Ben Clasper

Dulwich Hamlet Football Club is something everyone in ED should be proud of and protect. It always amazes me how little the club is referred to in any of these calls to oppose the lifeline to the club. This is the East Dulwich Forum, if you actually care about East Dulwich can I suggest you walk Lordship Lane and ask the shop owners, restaurant owners and pub owners what this club means to them, ask them how painful it was when the club was exiled away from Champion Hill in the way the 'Friends' of Greendale or 'Friends' of Dog Kennel Hill Wood (sic) would seemingly like to see again. Can I ask you to consult the thousands of ED residents that attend the game and the thousands of local school kids and families and charities who have been given free tickets in the past few years. I don't understand how you can be on the East Dulwich Forum if you are unmoved by the sea of pink and blue on the Lane every other Saturday and what that means to our community.

rahrahrah and orangeowl The concern you both raise is one I share, I wouldn't be involved in this if it was to achieve a short or medium term position as you are right, without the right protection, goalposts get moved. If we manage to save the club with this application I don't ever want to have to think about the safety of the club ever again and those who have been involved for much longer than I have will no doubt feel even more strongly about that. So, I think there is something symbolic about this move as it is brings the club back home to the original site of the stadium when they first moved to East Dulwich from the Village over 100 years ago and everything we are doing will ensure that is the long term position. The council are very hot on this hence the condition that they will own the freeholds which means they will have the freehold of all of the surrounding land and then the long term lease to the club will also have to protect the site in terms of use and what can and can't be done. For what's it worth I also believe that with DHFC back on its original pitch it can help defend the surrounding lands to keep the wild open space around the astroturf protected because whilst we do really take exception to the description of our old run down pitch as 'rural' or 'open green space' we fully agree that is what borders it and that should be protected as should the other football pitch next to the astroturf. Of course I know agreements have been in place before that sought the same outcome so community fan ownership is the difference this time and the club's ownership structure will therefore provide a second buffer to the protections that will no doubt be put in place by the freehold and leasehold agreements with the council. We have made it clear that the club does not need any interest in owning land it only needs a new facility that it is free to operate to the benefit of the community. Every single one of those actions has 'no more moving of the goalposts' at its heart. Ben

Hi Abe I was asked to help the club survive at its lowest point financially in August 2018. I audited everything in great detail and reported that the club was days from extinction if it could not return to Champion Hill and so secured a return in October 2018. I made it clear at the time that this was a short term stay of execution and the long term future could only be secured by having its own home. We modelled every possible scenario - I was independent and had no history with the club or the stadium owners or the council. My job was to identify a solution and this application is the only viable path and everyone we have shared the information with has come to the same conclusion. I would urge you to read the supporters? trust statement on this subject. So, I am a little confused by the fact that you are not convinced and would love to know what else I can provide that has not already been stated? If you have information that would support an alternative that leaves the club in the hands of the fans I would sincerely love to hear from you. Kind regards Ben

Dear Cerruty I would agree that the current position could have been avoided but that is a long time past and neither the current club owners and directors nor Meadow were on the scene when the club lost control of its future. They have both inherited the situation and are both seeking the best outcome possible. Southwark Council are also seeking the best outcome for the greatest benefit of the community and are in no way ?colluding?, they are fighting for what is best and have made an independent recommendation after long and careful study. Also the club has always acknowledged and welcomed the fact that there are differing opinions, I have personally had long and respectful chats with fans who oppose the applications. We have also been careful to encourage people to log opinions and speak their own mind. Every communication has acknowledged the presence of valid opposition. To say that we have claimed unanimous support is therefore incorrect. I feel for you and others in your position, I also want to protect green space and have always told the Local groups that if the Astro turf (our previous stadium plot) becomes our home again they will find the greatest ally in the club in ensuring the areas of Green Dale that have not been part of our stadium site over the years remain natural open spaces. But I know that is not enough for everyone which I also have to respect. Kind regards Ben

Dear squirrelmc I am sorry but your comment that there are no proper answers on that thread just about sums up everything that is wrong with this process. You know full well we have answered every single post in great detail including providing references to all supporting information. I really don?t mind if you made your mind up before making your first post and no amount of information would change that position or that you didn?t like the answers but I do mind when people mislead the community and imply answers are not forthcoming. Kind regards Ben

