thedukeofmonclar

OK Ben. I have seen the leaflet but I found the information in your business plan originally.

Hello Ben, Thanks for the official line on how you've navigated the previous rejections. I too think it?s really useful to hear difficult but civil discussions, questions and answers. I?m sure you understand, this is a very large chunk of well loved, well used land, much bigger than the astro turf. A lot of local people want to hear your answers. Is the club's financial position now deemed a ?special enough circumstance? to build on M.O.L? I?ve not seen or heard of it explicitly stated. Am I right in saying the mayors office actually gave a different justification for building on M.O.L? I think it?s unjust to imply the lease requires DHFC to build anything like a stadium on M.O.L. As I understand it the lease was negotiated right when the Hamlet were homeless and drawing their last breath. For me it?s the most blatant example of hostage negotiation. I feel for you man. You must be sore. The clever architects have managed to fit 219 flats in six story tower blocks, more subtly into the open land than the previous lot who failed with 170 flats in 4 story blocks? Maybe they will be flats for smaller people? I know the epidemic may have helped more people see the value of the open sports field but its value has always been there and more importantly may not be there in the future. I?m really going to struggle with how 30 people doing different sports are going to fit on the new multiuse games area. It?s only a 20th the size of the astro turf and has to be booked, as will the stadium. So that?s a total loss of all informal sports use? Do you really think that checking the astro turf use over four winters days, is going to give you a measurement by which to decide the future of this space forever? Last question. What?s you opinion on the carcinogenic properties of the new 3G pitch you?re charging the school to use daily Ben? I understand they are made from 20,000 used tires in each pitch and heard reports they are so dangerous they are being phased out in Europe. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/body/are-artificial-sports-pitches-causing-cancer/ https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/35585392I?m I didn?t mean to cause offence claiming football fans by their definition are tribal and adversarial. It?s just that being part of a group who loyally support their team and want them to win, can be seen as tribal and adversarial. Online exchanges from fans can be fairly spicy.

Hello ACSJ, The new proposed stadium has a smaller footprint and tighter terraces than the existing stadium.

Hello Gary, I'm very aware there are thousands who support the application. They are the club's fans. Directed by internal advice and understandably tribal and adversary in their attitude. Allowing a company to develop 9000sq.m of M.O.L. and building tower blocks across a loved club's home ground (with protective covenants) because the developers have held the club to ransom is old school gangster stuff. While i encourage your ongoing search for alternative solutions, i fear you may be asking me in order to dismiss any suggestions, because you feel this will justify the position you and some of the fans have been forced to take. Let's be honest. Not all DHFC fans support the plan. Those that do have all had to swing fully behind it, and here you are campaigning for a property developer who evicted you, stole your name and will build across your home ground and destroy natural habitat and community used sports facility at the same time.

You are right Abe, but I'm still interested to hear if Ben feels these issues have been dealt with.

