Green Dale

[BrandNewGuy]

Here's a pdf of their 'proposals', with a big blank where the pitch/ground currently is. See particularly pages 5 and 6:

http://static.squarespace.com/static/53cf6640e4b07de11ec6cceb/t/53d6287ee4b00410ab9bc735/1406544019708/2014-07%20-%20Dulwich%20Hamlet%20FC%20Boards%20PT%202.pdf

[Gary P]

As a local resident and voter I have to say I'm extremely disappointed in how the Council have handled this whole situation, in regard to DHFC. From attending the consultations and reading the various reports, it seems very much as if the needs of the football club are simply being ignored. In the latest plans for the area, no effort has been made to accommodate the football club, and at the last consultation I was told that the council would not even investigate the possibility of seeing whether building a new stadium in the available space was viable. I was also told by a council employee that it was highly unlikely that the council would sit down with all the relevant stakeholders (Hadley, the DHFC Supporters Trust, Friends of Green Dale) to see if a mutually agreeable solution could be found. Why is this?

I would like to remind the Council that this is not simply about a football team. Dulwich Hamlet are a community club who mean a great deal to a large (and rapidly growing) number of people. Average attendances are likely to exceed 1,000 very soon at the current rate of growth. A new stadium with a 4G pitch would create all-weather sporting facilities for all schools and clubs in the local area, as well as social facilities for the wider community. Given the right environment and support, there is real potential for DHFC to not only become self-sufficient as a business, but to rise to higher leagues (thereby attracting even bigger crowds from around London and benefiting local businesses). That is before even touching on the benefits of encouraging an interest in sport (the London 2012 Olympics seem like a long time ago now, but here is a clear chance for our local council to embrace the spirit of sport by investing in football at its purest grassroots level).

I'd add that I completely see FOG's point of view: I'm a member of the RSPCA and RSPB, have attended local bat and bird walks in the past, and totally appreciate the importance of providing wild habitats in urban areas. My concern is that no effort is being made to find a solution that would suit all stakeholders. I am also of the view that there is a wealth of green/park spaces within the local area, when you take into account St Frances Park, Dulwich Park, Goose Green, Peckham Rye, Burgess Park (and possibly others I've missed out) - however, there is only one football club, and I would like to see the council publicly acknowledge the importance of preserving that football club's long-term future.

[BrandNewGuy]

As an irregular attendee at DHFC games, I do sympathise with the club, but there are two separate issues here:

1. Should the Council take not just a positive but also a proactive role in helping DHFC? In principle, I think it should. As someone who was active in the Football Supporters? Association, I?ve long argued that small clubs are harmed by them not being seen genuinely as ?community assets?. In Europe, by contrast, many clubs (even huge ones) play at stadiums built and maintained by the local authority. Here, they are regarded just like any other private business. This is regrettable, but Southwark have no obligation to act otherwise and few if any other councils are actively involved in the well-being of their local small clubs.

2. Should the Council stop DHFC from having a new ground? Well, as no concrete proposals have been put forward, apart from the desire to encroach onto MOL, there?s not much for them to discuss. Why don?t Hadley redevelop the ground for DHFC where it is? Oh yes, because they won?t make a massive return on their investment. They?re the latest to try and push the Council into encroaching onto MOL and if they succeed, the financial rewards are huge.

[jonco]

FYI today is the last day of the second part of LBS consultation, online form is here:

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/greendalefields

Anyone wanting to join Friends Of Green Dale Can do so here:

http://www.friendsofgreendale.org.uk/join/

[Sennen]

A post on another thread by a well-known Local Councillor claims that Southwark lets private schools routinely build on Metropolitan Open Land. More than a bit hypocritical if true.

[intexasatthe moment]

To be fair ,a councillor ( well known on the EDF ) also complains that Southwark WONT let a well known school provider build a primary school on MOL .

Not that it's in Southwark's gift anyway .

[Sennen]

The councils argument is that MOL is absolutely safeguarded from private development, to the point that it will let a football club that has been in the area for over 120 years disappear rather than even consider negotiating a compromise. Yet they openly admit that the private schools (who already own much of the Dulwich) can take MOL pretty much as they please. Find this pretty difficult to accept.

[mikeb]

Sennen - please can you tell me why will DHFC be more sustainable on a new site than on its existing site? What will change in its cashflows? I would like to understand why DHFC is unable to balance its books on its current site.

thanks.

[Sennen]

Mikeb,

I genuinely hope that there is someone more closely involved with the club who can give more insight on this than me. My interest is, as an ex-PE teacher who still coaches sport locally, about the loss of the club and the stadium. From the conversations I had at the last consultation I got the impression that the football side of the club is run properly and balances its books. The debt was run up by the mis-management (and I'm being pretty generous by using this phrase) of the associated facilities (bar, gym, car wash etc) by the previous owner who has previous with running down football clubs (Fisher). As crowds have tripled in the last 4 years, it would seem that the club is potentially more sustainable than ever.

Also, staying on it's existing site is just not an option as this has been earmarked for property development by the owners.

[BrandNewGuy]

Sennen Wrote:

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

> Also, staying on it's existing site is just not an

> option as this has been earmarked for property

> development by the owners.

And that's the nub of the problem. The club is only 'threatened' in fact by its current owners who insist on moving it. I agree that that's a conundrum, because the developer wouldn't have bailed out the club otherwise. But blaming the Council for not bowing to the demands of the developer seems a little harsh ? particuarly as the developer has been coy to the point of silence about the nature of the development on the current DHFC site. As I asked before, if Haldey don't lay their cards on the table, what is there to 'negotiate'?

