BrandNewGuy

taper Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I know very little of that case, so thanks: that's > interesting. Interesting that the SofS took into > account the situation facing the club. Nothing I > have heard suggests DH are in anything less of a > parlous situation if this doesn't go ahead. > Hadley pulled them about of a financial abyss a > few years ago of course. There are other parallels > there too. Greendale has been developed over the > years: the astro-turf pitch, the tennis courts, > the current and previous stadium on its flank, > which alters the openness. Indeed the banking on > Greendale is the remnants of the pre-1930s DH > stadium. The Tooting stadium is pretty large, way > more intrusive than what's planned for DH. I think > the elements of the Dulwich Hamlet stadium to be > built on MOL are 250cm high. But any bits of history are irrelevant in terms of its current level of 'development', which is a long way away from those cases you cited. There may well have been a huge Tudor palace there (there wasn't) but that's of no current concern to the planning committee. And if I was a cynical planning committee member (which I'm not), I would ask whether or not DHFC was still in a 'do or die' situation with regard to this application, given that HPG have indeed pulled them from the abyss. Unless of course HPG were to pull the rug from under them if the application failed... and they wouldn't do that, would they?? And don't forget we were told exactly the same thing when the Homebase planning application was made ? and refused. > It will be for Southwark to balance the > various arguments. All signs are at present > they'll reject. Peter John seemed implacably > opposed even when the proposal was nascent. Peter John is an astute politician, but there are plenty of other pressures at play within the Council. We will see.

But you'll recall with Tooting and Mitcham, for instance, that there was already significant development there, unlike on Green Dale. From the planning committee's report: "7.6 The development that has been undertaken on the land has already significantly altered its open character, which, despite its continued status as Metropolitan Land, has taken on a far more ?urbanized? character than was previously the case." So why was it eventually approved by the Secretary of State? "7.4 The Secretary of State approved the existing use and built development in 1997 subject to conditions and a Section 106 Obligation (ref 96/P0574). In reaching this decision, the Secretary of State placed considerable weight on the fact that if the development did not proceed the club was likely to close, which would be a significant loss to the community. It was considered that the provision of the stadium went well beyond what was essential to outdoor sport or recreation and accordingly could not reasonably be considered as an appropriate use within MOL. Despite this it was decided that the benefits that were gained by the development in this instance outweighed the harm to the MOL." Which is precisely why Hadley and DHFC are concentrating entirely on the completely unproved idea that DHFC would go under unless the application goes ahead. And that is what we were told with the 2003 Homebase application too, incidentally.

But there is a proposal to build on Green Dale.

taper Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well "MOL is MOL" is an impressive addition to the > armoury. Doesn't quite top "3G pitches cause > cancer" or Hadley arranging the Stonewall and FC > Assyria games for PR purposes though. With regards to MOL, you can try to point out dereliction and rubbish (both of which have occurred under DHFC's ownership), but that doesn't weaken the designation. And I've never suggested either of the other things.

No. I'm happy to use my own arguments, thank you. There have been exaggerations and misleading comments from those both for and against, but I'm not sure I'd grace them with the word 'tactics'.

No it isn't taper. We have had no evidence that this is the only possible option for a secure future for the club. It's about building 155 flats on land which currently has a covenant binding it for sport and recreational use. And MOL is MOL whether you like it or not.

Revised Dulwich Community Hospital plans are to be consulted on next month: Attend our planning consultation event: Date: Wednesday 8 June 2016 Time: 4.00pm - 7.30pm Venue: United Reformed Church, East Dulwich Grove View and comment online. The proposals and survey will be available at: http://tinyurl.com/CharterSchoolED from 8 to 15 June 2016 View proposals at Dulwich Community Hospital from 8 to 15 June 2016

It was ? until last Friday when it went back again, to June 12th. It's bizarre and annoying how this date has changed at least half a dozen times ? the earliest date given was, I believe May 11th. It seems even more odd given that the process for such a large development seems to be the same as it would be for someone applying to build an extension. No public meetings or other proactive ways of engaging with local people.

