BrandNewGuy

PK36 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks for your reply BrandNewGuy - interesting to > hear from someone who has a better understanding > of the Green Dale site. I've only ever used it as > a cut through and always thought it looked pretty > unloved and was mainly used by dog walkers. Do you > have any idea of the number of people who > regularly use Green Dale and for what purpose/s? Since Freinds of Green Dale was set up two years ago, we've been amazed how many local people have come forawrd and said how much they love the peace and quiet of Green Dale. Lots of dog walkers, but also people who simply appreciate its peace and quiet ? not something you always get in a park. There are also people using it as a cut-through, children exploring (Mother Goose nursery use it for adventure picnics) and birdwatchers watching birds. Here's a little film we made: > Regarding Point 2 - I'm not sure of the history of > the site, but I presume the area where the > artificial pitches are now must have only been > designated as MOL after the pitches were built, as > otherwise the fact they were built in the first > place would seem to go against the > rules/guidelines for MOL. I'm not sure of the history of the designation with reference to the creation of the artificial pitch, but it may well be that proper permission wasn't sought. > Regarding Point 3 - it seems strange that > Southwark Council are planning to declare Green > Dale as a Site of Importance to Nature > Conservation with reference to it's 'wild' nature, > when their own plans include the creation of a > playground, picnic area, pond and also involve the > removal of some of the dense scrub in the > southwest part. Watch this space :-) Southwark are yet to finalise any plans for the site, but in conversation with Friends of Green Dale, they accept many of our points about the lack of 'development' being a positive thing for the site, given the amount of play space available locally. Personally, I think Green Dale's unique character as a wild space is something Southwark can be positive about in terms of allowing access to wildlife and so on. > Regarding the ground not being 'sustainable' due > to the possibility of promotion to the football > league, I like your positivity, but I think any > chance of that is a long, long way off, especially > as we are now into the customary Hamlet late > season wobble! Haha! Yeah, I'm being rosy-tinted ;-) > I too, look forward to checking out the latest > plans and hopefully a solution that suits (almost) > everyone can be found. Agreed.

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cant see the connection. LSD lasts for 6-8 > hours.. > With a meal I'm in and out in 45mins... with the > exception of Curry Club lasting a couple of hours > but that is generally waiting time.. > > Foxy Curry Club or acid? Either way, it's a trip, man... ;-)

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Climate change? Although 'every little helps', I > doubt 100 or so trees will make a difference in > the grand scheme of things. Though even this > would be offset anyway if more were planted (as is > promised), as growing trees take up more CO2 than > mature ones. The offsetting issue is actually the key point. Attitudes such as "I doubt 100 or so trees will make a difference in the grand scheme of things" have allowed for piecemeal deterioration of our urban and rural environment in all sorts of ways. Small changes in each of our lives can mean big changes for everyone's lives ? for good or ill.

Oh, one further point. The current plans might not produce a 'sustainable' stadium for DHFC. Should the club have the good fortune to get promoted into the League (a less distant hope than it has been in the past!), the capacity is insufficient for Football League purposes. What then? More encroachment onto MOL?

I'm less certain of the plans as I'm both a long-time DHFC supporter and an active member of the Friends of Green Dale. I don't want to say too much now as no-one's yet seen the latest proposals, but here are my own personal responses to a few of PK36's comments above (the Friends of Green Dale will consult its members in detail once Hadley's plans have been seen and digested ? as will the Dulwich Hamlet Supporters Trust, of which I'm also a member). 1. The current(poorly maintained) artificial pitch is indeed on Metropolitan Open Land ? as are the grass, trees and scrub that surround it. So it would be impossible to build a stadium on the current pitch without swallowing up at least some MOL. 2. The MOL designation is the urban equivalent of green belt and as such any development already in place (in this case the artificial pitch) can only be developed or altered so as to have the same or less impact on the surrounding land. So, for instance, if there is an old pavilion on an area of MOL, you can refurbish or rebuild it. What you can't do is use its footprint to build something substantially bigger and/or different. 3. 'Parkland' in itself cannot make up for the loss of MOL. Moreover, Southwark Council are currently in the process of declaring Green Dale a Site of Importance to Nature Conservation, with particular reference to the fact that it is relatively 'wild' and has not been trimmned, planted or cut. As such it maintains a unique mix of flora and fauna (as well as plenty of dog walkers!) that simply isn't there in a 'park' environment. 4. Although I welcome any developer or council interest in keeping Green Dale an oasis of green tranquillity for people and wildlife, I'm very wary (mainly because of the unique habitat) in seeing too much well-intentioned intervention, so the cost of keeping Green Dale a valuable part of our local environment woould be (and is) relatively cheap compared to parks and other maintained open spaces. I'm looking forward to seeing Hadley's proposals and I hope we can all have a respectful debate as to the future of the football club, Green Dale fields and the local area. I'd urge everyone to look at what is proposed and make your views known.

