Exhibition of the proposed redevelopment at DHFC

[taper]

The Friends of DKH Woods are now arguing that Hadley's plans put local children at risk of getting cancer.

[ruffers]

The thing I am unclear on is how the club, which apparently runs at an unsustainable loss at the moment, will suddenly become viable through this move.

Talking to the Bellendend (Hadley PR) chap last night he said that they are exploring different business models to make that happen but, thus far, no concrete business plan has been put forward or identified. The plans look fine to me in principle from a nice planning perspective (not perfect but OK) but without that Business Plan I'd be reluctant to just approve.

[LJC56]

Went to this exhibition yesterday. A lack of business plan is just one symptom of the holes in this plan. No traffic management plan has yet been developed but talking with the folk at the exhibition, they are not planning on providing parking but encouraging fans to attend by public transport. Given ED is on the same line as a another football club, Millwall, how will that work? Will schedules of games be coordinated so the Millwall and ED are not playing the same day? What about the many weekends of engineering work or is everyone assuming that will stop when London Bridge is complete? There seems to be some provision for away fans coaches but also someone said that coaches would wait 'somewhere etc' unspecified.

No detail on how much affordable housing or what size units will be offered as affordable housing. It depends evidently on the business plan. I can just imagine that once it comes down to it "regretfully " Hadley will find that it can't provide as many affordable units as it hoped. Secondly, will the affordable units be all the least desirable ones as happens as so many other developments?

[thedukeofmonclar]

I?m a resident living near to the Hamlet football ground. Yesterday I went to Dulwich Hamlet and saw the presentation of new plans for development by Hadley Property group. They still want to build six storey blocks of flats on the pitch and move the stadium onto Green Dale Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) next door. While I love DHFC I also love the Green Dale.

There was a terrible lack of detail or dimensions in the presentation, particularly about how much MOL was going to be used for the new stadium. Following this disappointment I went home and drew up the stadium myself, following easily accessible online guidelines about pitch size and standing terraces for fans. Hadley's architect at Farrells gave me the names of the sites to check. Here?s the result:

The minimum pitch size for anyone playing in the Ryman league is 100m x 64m. Add to this the minimum ball run off around sidelines and goal lines of 2.25m, a radial walkway of 1.2m. Add to this room for 3013 standing on terraces (I used the maximum allowance of 47 people per 10m2), which works out as a tiny 2m deep terrace of five 400mm steps all the way round. Then the wall. This makes the minimum size for the new stadium site 75.3m x 111.3m.

Farrells the architects have positioned the proposed stadium at an angle to the existing astro-turf pitch in order to create a route onto Greendale from the southern path. The stadium clubhouse will be built on the current goal of the club and a corner of the pitch also cuts into the old grounds. The proposed stadium must be surrounded by a 1.83m concrete or similar material wall, not shown in the presentation.

I pasted my drawing of the minimum possible stadium over the O.S. map of the area. I was then able to calculate and compare the areas of MOL in question. I must remind all who read this again, these area measurements are my own calculations. Not from Hadley or Farrells, as none have been released. The drawing is attached to scale.

Area of minimum new stadium (not clubhouse): 8380m

Area of current astro-turf MOL: 6000m

Area of total MOL used in proposal: 7967m

Area of MOL astro-turf used: 5149m

Area of virgin MOL used: 2818m

Area of astro-turf returned to green pathway: 851m

So more than a third of the proposed stadium site is untouched Green Dale fields. Hadley?s claim that more astro-turf is being returned to nature is clearly false. I urge people to remember, the atro-turf is designated MOL, a public space and an important part of the diverse, open and well-loved Green Dale.

Do not let Hadley hold our club to ransom, ?Your MOL or your club!? Let us see a proposal for a new stadium and housing on the site Hadley own rather than on our MOL.

Ref: FA Green Guide: stadium paths, walls and terrace calculations.

http://www.safetyatsportsgrounds.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/green-guide.pdf

Ref: Ryman league pitch size and stadium capacity info.

http://thepyramid.info/misc/ground.htm

[thedukeofmonclar]

I've just revised the drawing to include the radiused corners of the proposed stadium shown in the presentation visuals.It doesn't cut very much off.

