Exhibition of the proposed redevelopment at DHFC

[mikeb]

John K's point still stands even if ownership of the new enclosed ground transfers to some sort of supporters' trust or even if it remains owned by Southwark Council and rented to DHFC.

[taper]

I'm not sure what his point is. I understand Greendale is owned by Southwark, but currently leased to the club (for 15 years, not sure when this runs out). Formally, I don't think there's any right to public access, although it is accessible via gaps in the fence at various points. It's an odd and anachronistic situation, which requires a solution.

[Aristide]

taper Wrote:

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

> 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.

That is true, but the important point is that it is Open Land and not Builtupon Land, it affects the character of the area.

Once built upon it is lost forever, i would love to build upon Dulwich College playing fields but even if Dulwich College became somehow 'unsustainable i somewhat doubt i would be allowed to build upon it.

This scheme must be resisted, if the club had gone bust and not bought as a potential development perhaps it would probably already be fan owned!

[taper]

So the issue isn't public use, it's the visual utility of Greendale and the question of over-development? That's a fair enough point, but it's good to be clear what the primary purpose of MOL is.

[mikeb]

Some guidance on MOL from the Mayor of London / London Assembly here:

https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan/current-london-plan/london-plan-chapter-7/policy-717-metropolitan

[taper]

Thanks. Very useful.

I note:

"Development that involves the loss of MOL in return for the creation of new open space elsewhere will not be considered appropriate."

So may quid pro quo point earlier doesn't hold

"Appropriate development should be limited to small scale structures to support outdoor open space uses and minimise any adverse impact on the openness of MOL"

So on my reading a stadium could be appropriate.

It seems to me the big issue isn't building on the astro-turf bit of the MOL so much as developing and building on the current football pitch.

[mikeb]

Building a 2.4m high wall ( http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/file.php?5,file=209981 ) which restricts access and public visibility would seem to me to have an adverse impact on the 'openness' of MOL; building a stadium (external wall, a stand, a bar, other ancillary buildings?) does not seem like a "small scale structure".

There is probably a load of case law on this and it would be interesting to hear more from a disinterested developer / property lawyer.

[Edited to add: this isn't really about the precise legal interpretation of some local authority guidelines...]

[pearl1]

The model provided for the consultation left a lot to be desired. The flats appear to be built to the same height as Sainsburys when in fact (confirmed by Hadley's representative) they will actually be two stories taller. Parking spaces for only half the flats when there is no nearby on-road parking is ridiculous and when it was pointed out there was no parking for supporters or coaches (for teams visiting DHFC) Hadley's man told us that coaches would park in the disabled bays!!!!

[almost peckham]

"Appropriate development should be limited to small scale structures to support outdoor open space uses and minimise any adverse impact on the openness of MOL"

I'm not sure a stadium can be classed a small scale structure by any measure. Almost by definition a stadium encloses and nullifies outdoor open space and its uses rather than supporting it's uses. I know words can be slippery things but I would have thought the definition above implies something like a small cricket pavilion as a maximum and maybe something like a bird hide or nature hut at the smaller end of the scale in other contexts.

[mikeb]

This is a prescient post from 2014 http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/dulwich-hamlet-fc-2013-2014-season-chat-rumours-reports.310974/page-59 (the post on footballwebpages quoted in the first post, not the following commentary)

[thedukeofmonclar]

mikeb Wrote:

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

> This is a prescient post from 2014

> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/dulwich-haml

> et-fc-2013-2014-season-chat-rumours-reports.310974

> /page-59

The fans on the urban75 forum in 2014 seem to have been in agreement with most of the posts on this thread. Namely that Hadley are winning fans hearts with some property developer small change and they are not to be trusted in delivering a replacement stadium and that MOL is unlikely to ever get planning for a stadium.

The locals voices on here seems to be consistent in saying they want the club to stay where it is and that it's an important part of the area.

What's the result of the DHST poll? Has there ever been an alternative to the Hadley plan suggested by the DHST? We seem to just be getting one side of the story from Hadley loud and clear but no alternatives.

[taper]

I don't think the results of the poll have been published yet. And the DHST is reserving its position at the moment.

[BrandNewGuy]

DHST hasn't polled the members yet. The committee asked for informal views by March 4th and will be putting out further info about the poll soon.

It's a tricky one, because there are lots of aspects of HPG's plans that affect the club that don't simply come down to "Are you for or against the current plans?" There is also the matter as to whether a response is needed to the current woolly proposals or to wait for the actual planning application to be submitted.

[taper]

I think DH supporters would be happy with any solution that would secure financially the club and ideally leave it fan-owned. London is littered with clubs that have just disappeared. Fisher of course is the most relevant example given its past ownership and where that led.

[BrandNewGuy]

I've long believed that one fundamental problem with English (and Scottish) professional and non-league football is that its Victorian heritage means most people see them as private businesses run by local (or now international) tycoons rather than sports associations or genuine community-based organisations. Indeed, that is how they are structured, but there are better ways of doing it to avoid the problems of ownership and asset-stripping ? the German and Dutch sports association model means all locals have a chance to participate in the club (at all sorts of sports), with the First XI being the top of the pyramid, as it were, rather than a separate local business. My European friends would ask why the council aren't looking to build a stadium and sports facilities rather than leaving it to property developers... But that would take a completely different approach to local government in this country, which is another matter altogether.

[Burbage]

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

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

> But that would take a

> completely different approach to local government

> in this country, which is another matter

> altogether.

