Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • 1 month later...

There's only a week left for people to comment on the two appeals that have now been lodged with the Planning Inspectorate over the DHFC new stadium on nearby Green Dale, blocks of flats and associated landscaping in the area.


If you wrote in before to Southwark Council you should now write with a different angle or additional points to the ones you wrote before. Don't repeat yourself.

If you didn't write before you should definitely write something!!


The Friends of DKH Wood have tons of documentation and suggested points on their website:

http://www.friendsofdkhwood.org/greendale/planning-inspectorate-appeals/


It's worth looking at the new documentation too that was uploaded this year:

http://www.friendsofdkhwood.org/greendale/documents-for-16ap1232/


The LBS Log Issues document is very interesting, showing Southwark's thoughts on the application followed by the developer's comments. Plenty to write about if you just read this one document!


To comment on the original planning application 16/AP/1232 to build on Green Dale and DHFC stadium go to this website and click the "make representation" button at the top: https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?Caseid=3164823&CoID=0

Don't forget, there are only four days left to make your VIEWS known to the Planning Inspectorate. To comment on the original planning application 16/AP/1232 to build on Green Dale and DHFC stadium go to this website and click the "make representation" button at the top:

https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?caseid=3164823

Here's an animation tweeted by Friends of Dog Kennel Hill Wood, showing the how the Green Dale fields have been built upon over the last 25 years, and what impact the new development would have in red. It's pretty alarming. There's still time to write in and have your voice heard about this. Letters need to be in by tuesday.
  • 2 months later...

The Council has just published its statement to the Planning Appeal which makes it very clear that if it had been in a position to make a decision, it would have refused planning permission on five grounds: Impact on Metropolitan Open Land; Development on Other Open Space; Reduction in sports facilities; Height, scale and massing of the residential development; Affordable Housing. Here's a summary:


Impact on Metropolitan Open Land

8.1 The Council will submit evidence to support its case that the development is inappropriate on land designated as MOL. If the Council had been able to determine the application, it would have refused permission for the following reason:

?The proposed football ground with its associated boundary treatment, terracing and floodlighting is an inappropriate development which would fail to preserve the openness of the Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) within which it would be located. Insufficient ?Very special circumstances? have been demonstrated by the application to justify inappropriate development on MOL. As such it is contrary to Policies 3.25 `Metropolitan Open Land' of the Saved Southwark Plan (2007), Strategic Policy 11 ?Open Spaces and Wildlife? of the Core Strategy (2011) and Policy 7.17 ?Metropolitan Open Land? of the London Plan (2016)?.


Development on Other Open Space

8.5 ? If the Council had been able to determine the application, it would have refused permission for the following reason:?The residential blocks and stadium building would be located on land designated as Other Open Space (OOS). The development is not ancillary to the enjoyment of the OOS, is not small in scale, would detract from the prevailing openness of the site and fails to positively contribute to the setting and quality of the open space. Land of equivalent or better size and quality would not be secured and the development would therefore be contrary to policy 3.27 ?Other Open Space? of the saved Southwark Plan (2007), Strategic Policy 11 ?Open Spaces and Wildlife? of the Core Strategy (2011) and Policy 7.18 ?Protecting Open Space and Addressing Deficiency? of the London Plan (2016)?.


Reduction in sports facilities

8.8? If the Council had been able to determine the application, it would have refused permission for the following reason:?The proposed development would involve a reduction in sports facilities across the site. As such, it would fail to contribute to the health and well-being of borough residents contrary to saved policies 2.1 ?Enhancement of community facilities? of the Southwark Plan 2007, Strategic policies 4 ?Places for learning, enjoyment and healthy lifestyles? and 11 ?Open spaces and wildlife? of the Core Strategy 2011, and Policy 3.19 ?Sports facilities? of the London Plan 2016.?


Height, scale and massing of the residential development

8.11? If the Council had been able to determine the application, it would have refused permission for the following reason:?The proposed residential blocks, by reason of their height, scale and massing would result in an overly dominant and visually intrusive development which would be out of character with the prevailing built form of the locality. It would be overbearing when viewed from the adjacent open spaces and appear as an alien form within the local townscape. It would therefore be contrary to saved Policies 3.11 ?Efficient Use of Land?, 3.12 ?Quality in Design?, 3.13 ?Urban Design?, and 3.27 ?Other Open Space? of the Southwark Plan (2007), Strategic Policies 11 ?Open spaces and wildlife? and 12 ?Design and Conservation? of the Core Strategy (2011) and Policies 7.4 ?Local Character?, and 7.6 ?Architecture? of the London Plan (2016)?.