Revised area figures are:

Area of proposed stadium 8353m

Area of total MOL taken 7900m

Area of astro-turf used 5143m

Area of virgin MOL used 2763m

Area of astro-turf returned 857m

Still over a third of suggested stadium land is not astro-turf.

Also attached is a section view of the pitch, run off, terraces and wall, showing the proposed 18m cut into the non astro-turf bank to the North and the requirement to impose a 2.4m (8')concrete wall and terracing.

[edhistory]

Excellent work.

We now have a benchmark against which we can judge the accuracy of any plans the Hadley group utter.

Will the authorised people within Southwark Council agree to the enclosure of MOL and transfer of ownership of the land to a foreign property development company?

John K

[taper]

Is there any assessment on how much land will be brought into public use from the current football pitch?

[taper]

EDHistory

Is it right that Dulwich Hamlet once played on Greendale, prior to moving to the site of the current stadium?

I wonder too whether the old training pitch (where Sainsbury's now sits) was ever MOL?

[BrandNewGuy]

taper Wrote:

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

> Is there any assessment on how much land will be

> brought into public use from the current football

> pitch?

This snap of the exhibition model shows very little. The proposed stadium is on the left and the flats on the right, with "Football Club Square" and the five-a-side pitch (which will not be free to use, apparently) in the middle.

 

[taper]

That looks like quite a bit to me. But hard to tell. Perhaps there's some quid pro quo here after all.

Isn't the big issue here over-development and the impact that will have on traffic etc? I've heard very little about that.

Greendale seems to be a bit of a side show to me given that the large majority of the stadium's footprint appears to be on a well developed, rarely used and unlovely bit of Greendale.

[BrandNewGuy]

It's very little public amenity space, really.

And the most important point to bear in mind that all of Green Dale fields (including the astroturf pitch) are Metropolitan Open Land, which is a planning designation as strong as that of Green Belt. To allow the building of a stadium where there is current an astroturf pitch would be a hugely dangerous precedent to set for the future of MOL all over London.

And Green Dale is loved by many local people, even this corner :-) In fact, at the exhibition, a small lad asked the property guy standing next to the model what the stadium was. The guy told him and the lad said, "That's rubbish! Where are we going to have a kick around?" A valid point, given that the public availability of the proposed five-a-side pitch will be constrained, from what we were told, by booking it and paying for it. So that's a loss of local public amenity, never mind the open space which would be lost for good on Green Dale.

[Aristide]

Gosh, I'm really excited by the linear park (path) that they are proposing. I imagine that there will be a fence/ wall behind the goal so an even more appealing walk from Jags to DKH.

This is such a painfully blatant case of development of public land for private profit that you could be excused for thinking we were in Lambeth.

[almost peckham]

The model maker seems to have planted a whole bunch of trees down the road that Sainsbury's trucks deliver through - the bit of road between DHFC and the supermarket.

I went along to the exhibition last week and was struck by the lack of communicative value in much of the presentation - especially the drawings/CGIs. I'm quite used to looking at working drawings and presentations but the ones on show were pretty incoherent. A lack of orientation, common scale, stretched perspectives, and wilful misrepresentation all combined to offer gloss over content. An example was the perspective view of greendale field from the greendale path side showing what looked like a stadium about half a mile away, all through forced fish-eye perspective. I'm grateful to thedukeofmoclar for the CAD scaling of the pitch as none of that information was clearly available at the presentation. There were some pretty spurious claims in the texts too. One referred to the 'underused road to the south of the present stadium that forms an unsatisfactory boundary to the houses on Burrow road'. Its not underused - must be hundreds of schoolkids, cyclists, dog walkers and joggers going through there every day. And I wonder if anyone has asked the residents of Burrow road what they think.

