eastdulwichhenry

If the council make it clear enough to Meadow, in black and white terms, that they will never sanction the eviction of the club from its site and allow them to build flats there, then eventually the penny will drop with them. They made a gamble when they bought the stadium, that eventually someone would buckle and allow them to build. That gamble doesn't have to be successful though. If they realise it's never happening, then they'll just sell the land on to someone else (a custodian of the club or similar) at whatever rate they can get for it. For the directors of the club and Southwark council to be giving in to the sort of blackmail they've used here, at the expense of residents of the area, is mind-boggling.

@YTC the astroturf and the land around it are a community resource, a wonderful wild green area where people from the densely populated neighbourhoods in the area go to unwind, walk their dogs and enjoy some of the untamed greenland. The lockdown has shown, if there was any doubt before, how important this is. I'd urge you to please go and take a look at the astroturf during the day tomorrow if you don't believe me. Children play there, there's room for sports, and groups congregate to chat (socially distanced for the most part, which the space allows). And others walk in the green areas behind. Please do this tomorrow, visit the astroturf and maybe it will change your mind about this development, which will kill off this important use of the metropolitan open land as it stands. It is not derelict land, it is an important community resource. I'm very sorry to hear of the plight of DHFC and its battle with the sharks at Meadow, I attend games at the club too, but if the solution to those problems is to take open land from a commnunity that vitally needs it then that's the wrong solution.

Rockets Wrote: -------------------- > > How was it on East Dulwich Grove or Lordship Lane? > Did the peace and tranquillity you so enjoyed > extend to there or was traffic and pollution a lot > worse because Melbourne Grove has been closed? ;-) > And are we to presume you will be selling your car > now you have seen the light? Well those roads were busy, certainly, but then they're always busy so nothing new there. And no, I'm not going to sell the car because I still use it for longer journeys that aren't practical by train, and occasional trips to DKH sainsburys for a bigger shop. Personally I'm prepared to take the hit of a slightly longer journey when I do those things, if it opens up through roads that I can safely ride up with my kids without getting a heart attack and also provides me with an extra deterrent to just mindlessly jumping in the car for routine journeys around the area.

I've just taken my first walk up Melbourne Grove since the restrictions came in, and it's made such a difference. Hardly any traffic, peace and quiet, this is long overdue. I just hope the council has the guts to face down the petrol heads and apply more of these pinch points. I've been as guilty as anyone of overusing the car for local journeys, but our streets are just too clogged and polluted and unsafe right now and frankly this is long overdue. Thank you Southwark and London authority.

New to this debate, but I have to say I think it's a good thing and I hope they roll out more of these restrictions in the near future. As someone who cycles in the area with children, I have long found that the volume of traffic on all our roads from Townley Road to Melbourne Grove to Dulwich Village is just horrendous and dangerous, and safe backstreet routes are essential. The next step is to put a similar barrier on Townley Road, to make that a safe through route for bikes.

> Don?t you think most ?DHFC supporters who want a new stadium? are local residents? I?m certainly in that camp And why do you want a new stadium, when the club already has a perfectly decent one? This is all about a property group making good on a gamble it made years ago, that it could hoodwink people into allowing it to develop on greenfield land and it seems they've succeeded. As a local resident you should be as horrified as everyone else by this proposal, even if you don't live in the immediate vicinity. If DHFC proposed to build over part of Dulwich Park, Peckham Rye, Dulwich Wood, or Sunrays Park for their new stadium I would be equally opposed, even if I don't live near those, because our community green space should not be up for grabs.

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No - it would be a separate zone. So that's a serious worry for people living in St Francis Rd and areas near the station. It's not as if buying a resident or visitor permit will even be an option then. They'll no longer be able to drive to events in ED and park in the streets. Legitimate measures to combat outsiders filling up our spaces should not have the effect of making life impossible for locals.

If the East Dulwich CPZ comes into effect, will it be part of the same zone as the Dog Kennel Hill? i.e. will permits bought for one of the areas be valid in the other?

This is good news for the club, certainly, and will be good to have them playing back where they belong. As a local resident I do worry about what concessions the council may have offered Meadow though, particularly regarding the Greendale space. It doesn't seem like Meadow are the kind of outfit that would have given up in with no promises on housing or development. In the Evening Standard article https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/footballs-coming-home-for-dulwich-hamlet-with-champion-hill-return-confirmed-a3969711.html it says that "Hamlet are now quietly confident for the future but are aware that Meadow Partners will put in another planning application for the site in future". What does this mean? Is there any way for us to get insight into the details of the deal, and whether any planning sweeteners were thrown in?