Hello Ben, The very similar application from two years ago was withdrawn before a decision was made but the council did say at the time it would have been refused. Here are the five reasons they gave on 21 APRIL 2017... That officers resolve that had the Council been in a position to determine the application, it would have been refused on the following grounds. These will form the basis for the Council?s evidence at the upcoming Public Inquiry: 1. ?The proposed football ground with its associated boundary treatment, terracing and floodlighting is an inappropriate development which would fail to preserve the openness of the Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) within which it would be located. Insufficient ?Very special circumstances? have been demonstrated by the application to justify inappropriate development on MOL. As such it is contrary to Policies 3.25 `Metropolitan Open Land' of the Saved Southwark Plan (2007), Strategic Policy 11 ?Open Spaces and Wildlife? of the Core Strategy (2011) and Policy 7.17 ?Metropolitan Open Land? of the London Plan (2016)?. 2. ?The residential blocks and stadium building would be located on land designated as Other Open Space (OOS). The development is not ancillary to the enjoyment of the OOS, is not small in scale, would detract from the prevailing openness of the site and fails to positively contribute to the setting and quality of the open space. Land of equivalent or better size and quality would not be secured and the development would therefore be contrary to policy 3.27 ?Other Open Space? of the saved Southwark Plan (2007), Strategic Policy 11 ?Open Spaces and Wildlife? of the Core Strategy (2011) and Policy 7.18 ?Protecting Open Space and Addressing Deficiency? of the London Plan (2016)?. 3. ?The proposed development would involve a reduction in sports facilities across the site. As such, it would fail to contribute to the health and well-being of borough residents contrary to saved policies 2.1 ?Enhancement of community facilities? of the Southwark Plan 2007, Strategic policies 4 ?Places for learning, enjoyment and healthy lifestyles? and 11 ?Open spaces and wildlife? of the Core Strategy 2011, and Policy 3.19 ?Sports facilities? of the London Plan 2016.? 4. ?The proposed residential blocks, by reason of their height, scale and massing would result in an overly dominant and visually intrusive development which would be out of character with the prevailing built form of the locality. It would be overbearing when viewed from the adjacent open spaces and appear as an alien form within the local townscape. It would therefore be contrary to saved Policies 3.11 ?Efficient Use of Land?, 3.12 ?Quality in Design?, 3.13 ?Urban Design?, and 3.27 ?Other Open Space? of the Southwark Plan (2007), Strategic Policies 11 ?Open spaces and wildlife? and 12 ?Design and Conservation? of the Core Strategy (2011) and Policies 7.4 ?Local Character?, and 7.6 ?Architecture? of the London Plan (2016)?. 5. ?The development fails to contribute the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing to meet the needs of the Borough, London and the UK as a whole. The development has not demonstrated that it could not support the expected level of affordable housing whilst remaining viable. It is therefore contrary to Policy 4.4 ?Affordable Housing? of the saved Southwark Plan (2007), Strategic Policy 6 ?Homes for people on different Incomes? of the Core Strategy (2011) and Policies 3.12 ?Negotiating Affordable Housing on individual private residential and mixed use schemes? and 3.13 ?Affordable Housing Thresholds? of the London Plan (2016)?. These are pretty clear. Numbers 1,2,3and 4 still look like they have not been addressed in the latest application. Could you answer if you think they have been? You finish this post with a plea that we should all accept the recommendations of the planning officer when this application has repeatedly been attempted with very minor changes. You say "groups have decided that they will now adopt the ?experts know nothing? line" (a topical argument normally levelled at blond right wing leaders) but surely this is an attempt to stifle discussion?

Hello Dontbesilly, Your post shows your propensity to generalise, stereotype and dismiss people with different views. That's really not helpful in a discussion of such significance. Believe this. Thousands of local people oppose the development as it develops an undeveloped area that is well used and loved. The thing that dog walkers have in common is that they walk dogs.The reality of the situation has been made very clear for everyone. Pass this application or the club goes under. Why then attack locals and dog walkers?

The developers have suggested the new flat owners are going to be discouraged to own cars. They therefore have only provided a few parking spaces. I imagine that will mean all the surrounding estates will be where they park.

In essence a football stadium is a pitch and space for fans to watch. The current stadium could be renovated quickly and cheaply. The current stadium was built on the cheap by Sainsbury's in 1992 as a sweetener for pushing a big development through. The next stadium will be built (on the cheap?) by Meadows as a sweetener for pushing a big development through. Why do you think the new stadium is going to be any better built than the last?