[Sennen]

BrandNewGuy

I can't really disagree with the last part but the council were pretty quick in ruling out any dialogue with the Hadley Group. It's not really a conundrum because ultimately the football pitch will be developed, whether this happens in two years or five. All I'm interested in finding out is if the council has any inclination to help DHFC survive this because at the moment it doesn't seem so. My understanding is that this situation isn't really the clubs fault and that they were sold down the river by King's College a few years ago in what would seem to be an incredibly dodgy property deal.

[milk76]

King's College did not sell the club down the river. The property has a covenant binding it to sports and social use. The only reason that Hadley (and indeed the previous property developers) paid what they did for the site is the gamble that they will be able to break that trust, demolish, and build on the site. All this would depend upon the council breaking policy and giving in to them.

It may well be that the site is unable to make a profit based on a land value of over five million pounds. It can certainly bring in significant revenue however. The carwash lease is a good start. The gym has also recieved offers from private chains over the years to take on the lease if the current owners do not wish to run it. Finally the club income will have risen hundreds of percent over the last decade with its increased popularity.

Hadley may well not profit on the money that they paid for the site, but it can certainly more than cover its running costs. They may threaten to close the facility down. But so long as the covenant holds they can only sell it on to others willing to buy a sports facility. That would me harder and potentially at an bigger loss if they close it down and let it fall into disrepair.

My suspicion is that they will keep it on and enjoy the CSR publicity boost that running a popular community sports facility brings their organisation in the medium term.

Finally in terms of Green Dale. It is amazing that the council have allocated the money to give us access to another big green space locally. Refurbing the astroturf to allow kids access during the daytime in adition to the hundreds of adults who use it in the evenings is just further icing on the cake.

[Sennen]

Milk76

Do you know who King's sold the ground to and at what price? Even after going into administration the previous owners would have walked away with millions.

[mikeb]

@Milk76: this is exactly the point that I'm hoping to clarify. The "market rent" for the site depends on the value which depends on the alternative use. If the restrictive covenant is not overturned then this rent is quite possibly affordable for DHFC. Much as in the thread on the old hospital site, if the club has to compete with the potential value from housing development then clearly it's unaffordable. I would have thought the restrictive covenant is key here.

So far as I understand it, only Green Dale is MOL, the site of DHFC is not. Is that right?

[Sennen]

According to another poster on this thread, the council was happy to overturn the covenant 10 years ago. Why would it be any different now?

[milk76]

James Barber is quite correct. The council would have to have an over riding public interest to justify a change of purpose should they have the desire to.

This seems very unlikely. Hadley gambled that offering an upgraded pitch on Green Dale might constitute that. Now Southwark have earmarked the money themselves to upgrade it, when they get the lease back in two months, Hadley have little to offer in that respect.

Secondy this administration and the local councillors probably have no desire to bail out property dealers.

edit @mikeb no the club is not MOL it is private land.

[mikeb]

Just like the Green Belt private land can still be MOL e.g. Alleyns' school field. Classification here

http://www.london.gov.uk/thelondonplan/policies/3d-10.jsp

The club is OS130 as per this paper

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/10240/cdi16_open_spaces_strategy

More detail on Other Open Space policy here

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/10254/cdl2_saved_southwark_plan

In particular:

"Policy 3.27 ? Other Open Space (OOS)

Development on Other Open Space will only be permitted if it meets the following criteria:

i. It is ancillary to the enjoyment of Other Open Space; and

ii. It is small in scale; and

iii. It does not detract from the prevailing openness of the site or from its character; and

iv. It positively contributes to the setting and quality of the open space; and

v. Where appropriate, it enhances public access to open spaces; or

vi. Land of equivalent or better size and quality is secured within the local catchment area

for similar or enhanced use before development commences, provided that this would not

result in the creation of or an increase in district or local park deficiency as identified in

Appendices 11 and 12. "

[Sennen]

Milk76

Here's another, equally likely scenario. Hadley play the long-game and evict Dulwich Hamlet at the end of next season. They then just sit on the land (which will rise in value) until the furore about the club's demise dies down, grease a few palms and get the covenant overturned. Everyone will be happier and richer, except of course the 1000 fans who regularly attend the football.

[edhistory]

Has this changed since 24 July 2014?

What is known sbout this Isle of Man company?

[mikeb]

Greendale Property Limited is probably just a IoM SPV for Hadley.

No ownership details are available but it's linked to Champion Hill Limited which is another IoM company. Both of these link to 686 LP, a Delaware limited partnership, and to Stricker Properties Limited is based in Gibraltar. No further information is easily available on either of these.

The registered office at Field Place Horsham also appears to be the birthplace of Shelley.

Ultimately, everything probably rolls up to LJ Capital.

https://www.lj-capital.co.uk/team-peter-bennison.html#parent-80

https://www.lj-capital.co.uk/team-Andrew-Williams.html#parent-79

http://www.hadleypropertygroup.com/html/ExecutiveBoard_65.html#andrew-williams

http://www.house-builder.co.uk/issues/index.php?page=article&id=5580&magazine_section=&orig=default

[BrandNewGuy]

Just a quick update. The Friends of Green Dale now have a Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/friendsofgreendale

And you'll find more info on the website:

http://www.friendsofgreendale.org.uk/

The lease on the Green Dale open land (currently held by Hadley Property Group) expires in March, but Southwark Council seems likely to contest an extension of HPG's lease, so watch this space. In the mean time, the Friends of Green Dale continue to support keeping the site pretty much as it is according to their goal: "to protect, conserve and enhance the natural environment of Green Dale for the benefit of wildlife and people".

Please click on the links if you want to get involved and know more.