Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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!

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.

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> According to today's Southwark News, Hadley

> Property Group has submitted its "final planning

> application" for a new DHFC stadium on Green Dale.


Except they haven't. The applications's been made by Bilfinger BVA (or, rather, GVA Grimley Ltd which, for reasons undisclosed, prefers to use an alias) on behalf of Greendale Property Company Limited, which is, I believe, the very same offshore outfit as the freeholder. Why they've chosen this moment to peel back a layer of distransparency isn't clear. Perhaps it's because the likes of Farrells, Savills and all the other hangers-on might not have played ball with an outfit that has (at least on paper) less than no money. Or perhaps it's because it keeps HPG (and thus DHFC) well away from the parts of the redevelopment that might threaten to be profitable.


For those that don't find it fun to pick their way through the fragmentized chaos of the council's site, I've stitched the main application document back together. I think this is OK because it's a public document and, besides, there's no copyright notice on it.

That may be because any notice might have appeared at the end and the financial viability stuff, which would have appeared at the end, is so unutterably confidential that we're not allowed to see what they're trying to get the council to believe. But I'm happy to take full responsibility for that and, should they choose to let me know that they'd prefer me to have noticed what they've hidden, I can make it disappear just as well as they can.

Burbage Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> The applications's been made

> by Bilfinger BVA (or, rather, GVA Grimley Ltd

> which, for reasons undisclosed, prefers to use an

> alias) on behalf of Greendale Property Company

> Limited, which is, I believe, the very same

> offshore outfit as the freeholder.


Offshore freeholder?


Will the Budget 2016 Red Book paras 2.95 and 2.96 apply?


John K

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.

jacks09 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> struggling to open the docs - whats the proposed

> capacity and seating arrangements? Covers on all

> sides?


The documents we're currently allowed to see don't have any details about the stadium. In compensation, however, there's some lyrical prose about Farrell's wonderful Vision, and some lovely artistic impressions of how elegantly the 155 residential units will ornament the space they'll be replacing.

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."

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.

I've been trying to log on to Southwark's planning website for the last few weeks for a different application. I usually get this, whichever phone or computer I use to access the site:


http://i65.tinypic.com/685vr9.png


155 dwellings seems excessive for a plot of land the size of a football pitch.

@Blackcurrant - you need to think in three dimensions: they are planning 6 stories, using the goddawful King's nursing accommodation as a precedent (btw, how did _that_ get built?).


But you're right in your general point: this is going to change the area completely, including the "open" aspect of the remaining Metropolitan Open Land.

This is one of the key documents - the justification for the whole thing, contained in section 6. From a quick look through, the primary justification for building on MOL is the contention that the club is financially unsustainable in its current form, yet I have not so far found any accounts or financial statements in the submission that support this (frankly surprising) assertion.


http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!s5yeW%2bePQpbhAWzOWHVWkg%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d

  • 2 weeks later...

I've redone the technical drawing to calculate the ground taken by the proposed development using the original data from the submitted planning application. Where my last drawings were as accurate as possible given the total lack of dimensions offered in the public consultations, these are totally accurate to Hadley's/Farrell's own drawings.


The alarming figures are:


Total Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) taken in new stadium development - 8121 square meters

Area needed beyond existing astroturf pitch - 2733 square meters (one third of total MOL needed)

Area of MOL to be built upon (covered terraces, infrastructure, 2.4m concrete wall) -1282 square meters.


This final figure equates to more than 16 average UK house sizes built on MOL.


I've again attached a representation of the drawing to illustrate the figures.


I urge local residence to object to this planning application by leaving a comment on the Southwark planning page, and also by writing into the Planning department to object.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The lack of affordable housing is down to Thatcher's promoting sale of council properties. When I was working, I had to deal with many families/older folk/ disabled folk in inferior housing. The worst ones were ex council properties purchased by their tenants  with a very high discount who then sold on for a profit. The new owners frequently rented out at exorbitant prices and failed to maintain the properties. I remember a gentleman who needed to be visited by a district nurse daily becoming very upset as he rented a room in an ex council flat and shared kitchen and bathroom with 6 other people  (it was a 3 bed flat) the landlord did not allow visitors to the flat and this gut was frightened he would be evicted if the nurse visited daily. Unfortunately, the guy was re admitted to hospital and ended up in a care home as he could not receive medical help at home.   Private developers  are not keen on providing a larger percentage of 'social housing' as it dents their profits. Also a social rent is still around £200 plus a week
    • Hello, I was wondering if others have had experience of roof repairs and guarantees. A while back, we had a water leak come through in our top floor room.  A roofer came and went out on the roof to take a look - they said it was to do with a leak near the chimney.   They did some rendering around the chimney and this cost £1800 plus £750 for scaffolding (so £2,550 total).  They said the work came with a 10 year guarantee. About a year later, there was another leak on the same wall, which looked exactly the same size and colour as the previous leak. But it was about 2 metres away from it, on the other side of a window.  I contacted the roofer about this new leak, thinking it would be covered by the guarantee. However, he said the new leak was due to a different and unrelated problem, and so was not covered by the guarantee. This new leak, he said, was due to holes in the felt underneath the tiles. He said there are holes in the felt all over the roof (so if this was the cause, I expect the first leak may have been caused by that too - but he didn't mention the holes in the felt for the first repair). It feels like the 10-year guarantee doesn't mean much at all.  I realise that the guarantee couldn't cover all future problems with the roof, but where do you draw the line with what's reasonable?  Is it that a leak is only covered if an identical leak happens in exactly the same place?  There were no terms and conditions with the guarantee, which I didn't question at the time.  
    • I always like Redemptions coffee though I've not visted for awhile..Romeo Jones was always my 1st choice for takeout Coffee Redemption 2nd. What IS with all these independent Yoga and Pilates Studios? Theres one on London Rd in Forest Hill (Mind) thats recently opened and then theres the Pilates place thats opened on North X Road. I looked at the prices of the one on NorthX road and was frankly shocked at how expensive it is, The FH one is slightly less.  Made me decide to stick with classes in The local authority gym
    • Dulwich Village update: The old DVillage location is (again?) under offer. The storefront next to the new grocer is going to open as a yoga and pilates studio...the name of which I've forgotten. 🤦‍♂️  Megan's is starting to push its takeaway coffee and cannibalise some of Redemption Coffee's market share. Is Megan's struggling? It's quite a big restaurant they have and rent cant be cheap. The reinventing of the Megan's branch on Lordship Lane as Ollie's seems to have stalled. And Redemption is looking a bit tired these days...
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...