Hello Tom, Here?s a reply to your several points. First, yes there are different opinions about the development. Both sides of the argument are peppered with questionable statements but I would like to claim the biggest offender here has always been the developers. For the entire discussion some of the fans have been shouting down any local objection as: untrue, NIMBY and claiming local groups refuse to engage with the club. These are bully tactics. We?re not on the terraces now. You state you want to "dispel some pretty disappointing and disheartening myths and frank untruths" but then give us spin. Let us not forget you are financially and emotionally engaged with this and have a lot to gain from the planning application being passed. 1. The stadium will be expanded, then run down for more housing Your statement that this 'can not happen' is untrue. As context, it is less that thirty years since DHFC were given a new stadium as part of a backroom deal to build a massive supermarket across open sports fields. The stadium was free to DHFC and protected with covenants. You're now arguing for flats across your pitch. The club has a history of poor management. Once this undeveloped land is developed it will be fair game for future development. 2. The Astroturf was run down by the club. You admit this is true but then go on to dismiss this as previous management. Sorry, that's still DHFC. Yes, the council took the lease back but had to release back when DHFC were dying in Tooting, homeless and desperate. Again, developers using a loved club to strong-arm favorable lease terms that laid foundations for their next application. The new lease does require DHFC to make good their duty to repair the astro turf but it is not specified to be a 3G pitch. The alternative discussed is like for like replacement. That is a low-impact astro turf on a sand bed (as is currently there) with chain-link fencing around. This is not as you suggest 'a slightly larger scale' but a massive development on undeveloped land. 9000sq.m of MOL are under threat. The astroturf is 6000sq.m. The remaining 3000sq.m is trees, scrub, grassland and habitat. 3. The Council is giving Land to Meadow, a private company. I think you've missed the point of this one. It's much more simple. The council are giving (125yr.lease) Metropolitan Open land to a private company (Meadow/DHFC). Instead, let us imaging Sainsbury's taking a 125yr, lease to fence off M.O.L. as a lorry park. Unacceptable. 4. Tower Blocks will be built on MOL No, the tower blocks are to be built on the land with covenants protecting it as 'other open space' and limiting it for sporting use. The M.O.L. will however be fundamentally changed forever. The current astro turf is a bed of sand and a carpet. The new pitch will be sunk into the water table and so needs 2m deep foundation and drainage systems under it. There will be a lot built on M.O.L. 5. The club could redevelop the current stadium You admit this is true but point out that due to DHFC mismanagement, you can?t afford it. DHFC has collectively decided to support the plan as you can see no other way to survive. This is crucial. You are right up against the wall as should be being pretty humble about that. Instead, you?ve decided to spin the whole project as a ?good? thing, claiming it?s also ?good? for the community while the community fight back against you. Can I remind you, you are stuffed and are actually asking to be helped out again at a cost to local open-land. 6. The Clubs future will not be secured with this deal Every football club at this level runs on a financial knife edge. DHFC management history reads like a bad joke. Do you think a board made up by passionate club fans is a stable and reasonable body? I don?t. The development may look like an easy fix to some pressing concerns but claiming it secures the future of the club is wrong. As an obvious quick reference, let me remind you we are currently in a world pandemic and we don?t know if mass gatherings will even be possible in the coming years. How can you type the line ??we?ve had to make this choice given the stark reality that the club faces?? and then attempt to spin the whole project as positive. It?s a mess of DHFC?s making, featuring developers who have shown themselves to be ruthless, local people targeted by football fans and potentially 9000sq.m of MOL threatened to be developed. The astro turf is more than ?some concrete and carpet?. It is a community space where people play infomal sports. Exactly the sort of resource a local football club should be holding as sacred.

Oh dear, A rather partisan article written in the Dulwich Diverter out today. The first third of the article seems to be direct regurgitation of the Meadow's spin. There are some objections from Friends of Greendale, witch is good to see but the article then finishes with two supporting statements written by fans. It is the developer who has pitched this planning application as DHFC fans v local residents. Don't fall for it. We locals love the football club but don't want nearly ten thousand meters square of undeveloped greenfield MOL concreted over so developers can ignore covenants and build over the current stadium.

The decision is still to be made and it could go either way. In all likelihood, the developer/club will now wait to see if the application is refused and then if it is, appeal straight to the Mayor. Sadiq has a record of pushing these applications through regardless of council refusal and local objection. Also, the club have been saying they have the mayor's support. It would be useful if Sadiq heard some voices of the objectors at this point. He's unlikely to know the details of the application or the point that are controversial. The developers keep pitching it as "only regenerating the old astroturf", and talking about 'Green links'. Be good if he knew it was 9245m2 of MOL, only two thirds of which were the old pitch and that the green link was nothing more than a path through the closely clustered tower blocks.

A letter has been added to the documantation for the application from Simon Bevan, head of Southwark planning. It looks pretty conclusive and seems to agree with everything the local campaigners have been saying. Have a read of it here. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ed1m6RfA3Ok1z7foZxlymov6QYfa27Mq/view

If you failed to get a comment into the council portal before the deadline of last tuesday don't worry. It seems comments are still being accepted here. https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=ZZZV0JKBWR961

taper Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Or save Dulwich Hamlet FC by replacing the old > AstroTurf. As you well know Taper, the application is for much more than replacing the old astroturf. The astroturf in fact only accounts for two thirds of the MOL land grab. The last third being natural wild space, some designated as SINC (site of interest for nature conservation). The application is to develop over 3000m2 of MOL beyond the pitch, which equates to the footprint of 88 houses on the estate next door. Added to this the loss of access and views to the public this application has a devastating affect on the openness of Green Dale. I also question the wording of your post, that the new stadium is going to 'save' DHFC. Yes, it will get the developers off your back. The developers who a year ago threw DHFC out of Champion hill and tried to copyright the DHFC name and who now you are actively supporting in removing the restrictive covenants on DHFC home ground and building flats across it. Yes, you've been promised a fan owned club in exchange for your support but the club will not be fan owned. This application is in fact a rerun of the 1992 Sainsbury's application where DHFC is the vocal lever to help swing a massive development on open space in return for a jerry built stadium. This time however the application is already suggesting more MOL will be needed to make the stadium able to take the 5000 visitors FA regs require, and already fans are saying they want covered terracing on the MOL, so this time it will be much quicker than 27 years before the next piece of precious space is under threat.