Not entirely. Dartford FC's stadium is owned by the council, as is the land beneath it, so it's possible. Moreover, the Olympic Dividend (for which we're still paying) was expressly intended to deliver a munificent boost to the world of community-driven grassroots sports, and what better legacy could there be than a Jowell Memorial Stadium to recognise in perpetuity the tireless work of that selfless helmsperson? Given a new stadium would cost just one year's worth of Southwark's contribution to the Olympic Precept, it would be small change compared to the ?1.3bn Olymicopolis which, to the trained or untrained eye, has yet to deliver so much as a kickabout.

Obviously, the current site would be unsuitable, as it's very unclear who owns the land and, in any case, it's currently leased to a company with no track-record of stadium management, no money to build one and, as far as I can tell, little chance of producing any acceptable plans to do so.

Happily, there are plenty of alternatives. For example, there's a fervid discussion elsethread debating why a cemetery should and shouldn't be used as a place to bury people. It seems to me that a new stadium (which is mostly open space if you look at it the right way) with a demountable pitch could be the solution that would suit all parties and give the council a prime opportunity to leverage some synergies in the pursuit of value.

[Aristide]

surely if the current site is unsuitable for any other uses than a football club then no matter the ownership, there will be a football club on it.

Excuse me if this has already been discussed but is there any mileage in getting the club listed as a community asset, it has (partially) worked for the half moon and the Nags Head pubs.

[taper]

It was listed as a community asset I think, just prior to Hadley buying the site. The site could be used for anything you want it to be used for. The issue really is what's best for the club. I believe Greendale was where the club played until the 1930s.

[BrandNewGuy]

It is indeed already listed as an Asset of Community Value. Moreover, its community value is also covered in a sense by the 'restrictive covenant' on the use of that land for anything other than a football/sports club.

[thedukeofmonclar]

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

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

> It is indeed already listed as an Asset of

> Community Value. Moreover, its community value is

> also covered in a sense by the 'restrictive

> covenant' on the use of that land for anything

> other than a football/sports club.

I don't think Dulwich Hamlet is an Asset of Community Value. It was granted it but then it was taken away again as the club was insolvent at the time of application. The trust has the option of applying again but hasn't for some reason.

The web link is http://dhst.org.uk/about/trust-activities/trustandground/

[BrandNewGuy]

Ah, many thanks. Though of course other bodies could apply...

"To nominate an asset to be listed as an Asset of Community Value by the local authority, you must be locally connected to the area and:

be a community interest group: i.e. a legally constituted organisation such as a charity, a company limited by guarantee that does not distribute profits amongst its members, a Community Benefit Society that does not distribute profits amongst its members or a Community Interest Company or

be a Parish Council or

be a Neighbourhood Forum or

be an unincorporated group with 21 members or more people who appear on the local electoral register."

[jay66]

Just letting people know that the Friends of DKH Wood are putting together a list of resources relating to the Hadley / Green Dale / DHFC development on MOL. This new section of the website is being added to as more relevant documents are found. Please email [email protected] with any missing documentation, links or suggestions.

The link is here: http://www.friendsofdkhwood.org/greendale/

[mikeb]

To follow Jay66's post, the s106 agreement I got from Kings is available on their website. I believe that this contains the restrictive covenant on the stadium land. I would be interested in views from any disinterested property lawyers / developers as to any implications for this for a change of use.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4Ht_hAPixkZM0xZM1dkdWJqbmc/view

The 2003 appeal notice looks interesting particularly para 43, which comes to the question I have raised repeatedly: why is DHFC not sustainable in its current location and what would change in a new location that would improve this? Also I note that average crowds are now 3x what they were back then.

[jay66]

Two leases also up there: one from 1990 and one from 1994:

http://www.friendsofdkhwood.org/greendale/green-dale-as-southwark-land/

Thanks to mikeb for sharing

[Amanda1979]

I am a little late to the debate on this but as a resident of Abbotswood Road, and a mother who's child goes to nursery at Mother Goose on Greendale, the proposals concern me.

Someone has mentioned the lack of discussion regarding traffic impact.

The photo of the planned proposal seems to show lots of green added in but where are all the access roads for Sainbury's the stadium and the housing estate that is already there?

The planned flats... one of the reasons the area is so nice is because of the openess of the area, how is it going to impact the skyline.

I use the footpath from Abbotswood Road to Greendale (running alongside the astro pitch) every morning and evening for the nursery run. Currently it is a pleasant start and end to the day. Being in Zone 2 and still having the sounds of nature are lovely.

One of the reasons we chose the nursery we did is because is has lots of open space around it. I know pollution is high all over London but being near fields has got to have some positive impact.

If the planning was approved and went ahead then the initial construction phase wound surely damage more land the the finished stadium footprint as all the building materials, vehicles etc will need to be stored somewhere and access the site. Not to mention the noise and disruption to the nursery, primary school(s) and residents in the area.

While I have never been to the stadium and find the increased traffic in the area on match days inconvenient, not to mention the noise when you are trying to settle a baby, I appreciate it's value and plan to support the club by attending with my son when he is older. What I don't understand, if there are all the issues with the club building etc (and having visited the gym etc I this the facilities are awful) is why they are not just using the existing footprint and developing that. I guess that will come down to money.

The amenities in East Dulwich are already stretched... anyone trying to get on a train at East Dulwich station to London Bridge at peak time will know this.

I accept that it would be good to have more affordable housing in East Dulwich, we would love to be able to upgrade to something bigger, but the flats are unlikely to be reasonably priced, I mean why would they be given the zone 2 location.