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.

Whilst it is a much better route, College Road is a private road owned by the College. I don't think working with the council to facilitate children's cycling to school is part of their charitable mission - maybe they would even start levying tolls on cyclists...

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.

http://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2014/02/connecting-brixton-to-the-london-overground-line-petition-launched-to-reopen-east-brixton-station/ The station does look a little precarious ...

Burbage Hadley says that they are "committed securing a sustainable base for DHFC" which to me just sounds like they are trying to secure the development of the Metropolitan Open Land for a new ground for DHFC so that they can develop the existing site for housing. I suspect that their main hope is to make a lot of money, not that DHFC becomes a self-sustaining operation. I would be surprised if they hang around at all after they have secured the two planning permissions required, in fact they may even cash in their profit at that point, before development. With the development in the bag I think they would happily hand over the club (and the ground) to some sort of supporters trust and walk away. However, if it becomes clear that neither the MOL designation nor the restrictive covenant on the existing ground can or should be overturned, then I also think Hadley will move on to new opportunities. Perhaps Matt Rimmer has developed a true love of Dulwich and football (following his earlier career as property development consultant and freelance writer) but I'm pretty sure this isn't shared by Hadley's HK backers. I think the onus is on Hadley and the Club to demonstrate that it is in the public interest for Southwark to decrease the amount of Metropolitan Open Land and overturn very carefully thought-through restrictive covenants, including proof that the club can be financially viable afterwards.

(Before I start, let me note I am a supporter and a regular visitor to Tuscany) Does anyone know what the operating profit is of the club before any rent or interest? The acounts available at Companies House are abbreviated and only show that Dulwich Hamlet Football Club Limited made a loss in 2014 of about ?26,000. Oddly, the Annual Return for July 2015 still shows Nick McCormack as director and majority owner of the club. I thought Hadley had completed their acquisition by then? With an average crowd this year of over 1,200 this should be bringing in c. ?200,000 (23 matches, ?10 entrance, discounted by 25% for concessions). The bar must surely be profitable as well. And there are other income streams attaching to the club and its site. Does anyone know how much the players get paid? Or Gavin Rose? I'm not interested in profitability after paying rent or other charges to Hadley - these are effectively just shareholder payments. The "market level" of rent for the ground depends on what it can be used for, so to assume that its alternative use is development land, and that therefore rent is high and that therefore the club is not sustainable on the current side, is a circular argument and begs the question. If you were to start the rental valuation by noting that the site can only be used for sporting or social purposes, as per the restrictive covenant, then its rent will be much lower. It is really important to get these facts straight before considering the redevelopment. Hadley are trying to persuade the council to set aside (1) the Metropolitan Open Land designation and (2) the restrictive covenant on the existing site. If they are successful then Hadley will build probably >100 flats (maybe?) which could be worth over ?50m. If at the end of this the club is still not viable then we as a community will have lost out while Hadley makes out.

not sure there is much of a brain at the centre of this ...

I fear we are now off topic, but I thought the bravery of Mr Cox's family in trying the 'water' was commendable, with "success" apparently being defined as "not dying". Maybe they were after a cure for 'Barrennefs': https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zY1hAAAAcAAJ&lpg=PA286&ots=wbLS1rNOHf&dq=%22dulwich%20waters%22&pg=PA286#v=onepage&q=%22dulwich%20waters%22&f=false

I can't find a map of the southern extension to the London Ring Main on the web, though as John says Thames Water may be able to help. The list of streets below was posted on the forum in 2008 in an alarmist post and presumably came from a leaflet at the time Beechdale Road Fairmount Road Arodene Road Helix Road Leander Road Arlington Road Brailsford Road Dulwich Road Half Moon Lane Carver Road Ruskin Walk Village way East Dulwich Grove (Village End only) Gilkes Crescent Calton Avenue Townley Road Dovercourt Road Beauval Road Landcroft Road Rodwell Road Heber Road Cyrena Road Crystal Palace Road Landells RoadBarry Road Underhill Road Upland Road Forest Hill Road Dovedale Road Shelbury Road Scutari Road Mundania Road Homestall Road A straight line from Honor Oak reservoir to Brixton pumping station would look something like the attached, but given the length, small changes north / south for the start / finish move the line a lot. And it seems that the tunnel didn't quite follow a straight line e.g. see fig 3 on page 20 of this, which shows the route meandering slightly as it passes under Brockwell Park https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/bitstream/10044/1/14156/6/Quarterly%20Journal%20of%20Engineering%20Geology%20and%20Hydrogeology_46_2_2013.pdf Apparently the tunnel was 4.85k long vs 4.68k as a straight line, so not far off. Given the main is 45m deep and immensely strong, I don't really think there is anything to worry about, compared with more likely movement from clay shrinkage from nearby trees, general subsidence etc.

