION_AND_PLAYSPACE-906922.pd

> f

Yes - we've got 6 stories to the left of us being built and 6 stories to the right of us coming on the other side of the area.

drainage, transport, water, internet, recreation and everything else should be including (and I'm pretty sure it is) in the planning.

[mikeb]

Shame to see the council fold on this one. If they had held on to their legal right to prevent development on the ground (under the restrictive covenants granted as a sop the last time this all happened) then Meadow would eventually have had to give up and / or let the site for sporting and recreational use, being the only use that should be permitted. It was only the potential development profit if the Council folded that kept Meadow interested in the site.

lpool is exactly right: from this point on, the existence and success of the club is contrary to Meadow's interests.

I would have felt slightly different if the site had been developed entirely / mainly for affordable housing, rather than for the profit of an off-shore developer.

[ruffers]

"Eventually" - how long is that exactly?

[mikeb]

@Ruffers - seems to me that if they had not perceived a chance of the council caving then they would have walked away sooner. A chink of light was all they needed ...

[jay66]

Not sure how in the loop everyone is about the planning application to build on the Green Dale astro but Southwark Council are being taken to the High Court as a Judicial Review (JR). The grounds are as follows:

(1) A mistake of fact regarding open space deficiency;

(2) A failure to properly apply the policies in respect of Other Open Space;

(3) A failure to apply the policies in respect of play and informal recreation; and

(4) A failure to discharge the public sector equality duty.

The hearing is next week - 6th and 7th December 2022.

@GreendaleAstro

[email protected]

[legalalien]

Thanks for posting that - was wondering about this just last week when I wandered past.

[CPR Dave]

I'd be interested to know if the developers can even afford to build this stadium and the flats now. House prices are slowing down, mortgage and bank loan rates are rocketing and the costs of materials and labour are stratospheric.

Seems very unlikely to me that the original plans are still plausible at the profit levels anticipated.

[marsk61]

James. It is clear that collectively, you and your colleagues place a higher priority on monetary profit and private ownership over the public and collective benefit and enjoyment of amenity space. To say nothing of the degradation of the environment.

[CPR Dave]

He doesn't post on here any more.

[first mate]

The stated preference is for emails direct to him. I imagine that enables him to keep control and avoid inconvenient discussions.

[jay66]

Judicial Review was heard in the Royal Courts of Justice before a High Court judge on 6th Dec. No decision yet.

[legalalien]

Looks as though judgment has been sent to the parties and is publicly available

From 10:30 today:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/royal-courts-of-justice-cause-list/royal-courts-of-justice-daily-cause-list#administrative-court-daily-cause-list

[legalalien]

Judgment here

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2022/3211.html

Haven’t read it yet but from a very quick scan looks as though the Council’s decision (or more accurately decision making process) has been upheld - the claim failed.

[ruffers]

This is great news, hopefully we can just crack on now.

Happy days.

[jay66]

The judicial review was dismissed.

[first mate]

So the proposals for development are upheld? The old astroturf will be repurposed, a smaller recreation area built and for 'special reasons' it has been deemed okay for sections of MOL to be used as part of the redevelopment. The legal rationale for the latter is that there are plenty of other parks and green spaces within walking distance.

This decision is supported by Mayor and GLA. So, precedent re repurposing of MOL now set? Bravo Southwark.

Of housing stock to be built as part of development roughly a quarter to be social housing.

Have I understood this?

[ed_pete]

That's my understanding. Though it'll be interesting to see how the developers approach this now that, as regularly reported, the cost of building materials has significantly increased over the past year or two.

[legalalien]

yes, that's my understanding (worth noting that the decision on repurposing MOL wasn't the subject of the legal decision - there were other grounds as set out further up the thread).

There's a helpful summary of proposed community and school use in the judgment which I'll paste here as people might be interested:

"Schedule 12, paragraph 1.1.2 of the s.106 agreement requires the football club to submit a draft Community Use Scheme which has been prepared in consultation with the Community Use Review Committee for approval by the Council before implementing the Football Site. Clause 1.1 of the s.106 agreement provides that the Community Use Review Committee shall include representatives from Sport England, London County Football Association, the Council, Football Foundation, and any other organisation required by the Council. Clause 1.1 also provides that the Community Use Scheme is required to set out details of (i) affordable rates to be charged to the local Community for use of the Leisure Facilities which shall not exceed those rates charged in similar facilities owned by the Council; (ii) mechanisms to minimise Pitch hire costs for the Community ("Pitch" being defined in Clause 1.1 to mean the multi-use 3G all-weather pitch); (iii) number of hours per week during which the Pitch will be available for use by the Community with the number being no less than 36 hours per week in Season and 38 hours per week in Close Season; (iv) the availability between the hours of 8 am and 6 pm for 25 hours per week during term time in Season and 36 hours per week during term time in Close Season of the Pitch, classrooms and changing rooms for use free of charge by state funded schools located within the Borough; (v) support and assistance to be provided to the Community Use Review Committee to enable them to carry out an annual review of the Community use of the Pitch and Leisure Facilities including details of usage, bookings, maintenance and rates; (vi) range of activities to be offered at the New Stadium including lessons and courses and block bookings for the Community; and (vii) the measures to be taken to ensure the New Stadium programme of Community use shall be subject to continual development, and how the general intention will be to manage a balanced programme encouraging use by the Community. The "Community" defined as follows: "Community means but is not limited to schools, registered charities, voluntary organisations, non-profit organisations, residents associations, clubs, groups or individuals based in the London Borough of Southwark and "Community Users" shall be construed accordingly". "