The proposals have nothing to do with the survival of DHFC but development of commonly available land for private profit. Development creeps - Sainsbury's started it here, on the other corner of greendale (with wanley road) a four-storey block filled the entire site where there was a smaller two-storey building. Setting these precedents means that they might one day join up. I don't follow DHFC but want them to survive - I last went in about 1980, but the football club does not need to expand out of its current site. In fact, one of the display panels made the point that the current DHFC plot is too big for their needs. Much could be done by reconfiguring the current stadium - re-orienting the entrance etc.

I'm also concerned about what the term 'public space' really means in these contexts. If the linear park (footpath) is merged with st. francis park does the whole lot go under lock and key (as st francis park does) with no real accountability for access?

I think I'm rambling somewhat! Apologies. Hadley should not be allowed to build on open land regardless of the various social leverages they are trying to apply.

[Aristide]

hear hear

[Old Bob]

Having read this (theduke...) and other messages about the development of the ground and considered these alongside those from the club about the contributions that football club are making to the community I am minded to think that John Stuart Mill was probably on the right lines when he proposed the greatest benefit to the greatest number as a good starting point for a moral argument. The loss of - I can't be bothered to work out the actual surface area - of a piece of urban land that isn't much used, against the human good that the football club seems to achieving - both in local terms - look at the number of local projects supported or initiated by the club - and globally - with the refugee work that is being done - well, it's a small amount of land against a huge amount of good.

[thedukeofmonclar]

taper Wrote:

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

> That looks like quite a bit to me. But hard to

> tell. Perhaps there's some quid pro quo here

> after all.

> Greendale seems to be a bit of a side show to me

> given that the large majority of the stadium's

> footprint appears to be on a well developed,

> rarely used and unlovely bit of Greendale.

The presentation visuals did show lots of green but this is not the 'giving more that we're taking' swap Hadley have suggested. They've added a wood on the Sainsbury's access road which is a fiction, there are 'private gardens' accessed from the blocks of flats and a much smaller sport cage, again serving the flats really, and there is a 'linear park' built on the current public path, which equates to trees and lighting running along the new private road. This again is landscaping for the luxury flats.

Where has this idea that the astro-turf is "well developed" come from? Hadley. They did try this line a year ago but it didn't hold water. They didn't mention anything about 'previously developed MOL' in this recent presentation.

What happens if Hadley get planning to build on the current pitch but the proposal to build on MOL is turned down again, like the last attempt? Dulwich Hamlet IS a sustainable club, but it is in the hands of property developers. It is Hadley who have told us our club is not sustainable.I'm amazed how some of the fans have swallowed the myth and agree that building blocks of flats on the pitch is a good idea. Moving to a much smaller footprint stadium is a bad idea. Not turning our backs on the current grounds should be an instinct. Not risking the future of the club on a planning application that has failed already is more like common sense.

[mikeb]

I echo the Duke's comments. DHFC has higher average attendance than many Conference Premier clubs. It would be interesting to know why this does not translate into DHFC being sustainable, particularly given that its ground is deliberately protected against redevelopment through the restrictive covenant and 106 agreement. By implication, it would mean the rest of the league must be on the brink.

I don't think a "linear park" (WTF??) or hard-to-use 5-a-side cage is a fair swap for Greendale. I mean, with St Francis's Park, I don't think developers have a good track record of producing quality public space on this site - I can't think of a more miserable park in South London.

[taper]

The ground as currently built is an albatross around the club's neck. The bar, gym and squash courts in particular. The club very nearly went bust a few years ago because it couldn't pay its energy bill. It's more secure now. But a scenario where the club is fan owned and occupies a more modern and sustainable ground is very attractive to fans.

[mikeb]

Taper - I admire your dedication to the cause, and perhaps we can even discuss in person at a home match. But I'd like to see more information as to why the club is not sustainable in its current form.

I know the history of the electricity bills, the failed attempts to redevelop in 2003 and 2010 and I suspect that this was due mainly to mismanagement and / or fraud (some of which Hadley has fixed). But in the absence of more detail on the current and historical cashflows, I think the burden of proof is on both the club and Hadley to demonstrate that the club will be sustainable in a new site.