My heart skipped a beat when I first saw this headline. But it turns out it's the other one in North London. Hoping they can get these problems sorted out. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/26/lordship-lane-the-london-road-paying-a-heavy-toll-for-gang-warfare

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I do > think additional residential accommodation locally > would be a good thing. I had not realised the Lib > Dem position was so entrenched against increasing > housing capacity in Southwark, but then , you > lives and you learns. It's fine to increase housing where there's room for it, but it should not be at the expense of services, retail space, open areas or the character of the area. Many of us choose to live round here because it is quieter and easier to move around than places like Brixton or Camberwell. Turning the area into a mass of housing will ruin that, not to mention the fact that we already have too few doctors for the population, meaning it takes ages to get an appointment.

Yep, it's causing mayhem everywhere, particularly on Melbourne Grove, which is being used as a "bypass" for the roadworks.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What has no helped in the loss locally of around > 100 car parking spaces from all the unnecessary > double yellow lines - I think this a bigger issue. I fully support double yellow lines near junctions. This is not a convenience issue of whether or not people can park, it's a safety issue, particularly for pedestrians and cyclists, and the council was quite right to impose it. There are far too many junctions in ED where there's no visibility because of parked cars, meaning people have to edge out without knowing what may be coming along the road.

There should not be CPZ anywhere in this area. Not in Dog Kennel Hill and not in East Dulwich. The council should lay off trying to charge people for parking in their own road. ED is a quiet residential area, not a major hub like Camberwell or Brixton, and the parking setup should reflect that.

What would we expect to get out of the debate in parliament? Other than messages of support, I guess. I assume they can't decide anything legally binding.

mary123 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Could you advise the dates of the next 3 Saturday > home matches, Can never figure out details on web > site? Next home matches: Sun 18, 15:00, Worthing, League Wed 28, 19:45, Balham, Cup Sat 31, 15:00, Dorking Wanderers, League Tue 10 April, 19:45, Tonbridge Angels, League Sat 14 April, 15:00, Thurrock, League Sat 28 April, 15:00, Margate, League

Oh jolly good, thanks.

Silly question, but shouldn't Meadow have required planning permission to erect those huge fences along Abbotswood Road? I know for a fact that I wouldn't get away with erecting a huge fence like that at the front of my property.

Captain Kernow Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Slightly off the topic of bins to reserve spaces- > Has anyone else noticed an influx of Zip Cars in > the area? I always thought they had to be in a Zip > car bay (if not on hire), but it appears they're > multiplying on every other street to a point where > I don't think they could all be on hire. I'm sure > they're really handy for some people who need a > car on the odd occasion but feels like they're > starting to suck up residential parking. This is the new Zip Car Flex. Rather than having marked bays, the cars can just be picked up and left anywhere, and people track where they are using the app. And not only are they allowed to park in normal places, they can use permit-holder only areas as well. This is part of a deal several boroughs have done with ZipCar, and the councils support it because it notionally helps to reduce car ownership, by people effectively "pooling" their car use through the scheme. Bit of a nuisance for residents who have no driveway though.

What is the council and the supporters trust's end game here? I have this feeling that the issue of building a stadium on Greendale is going to come up yet again if they are successful in their bid to wrest control of the current ground from Meadow, leaving local residents once more faced with losing local wild land. It's all a bit of a farce when they so recently set out their plans to work with Friends of Greendale and the local community to protect and make safe that vital piece of Metropolitan Open Land. I wish DHFC all the best, but it should be on their current stadium, not encroaching on to one of the few pieces of open land still left in the area.

Hi James Do you happen to know why a big black wooden fence has been put up on Abbotswood Road by the DHFC car park, and also a metal fence along the road leading to the Greendale passage? I think someone else asked in the forum but I haven't seen an answer. As local resident I'd like to know whether it was the club or the council who did this, why they did so, and.is it legal without planning permission etc?

Abe_froeman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If the average gate is 1500 and a pint costs ?4, > each spectator would need to drink 25 pints a > season to generate ?150,000 of revenue. If 816 people drink two pints at all 23 home games, then they would hit the ?150,000 mark. And that's before you consider crisps, soft drinks and pork scratchings.

I understand there was a meeting last week to discuss this issue, and whether anything more could be done to make people feel secure on those footpaths. Please could anyone report back here on what was decided? Thanks.

milk76 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Three, the police have now been clear, call 101 if > this happens again. It won't take officers from an > emergency situation but they will respond. Have the police confirmed this?

Hi all - Chris has responded to an email I sent him: "Firstly I would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused - thank you for taking the time to correspond with me and make me aware of the noise levels. I have today had a charity event forced on me by the football management along with the Astro Turf session. I completely agree that the noise levels are not acceptable at all. I will be pulling the event and there will be no future events like this held on the astro turf - I have spoken to a number of residents for the fist time today, which is disappointing from my point of view as had I had an earlier complaints or correspondence I would have stopped this sooner. I have been monitoring noise levels and when I pop over to the site it gets a quieter, obviously it is going back up when I come back into the club. I would again like to apologise, and I can assure you no further events of this nature will be taking place on the Astro Turf."