BrandNewGuy

It will take months before anything starts. Please take some time to contact your local councillors and MP about the application and let them know your concerns. And you can comment directly on the application here ? even though it hasn't been validated yet: http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9565663

There are now a whopping 236 documents uploaded. Not quite Panama Papers, but this is going to take some time to go through... http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=16/AP/1232&system=DC

... with further details in the as-yet-not-uploaded Landscape Strategy and Drawings document.

There are 44 more documents on Southwark's planning site: http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=16/AP/1232&system=DC Not all the necessary documents are there yet, though, so the application is still not validated.

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."

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.

pearl1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But worrying considering the plans > to extend the club and build 60 homes with only 30 > parking spaces. Make that 155 residential dwellings. And the parking on the whole site will be increased by a mere 19 spaces (from the current 46 to 62). So you might want to take a look at the planning application and make your feelings known: http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9565663

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.

But if it happens every year, their budget is too large. And yes indeed, it's always bloomin' happened.

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!

As much a sign of spring as the flowering of the Melbourne Grove cherry trees, the council's 'preferred' contractor Conway has been busy spending its unspent budget in the last few days of the financial year. Yesterday, without warning, they started digging up the pavement on Trossachs Road and replacing it with an inch or two of tarmac. It's unfinished, so anyone with a wheelchair or access problems would have been stranded. Much as it's nice to have a new pavement, in this era of austerity I'd have happily foregone a new pavement for a few years yet. But then again, Conway are clearly more powerful than, say, youth services when it comes to grabbing the cash.

Excellent news! Sometimes the system works.

I thought that ED station is staffed from first train to last ? which is more than it was in the past.

I'm in two minds about these damn yellow lines. Yes, it's difficult to get sightlines when some idiot parks right on the corner, but remove parking from all corners and some idiot (possibly the same one who parks on corners) cuts said corners horrendously to the point of driving right towards oncoming traffic, but relying on it being a relatively quiet residential street that no-one is likely to be coming. I've been in the situation along our road countless times.

richard tudor Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This meeting would have been known for sometime as > the agenda would have to been agreed. > > Why only now is Cllr Barber telling people on the > day of the meeting? Who can just drop things and > atten > > Rather like the 20 mph limit slotted in at the end > of the manifesto. The Community Council agendas only appear on the council website in the week of each meeting, though often the 'theme' of the evening is announced in advanced. The dates are usually announced about six weeks in advance.

Can someone substantiate the OP's rumour before we speculate further?

Ah, many thanks. Though of course other bodies could apply... "To nominate an asset to be listed as an Asset of Community Value by the local authority, you must be locally connected to the area and: be a community interest group: i.e. a legally constituted organisation such as a charity, a company limited by guarantee that does not distribute profits amongst its members, a Community Benefit Society that does not distribute profits amongst its members or a Community Interest Company or be a Parish Council or be a Neighbourhood Forum or be an unincorporated group with 21 members or more people who appear on the local electoral register."

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This is the Land Registry entry for West of > Greendale. > > I don't have a copy of the Land Registry entry for > East of Greendale. > > That will cost someone ?3. > > John K Many thanks, John.

mikeb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well said Londonmix. In passing, I would note that > everything you've written applies to Hadley and > its purchase of the land under DHFC for more than > it's worth with the restrictive covenant, with the > expectation that they will be able to remove the > restrictions and build flats. The value of the > land depends on what can be built there, as does > the rent that should be paid for the land. With erefernce to the 'restrictive covenant' at DHFC, have you seen sight of it? I've seen it mentioned in passing but given the complicated nature of the DHFC-Kings College-Sainsburys shenanigans in 1992, I'd like to know the status of this covenant. This, of course, is separate from the designation of Metropolitan Open Land.

Haven't we been here before with the licensing hours vs opening hours question for another development? Co-Op? Sainsburys Local?? It was quite a while ago (and my brain's getting old) but I recall an application went in for very long licensing hours, but the opening hours were unchanged, so the licensing hours permitted were effectively redundant.

But the situation is complicated by the fact, as James said, that nearly all GP surgeries have always been private businesses. So most were only ever 'contracted' to the NHS.

It's used presumably by permission of the owners of the road. It's like I could say that Fred and his friends can use my drive but you can't. You might not like it, but there you go.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Richard, > Private road. I would imagine the owner of the > road doesn't need TMO to place such double yellow > lines. > My understanding is the council would need to > issue a Traffic Management Order to enable legal > enforcement by the Police, etc. > So can you park there I guess yes. So how is that different from someone parking in your (private) drive without your permission?

It is indeed already listed as an Asset of Community Value. Moreover, its community value is also covered in a sense by the 'restrictive covenant' on the use of that land for anything other than a football/sports club.

I've long believed that one fundamental problem with English (and Scottish) professional and non-league football is that its Victorian heritage means most people see them as private businesses run by local (or now international) tycoons rather than sports associations or genuine community-based organisations. Indeed, that is how they are structured, but there are better ways of doing it to avoid the problems of ownership and asset-stripping ? the German and Dutch sports association model means all locals have a chance to participate in the club (at all sorts of sports), with the First XI being the top of the pyramid, as it were, rather than a separate local business. My European friends would ask why the council aren't looking to build a stadium and sports facilities rather than leaving it to property developers... But that would take a completely different approach to local government in this country, which is another matter altogether.