There's a whole thread about it here: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1657240 I'll respond there to some of the points raised in that piece.

Yeah, good luck to Millwall. Looking forward to them playing Villa next year. Me and Foxy squaring off, Stanley knives out like the old days...

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They are packed most days with > queues of people, Actually, on a side note, it's very quiet most of the week from what I've seen, but the weekend EDers (obviously not including you, Louisa) don't get to see Lordship Lane on Monday to Friday during the day. They assume it's bustling like Saturday morning. Some shops are busy all week, but many seem to depend almost entirely on weekend trade. And don't forget WR overreached themselves by opening a shop on East Dulwich Grove a few years ago which shut soon after. So it's not all sweetness, light and expensive chops.

Clown slugs?!

I walk to work (ED yo Borough High St) when the weather's clement. Through Green Dale, Camberwell and Walworth. Perfectly pleasant back streets, lots to see and not many fumes. With the bonus that I'm not smelly when I get into the office. Takes just over an hour.

There's a big Costa Coffee on Denmark Hill near Camberwell Green - where Woolies / 99p store / Peacock's used to be. Seems to be very popular and not obviously full of toffs.

The Evening Standard's error, not the Peckham Lido people. Still, who needs proper journalists, eh?

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Would have thought the whole thing could be done > electronically by now. > > The technology is not quite there yet... both in > terms of security and authentication. Estonia have > online voting.. they have the authentication part > sorted by means of a mandatory smart ID card, but > the security is still a big concern. A friend is a senior Electoral Policy bod in Whitehall and has for a while been privately frustrated about the lack of progress with e-voting. However, he says the issue is not so much with online security (if you can bank online and feel 99% safe, then you can certainly vote online). The issue is really how full of holes our traditional voting methods are, so to demand a very high level of security for e-voting will expose the current system for what it is, eg I can wander into a polling station and impersonate someone very easily...

The toy shop thing was perceived by those campaigning (rightly or wrongly) that public pressure might have made the landlord relent or comnpromise, hence being noisy about it. In this case, as an 'outsider' I'm not sure what I'm supposed to add. Proper process needs to root out what went wrong and to punish those at fault. I could add a 'me too' post about how terrible it is ? which it is ? but I don't think fifty posts like that are going to be particularly useful. These residents need information, political support and action ? more power to them.

Buzzards have occasionally been seen around Sydenham Hill Woods ? and the population is increasing significantly in southern England outside cities.

Recycled paper bought and printed locally is not necessarily any more wasteful of resources than digital communication. Consider the massive server farms around the world and all the infrastructure that entails ? it's been estimated that some 10% of the world's electricty goes on powering the digital economy. And then consider the resources and environmental costs of phones, tablets, PCs, shipping, cabling, marketing etc etc. In that light getting several thousand flyers printed up at your local print shop doesn't look quite so bad.

Snap! Always a wonderful sight and sound. They've been very consistent in arrival time over the last couple of years ? May 9th amd May 8th in 2015 and 2014.

Far too many unanswered questions about the future running of the Club to say that this is the only option. As exemplified by this: "...?A strong YES vote sends an emphatic message that our Club is gearing up for a safe and secure future under some form of supporter ownership." Er, so it's emphatic, but only about 'some form' of supporter ownership. That doesn't fill me with any confidence, given the rocky history of the club's management. And to say that supporter ownership will be 'dead in the water' unless members vote yes is unsubstantiated arm-twisting. The plain truth is that the club has not seriously explored any options that weren't already put on the table by Hadley Property Group.

DHFC lost 3-1, alas. Blustery game, hundreds of Hamlet fans made the trip. Here's to next season!

DHFC on Twitter gives frequent updates:

Of course you can, taper. But I suspect you knew that already.

No confirmation re tickets yet. No official coaches, though ? too short notice.