http://www.everyoneactive.com/about-us/ "Sports and Leisure Management (SLM Ltd.) was established in 1987 and is the longest established leisure contractor in the UK. SLM Ltd?s consumer brand is Everyone Active, which is the name that can be seen at 117 leisure and cultural facilities across the UK. We successfully manage these facilities in partnership with 36 different local authorities. Our centres stretch from the north in Sunderland to Mid Suffolk in the east, Fareham in the south and Plymouth in the south west. Our brand, mission and values We?re called Everyone Active for a reason ? we have built a strong reputation for delivering well-managed leisure facilities, which have successfully proven to encourage everyone to be more active. Whether it?s the most state-of-the-art gym equipment, sports facilities, ASA accredited swim programmes or fun activities for children; we have something for the entire community to enjoy. We?re enthusiastic about being active and staying healthy and we want you to be too. We?ve made it our mission to encourage more people to participate in 30 minutes of moderate physical activity, five times a week, either in-centre or online."

I didn't say charging was a savage cut. I meant that those who defend any and every action of the council with a kneejerk "It's the cuts" response shut down any possible argument that the council might be sometimes cocking things up thmeselves. And don't lay that guilt trip on me, man.

Once again the campaign is using the misleading phrase "Grade 1 SINC woods". The entire site is a "Site of Borough Importance for Nature Conservation (Grade I)" and according to the council is a SINC because its importance comes mostly from its location and extent as an area of semi natural open space within an otherwise built up residential area. There is nothing specific about the ?woods? in any of this.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So if it gets listed as an asset of community > value... what next? Community buyout? Who's going > to run the place? Who's going to be responsible > for booking bands/comedy/etc? It already is listed as an Asset of Community Value, but Fuller's have taken the lease anyway. However, live music is integral to the ACV, so they now want to move the goaplosts. I quite like Herne Hill and spent a very nice afternoon/evening in the Off The Cuff Bar by the station a couple of months ago.

... unless charging for bulk waste collection creates a great increase in fly tipping, which entails a greater cost to the council. So maybe the saving's not a saving at all. Did the council attempt to calculate the impact of their decision? 'Savage cuts' is no excuse for a possibly ill-thought out policy.

panda boy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I find it odd because I am a member of the London > Wildlife Trust and it is the first I have heard > about it. It is also the first time Southwark > have mentioned them, and indeed in the context of > the plans being designed in conjunction with > them. There's a reference here to repesentatives of the council meeting with LWT about the council's plans a year ago: http://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/dont-build-graves-on-our-woods-says-group/public-meeting-over-grave-plans-for-woods/ And the LWT is involved in many planning matters in Southwark, but in an advisory capacity only. If the council feel as though it's acting with the planning laws and regulations, there's not much the LWT can do. But I think it's valuable that they're there putting the case for wildlife. I'd be fairly sure that the council's replanting plans will have been done 'in conjunction' with LWT too. Why would they not be?

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nigello Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > I am hoping that posher fast-food places use > some > > of their profit to buy from excellent suppliers > > which care for their animals (before they do > the > > opposite of caring by slaughtering them). > > > It's probably a discussion for another thread, but > I lived on an organic farm for a while which had > cows, sheep and sometimes pigs, all out in the > fields and very much cared for by the lovely > farmers, who also had a mill producing organic > animal feed. > > I too always thought it odd that the animals ended > their lives by being slaughtered, however when I > thought about it a bit more closely, I realised > that if it wasn't for the farm they wouldn't have > had lives at all. > > If people didn't eat meat, there would be no > animals in the fields in our countryside. Well, given we're big net importers of beef and lamb, people could halve their meat consumption without much of a dent in land given over to livestock in this country. The UK imports 240,000 tonnes of beef and veal per annum (while exporting 90,000 tonnes) and imports 84,000 tonnes of lamb and mutton per annum (while exporting 70,000 tonnes). But of course most meat eaten in this country is chicken and pork, very little of which is reaered outdoors.