Is the current ground structurally unsound? Does it leak money somewhere? Setting aside the match day income and bar profits, the bar, gym and squash courts, car park and car wash should in principle be assets that bring in additional revenue.

[taper]

Cause? I have no cause.

[milk76]

The club is not unsustainable in it's current form. This myth is the carefully orchestrated result of a dozen years of ownership by property developers, interested in it's long term failure, as a land banking exercise.

A car wash was installed, and charged minimal rent, that used the club's water and power! It cost the club tens of thousands rather than making them!

A gym and courts making a net pittance for the club. This has received at least three significant buy out offers from national chains that I have been told about, including David Lloyd, over the last ten years. All declined but one can only imagine the monthly rent they would pay for a facility of this size in this area.

Astroturf pitch rented from the council allowed to run into such disrepair that it can no longer pass health and safety for juniors events. That revenue cut off.

An utter intransigence to switching from a hugely costly to maintain real turf pitch to 4G. Not to mention that the turf can only be played on a handful of hours each week so cannot be rented out to others during the weekdays. Tens of thousands out, tens of thousands not coming in.

I have watched this deliberate enforced decline ever since I moved close by in 1996 with growing incredulity. The site may well not be worth the 5 million that Hadley paid for it as a sports and educational facility. But it can certainly be a rather profitable ongoing concern.

Please do not take at face value spin from a group that are hunting for an eight or nine figure short term payday.

[Alex K]

milk76 Wrote:

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

> The club is not unsustainable in it's current

> form. This myth is the carefully orchestrated

> result of a dozen years of ownership by property

> developers, interested in it's long term failure,

> as a land banking exercise.

>

> A car wash was installed, and charged minimal

> rent, that used the club's water and power! It

> cost the club tens of thousands rather than making

> them!

>

> A gym and courts making a net pittance for the

> club. This has received at least three significant

> buy out offers from national chains that I have

> been told about, including David Lloyd, over the

> last ten years. All declined but one can only

> imagine the monthly rent they would pay for a

> facility of this size in this area.

>

> Astroturf pitch rented from the council allowed to

> run into such disrepair that it can no longer pass

> health and safety for juniors events. That revenue

> cut off.

>

> An utter intransigence to switching from a hugely

> costly to maintain real turf pitch to 4G. Not to

> mention that the turf can only be played on a

> handful of hours each week so cannot be rented out

> to others during the weekdays. Tens of thousands

> out, tens of thousands not coming in.

>

> I have watched this deliberate enforced decline

> ever since I moved close by in 1996 with growing

> incredulity. The site may well not be worth the 5

> million that Hadley paid for it as a sports and

> educational facility. But it can certainly be a

> rather profitable ongoing concern.

>

> Please do not take at face value spin from a group

> that are hunting for an eight or nine figure short

> term payday.

The simplest answer to a question is likely to be the true one.

So much good sense in your post, milk76 -- follow the money, follow the money. Run the club into the ground, sell the land.

[Blackcurrant]

I was shocked by the sheer scale of the new building, which remind of Eastern European housing projects. They will change the character of area from low-rise housing & green space to dense, overdeveloped urban.

Use of the ludicrous phrase linear park" tells me everything I need to know about the developers.

I agree with comments about the cynical management strategy used to corrode support for the current configuration.

[taper]

edhistory Wrote:

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

> Excellent work.

>

> We now have a benchmark against which we can judge

> the accuracy of any plans the Hadley group utter.

>

> Will the authorised people within Southwark

> Council agree to the enclosure of MOL and transfer

> of ownership of the land to a foreign property

> development company?

>

> John K

An awful lot of Southwark's MOL is enclosed. Nunhead Reservoir, Dulwich College Playing fields, Honor Oak Allotments. MOL designation does not mean open to the public.

[edhistory]

Missed the point?

This open land (MOL) appears to be owned by the (Burghers of the) London Borough of Southwark.

Has this changed?

It is at risk of having the ownership transferred to Hadley (enclosed).

John K