Hi yoginilucy First of all I believe all of the addresses in the Cleve Hall Estate were included in the neighbour consultation by the council sent in July 2019 after the application was submitted. I have checked their document and there are certainly the addresses there for all of the residences between Sainsburys and the top of Champion Hill. On the floodlight comment the FA Cup was a one off event in which the BBC erected their own lighting (which incidentally was 6 times more powerful than our lights). This year the club has invested in new LED directional floodlights to replace the old lamps which also reduces light pollution. In terms of the noise, there were separate noise pollution studies that officers were satisfied with but it is not my area of expertise so well worth reviewing. Kind regards Ben On the comment on property value I am sure different people would argue different things. There has been a football club on this site for over 100 years now (including a period when the stadium was on the AstroTurf site itself) and so it is not a new event for there to be crowd noise and secondly whilst I respect the views of those that would prefer the astroturf to remain unmanaged and continue in its run down state that is not usually something that has a positive impact on surrounding property prices unlike new sports and leisure facilities which do. But I appreciate everyone has differing views on that. Kind regards Ben

Hi squirrelmc Please refer to clause 84 of the planning officer report called 'The Charter Schools Education Trust' which is on the 59th page of the 268 page PDF Public Reports Pack Document. This includes the statement 'The planning application should only be granted on condition that children from the local state schools, including theirs, have reasonable, free and regular access during term-time to the football pitch and other sports facilities, including the gym' The lease I am referring to is our current lease to the Green Dale astroturf which outlines our obligations to operate access to the new pitch and includes the following clause about charging 'The charges which the Tenant may levy will be in line with the Landlord?s charges for its own sports facilities and will be agreed with the Landlord in advance and reviewed annually' (Southwark being the landlord) That is the clause we needed to ask for exemption for to allow free access to schools. Kind regards Ben

Hi squirrelmc There are two very important distinctions that should help. Firstly at no point does the documentation submitted 'say the opposite' about charging schools. We are compelled by the council to have a rate card for use (we are in breach of the lease if we do not'. The document you refer applies that rate card and is designed to calculate hours of use and also to give an indication of what it 'should' cost for different types of use. It does not state whether we will be charging anyone. That is the false claim that is repeatedly being made. Secondly, a planning application process and officers' report is not based solely on submitted documents. There are many booked formal meetings to discuss the plans, make design changes and there are many email commmunications clarifying points, decisions and commitments. All of those are equally important and as formal parts of the prcoess as the supporting documents. After meeting the Charter School heads right back at the start of this process in which we told them that the club would like to make club facilities available to them for free we took that proposal to the council, again in a formal meeting and asked for their position on whether they would release us from our obligation to charge under our lease with them. We were given an indication that they believed no one would object to us providing hours for free to the schools. I believe the officers followed up with schools directly and they also came back to us, again, formally in writing, prior to writing their summary. We re-confirmed in writing that it would still be free if the council allowed us to. The officers confirmed that position and included it as a condition in the report which is then published for all to review. So, an application is not a one way process based only on submitted documents, it is also inclusive of meetings and written submissions and emails none of which is conducted 'behind the scenes' and then officers insert all of the agreed positions as conditions of the application whether that is free use for state schools or that the stadium for the club and community to use must be completed prior to the residential development starting etc. I would encourage you therefore to read the full report as it is a superset of information including final agreed positions not just on submitted documents but all other formal inputs. For what it's worth I think the council came up with lots of ideas that in my view improved on the scheme as it evolved and resulted in revisions that add even more benefit to the community. And so yes, there is an audit trail of written commitments from the club to provide free access to the state schools. Kind regards Ben

Dear squirrelmc To be clear you do did not see anywhere in the documents that the club would be charging schools you saw a number that showed the minimum cost for subsidised cost to a third party. Nowhere does it state that the schools would be charged. Separately, and confirmed during the writing of the report is our commitment to free access. In fact I think it would be good practice if everyone commenting either asked us questions as Duke does or reads the entire report and then comments. Had you or Friends of Greendale read the officer?s report you will know that it includes a condition that ?children from the local state schools, including theirs [Charter Schools] have reasonable, free, and regular access. So, the answer to your question is committee members will know the facts as they will have read the report prepared for them instead of digging around randomly and taking things out of context. Kind regards Ben

Hi Duke I?m afraid your response includes a claim that we have contacted Friends of Greendale about which is their false accusation that schools will be charged. This is a very serious false claim. They have made the claim as a result of misunderstanding the purpose of a document used to calculate hourly use. The club committed to local schools prior to the application that if they saw value in using the new facilities we would offer that for free. This was then requested by us as a variation to our obligation to use the council rate card for charging for use. All of which is on record and confirmed with officers prior to their report. A leaflet in Friends of Greendale?s name is now being distributed to houses after they were put on notice that the claim was false. We are taking advice on this action while we wait for a response from the primary contacts at Friends of Greendale. I will get back to your other points ASAP but hope you understand that the severity of this situation has taken over. For you and others the club is not charging schools something we know, the council know, the schools know and sadly so now do Friends of Greendale but no apology or retraction has been published. Kind regards Ben

