Jump to content

Planning application submitted for new DHFC stadium


Recommended Posts

According to today's Southwark News, Hadley Property Group has submitted its "final planning application" for a new DHFC stadium on Green Dale. I can't find anything on Southwark Council's website yet and the article states, "The application will now be considered by Southwark Council, which will start its own consultation period in the near future."


http://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/final-plans-new-dulwich-hamlet-stadium-submitted/


Disappointing that Southwark News didn't print the Friends of Green Dale's response to last week's misleading letter from Liam Hickey, yet they printed another letter today attacking FOGD's position ? from someone who states quite incorrectly, "Perhaps a few facts may help to bring a little perspective. The stadium will not extend beyond where the current pitch actually sits." Oh yes it will!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The application's just appeared on the Southwark Council site:

http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9565663


Redevelopment of Dulwich Hamlet Football Club to include demolition of existing buildings and the erection of new stadium including playing pitch, clubhouse and stand, 155 residential dwellings in a series of buildings up to 6 storeys, associated car parking and cycle parking, multi-use games area (MUGA), enhancements to existing open space at Green Dale Fields, the creation of new public linear park and the relocation of telecommunication equipment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

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

> According to today's Southwark News, Hadley

> Property Group has submitted its "final planning

> application" for a new DHFC stadium on Green Dale.


Except they haven't. The applications's been made by Bilfinger BVA (or, rather, GVA Grimley Ltd which, for reasons undisclosed, prefers to use an alias) on behalf of Greendale Property Company Limited, which is, I believe, the very same offshore outfit as the freeholder. Why they've chosen this moment to peel back a layer of distransparency isn't clear. Perhaps it's because the likes of Farrells, Savills and all the other hangers-on might not have played ball with an outfit that has (at least on paper) less than no money. Or perhaps it's because it keeps HPG (and thus DHFC) well away from the parts of the redevelopment that might threaten to be profitable.


For those that don't find it fun to pick their way through the fragmentized chaos of the council's site, I've stitched the main application document back together. I think this is OK because it's a public document and, besides, there's no copyright notice on it.

That may be because any notice might have appeared at the end and the financial viability stuff, which would have appeared at the end, is so unutterably confidential that we're not allowed to see what they're trying to get the council to believe. But I'm happy to take full responsibility for that and, should they choose to let me know that they'd prefer me to have noticed what they've hidden, I can make it disappear just as well as they can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Burbage Wrote:

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


> The applications's been made

> by Bilfinger BVA (or, rather, GVA Grimley Ltd

> which, for reasons undisclosed, prefers to use an

> alias) on behalf of Greendale Property Company

> Limited, which is, I believe, the very same

> offshore outfit as the freeholder.


Offshore freeholder?


Will the Budget 2016 Red Book paras 2.95 and 2.96 apply?


John K

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, they aren't there yet, which is extraordinary. The list of documents on Southwark's planning site refers to seven 'chapters', but only five are there, so maybe the stadium plans are in the last two chapters. The application details went briefly offline this morning, but there are no more documents there now than there were yesterday.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

jacks09 Wrote:

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

> struggling to open the docs - whats the proposed

> capacity and seating arrangements? Covers on all

> sides?


The documents we're currently allowed to see don't have any details about the stadium. In compensation, however, there's some lyrical prose about Farrell's wonderful Vision, and some lovely artistic impressions of how elegantly the 155 residential units will ornament the space they'll be replacing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the case officer has confirmed (see below) that the application is currently invalid as all the necessary documents have not yet been received. I'm surprised that a proposed development of this scale would drop the ball with regard to the basics.


"Application 16/AP/1232 for the redevelopment of Dulwich Hamlet FC is currently invalid as we have not received all of the required documents from the applicant. Following receipt of these and validation we will be then be starting formal public consultation. Please no not rely on the current information on the Council?s website as due to the number and size of documents submitted it is taking our administration team a significant amount of time to upload them. I would recommend that you wait until formal consultation has begun."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been trying to log on to Southwark's planning website for the last few weeks for a different application. I usually get this, whichever phone or computer I use to access the site:


http://i65.tinypic.com/685vr9.png


155 dwellings seems excessive for a plot of land the size of a football pitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Blackcurrant - you need to think in three dimensions: they are planning 6 stories, using the goddawful King's nursing accommodation as a precedent (btw, how did _that_ get built?).


But you're right in your general point: this is going to change the area completely, including the "open" aspect of the remaining Metropolitan Open Land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of the key documents - the justification for the whole thing, contained in section 6. From a quick look through, the primary justification for building on MOL is the contention that the club is financially unsustainable in its current form, yet I have not so far found any accounts or financial statements in the submission that support this (frankly surprising) assertion.


http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!s5yeW%2bePQpbhAWzOWHVWkg%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I've redone the technical drawing to calculate the ground taken by the proposed development using the original data from the submitted planning application. Where my last drawings were as accurate as possible given the total lack of dimensions offered in the public consultations, these are totally accurate to Hadley's/Farrell's own drawings.


The alarming figures are:


Total Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) taken in new stadium development - 8121 square meters

Area needed beyond existing astroturf pitch - 2733 square meters (one third of total MOL needed)

Area of MOL to be built upon (covered terraces, infrastructure, 2.4m concrete wall) -1282 square meters.


This final figure equates to more than 16 average UK house sizes built on MOL.


I've again attached a representation of the drawing to illustrate the figures.


I urge local residence to object to this planning application by leaving a comment on the Southwark planning page, and also by writing into the Planning department to object.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I don't know how spoillable food can be used as evidence in whatever imaginary CSI scenario you are imagining.  And yes, three times. One purchase was me, others were my partner. We don't check in with each other before buying meat. Twice we wrote it off as incidental. But now at three times it seems like a trend.   So the shop will be hearing from me. Though they won't ever see me again that's for sure.  I'd be happy to field any other questions you may have Sue. Your opinion really matters to me. 
    • If you thought they were off, would it not have been a good idea to have kept them rather than throwing them away, as evidence for Environmental Health or whoever? Or indeed the shop? And do you mean this is the third time you have bought chicken from the same shop which has been off? Have you told the shop? Why did you buy it again if you have twice previously had chicken from there which was off? Have I misunderstood?
    • I found this post after we just had to throw away £14 of chicken thighs from Dugard in HH, and probably for the 3rd time. They were roasted thoroughly within an hour of purchase. But they came out of the oven smelling very woofy.  We couldn't take a single bite, they were clearly off. Pizza for dinner it is then. Very disappointing. 
    • interesting read.  We're thinking about the same things for our kids in primary school as well. One thing I don't understand about Charter ED is whether they stream / set kids based on ability.  I got the impression from an open evening that it is done a little as possible. All i could find on-line was this undated letter - https://www.chartereastdulwich.org.uk/_site/data/files/users/18/documents/9473A8A3547CCCD39DBC4A55CA1678DC.pdf?pid=167 For the most part, we believe in mixed ability teaching and do not stream in Year 7 or Year 8. The only exceptions to this are that we have a small nurture class for Maths. This is a provision for students who scored lower than 85 in their SATS exams and is designed to support them to acquire the skills to access the learning in mainstream class. We do not have nurture classes for any other subjects. We take a more streamed - though not a setted - approach in Maths and Science from Year 9 onwards. though unsure if this is still accurate reflection of policy, and unsure of difference between streaming and setting.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...