The main Effra Branch Sewer passes along Lordship Lane but I don't think it goes down Pellatt Road. Maybe there is another sewer underneath Pellatt Road, probably only a minor one though. Courtesy of John K, I have some detailed maps which are way too large to upload. These show the Effra Branch Sewer as it heads NE from Dulwich Village (junction with Court Lane) over fields to join Lordship Lane just north of Elm House i.e. roughly where Colwell Street joins Lordship Lane; on the way, it crosses what is now Townley Road roughly with Beauval Road. The sewer then follows Lordship Lane past Blackwater Cotttage before crossing Lordship Lane at North Cross Road to head NE to up with East Dulwich Road just past Crystal Palace Road and then heading off to Nunhead. Attached maps may help and the link below is an appropriate map from about the same time. http://www.mappalondon.com/london/south-east/peckham-rye.jpg

What is the logic for only taking into account the views of immediate residents? Roads are for everyone - they are a "public" right of way.

What a waste of money. I'm about to cycle back through there tonight and it will annoy me all the way through.

2004 floods were caused by rain. Looks pretty wet here: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ostbren/Oliver/Flooding/index.html 2013 floods were a burst water main: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23598335 Southwark's idea is that, in order to stop floods like 2004 where water rushed from all over Dulwich through the 'Herne Hill Gap', the solution is to hold water back in Dulwich and Belair Parks, and elsewhere. Reminds me of George Monbiot's flood prevention ideas: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/07/hide-evidence-storm-desmond-floods-paris-talks I don't so much mind the park being a bit boggy in winter, as I do the utter lack of common sense and imagination in the design of the children's playground. It is physically impossible for anyone to use the climbing wall as such, it's just too short. But it's more than tall enough to be unsafe when kids walk along the top. The tunnel collapsed in weeks. The new slide drops kids off exactly into the bog. It is a real waste of the potential presented by a good sized space.

I think p122 has the final layout. https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/elephant-and-castle/user_uploads/consultation-report-with-appendices.pdf

In a straight line, Bond St is only 5.5 miles away. I would only leave 40 minutes if I were already on the platform at East Dulwich with a train due in 2 minutes.

Suspect it could have something to do with these trucks

Prompted by her mostly rubbish TV show, I looked up Tracy Ullman's "They Don't Know" and found a better version by Kirsty Macoll

This should just be what is required to keep everyone (including customers) safe. Although to be fair, this bit is true of lots of parts of London and elsewhere: "London is being sold off piece by piece to private owners for private interests". More London, Stratford, Paddington Basin, etc. And on tax, Thames Water is owned (via Kemble) primarily by foreign investors (Macquarie, pension funds, but also BT's pension fund). In recent years it has paid negligible corporation tax and will pay no corporation tax for at least five years; it has paid and will continue to pay substantial dividends to its shareholders. Despite the fact that Thames has made provision in its accounts for tax deferred to future years, I strongly suspect that this will be in 15-20+ years, and maybe not even then.

what on earth happened at Vauxhall? must be the spooks

I can confirm how friendly the people at Crisis are. One of my friends met her now-husband there!

Medlar Street

Hi Nunheadman I've been cycling this route for 10 years and I don't ever remember it being officially a contraflow, despite it being used as such through this time. This is Streetmap from 2008 which doesn't seem to have any indication that cyclists are allowed against the flow of traffic There is a contraflow heading against the flow of cars on Highshore Road. Mikeb PS The night of the riots was unforgettable. I don't think Londis has fixed its door properly yet

Many cyclists head south down Bellenden Road against the one-way flow from Highshore Road to Holly Grove. Even as a cyclist, I can't defend such stupid behaviour

When you see the old and new together, it does look like a missed opportunity http://www.dustarchitecture.com/work/Lordship-Lane/#photo-4

DF but not at this junction ...