Hi Duke I would like to question one of your statements. Firstly our fans are known for how welcoming they are which is why attendances have increased to make us the largest community sporting event in Southwark each game. We have enormously strong relationships with local groups and other clubs. I have never seen anything at the club that could be described as 'tribal and adversary'. I also want to go back on record with what we have said all along which is we have not briefed people to support the application, we have informed them and encouraged them to support if they are supportive. We have not lobbied and we have not written stock notices to be copied and pasted. We asked them to say whatever they wanted and you are right I know fans that are not supportive and I hope they would testify to the fact that I have always engaged with them and welcomed their opinion as I believe firmly in a community working together not apart and there are conflicting opinions on all issues. People should remember the reason that there are thousands of people in support is because the club has given support to thousands, it has been outward looking and offered a home and help wherever it was needed. It has grown organically by those groups coming together and then bringing more people themselves from an average of fewer than 200 10 years ago to over 2,000 today and last season alone welcomed over 2,000 different children and families from Southwark schools, communities and charities to games for free. If the application is approved that will be increased again with the availability of a pitch and classrooms. We won the national award this season for our work in the community and so passionate about our community, yes, tribal, no.

Hi squirrelmc I hope I can clarify. Southwark own the freehold to the whole area, the club has the lease to the astroturf (and before that had the lease to playing fields as well). Southwark Council own the freehold to a lot of other land including land on which many private houses are built and those owners have leases from Southwark for their plots. A council owning the freehold to a piece of land does not make it public land especially when a lease is granted to someone else by the council. Kind regards Ben

Hi Duke On your five points, yes, they have been addressed and this is why the club have been happy to allow such a long time for the application to be heard - there have been many meetings and views incorporated since the initial plans and that work with the council officers is the difference between the last submission and this one. Sorry for the formal bullet points but easier to tie back to your note. 1. It is now the position that those special circumstances are deemed to apply and whilst I know some people will want to respond with the fact that the future of a community club should not qualify need to accept that is only their opinion and not the consensus. We should also note that the Southwark plan for the MOL is the same as the club's, to renovate and enclose the astro turf, that was the obligation we agreed to take over with the new lease. 2. Again, the position on this development is different and great emphasis was placed on the size and location of the blocks and the surrounding green space, I do not pretend to be an expert in this area but I can testify to the work done to maximise the green space as well as incorporating other offsets to secure the recommendation. 3. The sporting provision will now increase significantly, the football stadium will include more facilities and the squash courts, gym and boxing gym relocated to larger spaces in the new stadium. The sports provision with the new pitch will deliver new opportunities for local clubs and schools who do not have access to similar facilities. The level of use of the astro turf is a hot topic and the new space was designed to provide a facility that matches what we observed over many months - that when in use it is usually small groups playing football. 4. Again, changed. And again a lot of feedback on reducing height and the layout was even completely revised during the feedback sessions. 5. Increased and above the 35% policy with the opportunity to provide more and so yes, this is has been addressed. Also, it's a fair point - there is a difficult line between asking people to respect others and stifling debate and that is certainly not the intention. I am not hear to tell anyone that wanting to keep the status quo of a run down pitch instead of delivering a sports facility sorely lacking in Southwark is an invalid opinion but I do not think it is acceptable to dismiss the hard work of people with years of experience whose job it is to independently assess these things to justify that opinion. I appreciate your approach. Kind regards Ben

Hi All of those have been a huge concern for the council, they have considered everything. What we are struggling to understand is why there is such a lack of respect for the work the planning officers do. In any application there are dozens of conflicting factors and you come to a conclusion based on the balance of all of them. That is all we have ever asked for - review the plan and make a decision on whether you want a football club. If the decision is ?No? then that?s their call. I think anyone who has a different opinion should respect the opinions of others and stick to the facts that support their position

Hi again ?almost peckham? ?Over the last few months? is a phrase I have heard a few times. I don?t like it. If you are going to use that to justify why DHFC should be killed off, what next? Will you campaign for closing libraries, playgrounds and community centres because of lack of people going to them since shutdown in March? We took photos of the Astro turf use last summer of every day we played a game during the planning consultation period, height of summer, middle of the day, no one was there on any of the four days. I hope you will not be exploiting the fact that our thousands of fans not being able to go to games is evidence of lack of value to the community in the same way you claim increased use ?over the last few months? is as a positive for our Astro turf.