Hadley Property Group is holding an exhibition at Dulwich Hamlet Football Club to set out their proposed plans for the stadium and other developments on the site. The exhibition times are: Thursday 25 Feb 4pm ? 8pm. Saturday 27 Feb 11am ? 2pm. For info, here are HPG's last set of proposals from the end of 2014 ? it's going to be interesting to see how similar or otherwise the next set of plans are... http://www.championhillstadium.org.uk/content/our-proposals

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Weekend train service from East Dulwich is a joke. > Always has been. > > And people wonder why we have cars... Jeremy, this was the first Sunday for a long while that there have been engineering works. The weekend services could be better but they are not a joke. Some poeple (not you) think it's too difficult to check if a train is running normally (get the app and it takes 30 seconds) and then damn the whole service because of it. And as I pointed out recently, East Dulwich didn't used to have a weekend service at all...

HopOne Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BrandNewGuy, > > You need to get this from the context: > "In some areas, the designation is subdivided, or > additional, more local designations are also used. > For example, in Greater London SINCs are divided > into the following grades:[3] > > Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature > Conservation > Site of Borough Importance for Nature Conservation > (Grade I and Grade II) > Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation" I'm aware of that. Still no mentions of "Grade 1 SINC woods".

HopOne Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That is a sub-designation: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Site_of_Nature_Conse > rvation_Interest There's no reference to "Grade 1 SINC woods" there.

Its SINC designation is as a "Site of Borough Importance (Grade I)". "Grade 1 SINC woods" is not its designation. Sorry to nitpick, but these details are important in the context of designation, protection and conservation.

If the EDT can do burger and chips for a tenner, so can any other local pub. And ?5.70 for Fourpure's Session IPA at 4.2% is over the top, even if it is a craft beer. I'm happy to pay more for getting more, but this is past my limit.

HopOne Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BTW, I have not and will not lie on this thread. I > find the constant accusations of lies against > anyone wanting to preserve mature trees to be > objectionable frankly. The SSW campaign have > raised many important issues that should be > debated in a mature manner. Am beginning to > wonder whether that is possible on this forum. Hahaha! That's rich. So because you wsnt to preserve trees it gets you out of any accusations of lying? And SSW debates the issue in a mature manner? Hahaha! I can only repeat what civilservant said: "a general point - whoever is running this campaign has completely subverted their own cause. I have no idea of the rights or wrongs of whatever it is that they are trying to do - it's all drowned out by the shrillness of their voices - and I don't feel i want to even bother to find out. Because all I can hear is the sound of harassment, spite, misinformation and, oh yes, obfuscation. It's a complete turn-off."

Thanks, Foxy.

Still no confirmation of the news?

Oi! The Shropshire Bedlams, for one, do not drink shandy and are pretty severe with their sticks. Not a hanky in sight. Border Morris is pretty, er, rustic, shall we say?

Big fan of Ryley Walker - saw his first London gig at The Windmill with about 12 people there :-) Laura Cannell's also playing next month at the Telegraph Hill Festival: https://www.facebook.com/events/936586959750137/

And this new one at Fulham Palace looks very good: "Caught by the River Thames is a remarkable new music, arts and nature festival. Bringing together a truly inspirational gathering of bands and brewers, authors and artists, thinkers and drinkers, Caught by the River Thames will be part gig, part literary gathering and part nature symposium. Over two days, it will bridge the previously un-spanned gap between psychedelic high-summer rock?n?roll concert and Springwatch. It will unearth archival London audio-history and provide poetry in the total serenity of a Victorian chapel; play host to jump-up party music from the four corners of the world while holding a low-impact, locally sourced Ten Mile Beer Festival." Low, Beth Orton, Sun Ra Arkestra, Super Furry Animals and more... http://www.caughtbytheriverthames.com/

A 'conservation area' is a very different thing from a local SINC - a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation. The latter "do not have statutory protection (unless they are also SSSIs or LNRs), but local authorities are expected to take account of the need to protect them in deciding their planning and development policies". I imagine that the Council will say that their subsequent replanting etc takes that need into account.