Affordable Housing

8.14 This proposal would provide 16% affordable housing when measured by habitable rooms. This is significantly below the 35% expected under Core Strategy policy 6, and the mix of affordable homes does not include the social rented homes required by that policy? Therefore, if the Council had been able to determine the application, it would have refused planning permission for the following reason:-

?The development fails to contribute the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing to meet the needs of the Borough, London and the UK as a whole. The development has not demonstrated that it could not support the expected level of affordable housing whilst remaining viable. It is therefore contrary to Policy 4.4 ?Affordable Housing? of the saved Southwark Plan (2007), Strategic Policy 6 ?Homes for people on different Incomes? of the Core Strategy (2011) and Policies 3.12 ?Negotiating Affordable Housing on individual private residential private residential and mixed use schemes? and 3.13 ?Affordable Housing Thresholds? of the London Plan (2016)?.


http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!7Q9%2fYBVUPYmwj4QPQ6%2fFxg%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d

It's very difficult to tell. The Planning Inspector is meant to take all relevant information into account regardless of the source, but Southwark will have plenty of time to spell out their case and also cross-examine the appellants. If I was the developer, I'd be worried.
I can only hope that the Supporters Trust will consider a Plan B. The refusal to do so during the whole planning application process was understandable but perhaps unwise. They need to look at the land that might more easily be developed (the current footprint of the stadium plus the car park area) and see how that could fit in with plans for a sustainable financial future for the club. I suspect the scale of that won't interest Meadow and their backers, though.

Would this leave the developers/owners the option of now throwing up their hands, saying "Oh, well, we tried" and then just building the flats anyway leaving the club without a ground?


(Which I'm sure some of us may have suspected as the plan all along..)

ruffers Wrote:

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

> Would this leave the developers/owners the option

> of now throwing up their hands, saying "Oh, well,

> we tried" and then just building the flats anyway

> leaving the club without a ground?

>

> (Which I'm sure some of us may have suspected as

> the plan all along..)


No. That will not even be an option. Anyway, this is just Southwark's view, not a final decision upon which any action is likely to be taken. The document also makes clear that discussions with the developer will continue during the pre-Inquiry period.

  • 1 month later...

Nice bit of business for DHFC in the sale of Ethan Pinnock ? earlier figures quoted were, I believe, way off the mark, but anything like a ?50,000 'windfall' is very good news for the club:

https://www.londonnewsonline.co.uk/26867/dulwich-hamlet-set-bank-50000-defenders-switch-barnsley/


Perhaps less welcome is the suggestion from an 'insider' on the Urban75 DHFC forum that any sell-on fee money will go straight to Meadow Residential, the property developers who control the club, rather than directly to the football club itself. This seems to be in contrast to the details given last year about the club's financial structure that suggested that all transfer-related and directly football-related monies went to the football club:


"Dulwich Hamlet FC Ltd

- Owned by Nick McCormack, run by Meadow Residential

- Receives all match day income, (except for the Bar income)

- Receives FA prize money and Transfer fees

- Receives all Sponsorship"


The reason I bring it up here is because the suggested parlous financial state of the club has been a major part of Meadow Residential's (and previously Hadley's) argument for the proposed stadium move and ground redevelopment. As with the queries about increased gate receipts and proper club accounting, I hope that this sell-on fee isn't kept obscure for the sake of talking down the club's current position. Financial transparency would get rid of any lingering doubts either way, but I'm not holding my breath.


Similarly, and it's a trivial point, but I was irked by the detail from the club committee that its allocation of FA Cup final tickets was taken up by Meadow Residential rather than the club itself. A small matter, but one that smacks of 'droit de seigneur'...

Formally, yes it is. Meadow Residential (and before them Hadley) have said that they will immediately buy out his stake if and when their planning application succeeds. But having sorted out the club's debts, the developers control the running of the club and Nick takes no part in it.
  • 2 months later...

Burbage wrote on 31/3/16

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

> 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. https://www.docdroid.net/OP6owyg/gpc-planningapplication.pdf.html


Thanks for that. I've used the Download link on that page to download it as a single 20MB PDF file.

[ETA See also Burbage's two supplemntary postings of more documents on 5/4/2016 http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1657240,1659269#msg-1659269]


Can anyone provide the registered company number quoted for the said Greendale Property Company Ltd?

edhistory Wrote:

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

> https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10705650


But that company wasn't in existence when the application was made.


Actually, I see that my implicit question's been more or less answered already, in the contributions two pages above, starting on 21/11/2016 at http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1657240,1755536#msg-1755536, about the various company details, where it's said to be registered in the Isle of Man. Et voil?. https://services.gov.im/ded/services/companiesregistry/viewcompany.iom?Id=334369.

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

    • Gone to the better hunting grounds during this local ongoing dry spell.
    • The Dreamliner has an impeccable service history, you are more likely to get mugged on the way to the airport than having any issue with your flight, that's how safe it is!  Have a great trip.
    • Maybe. Does that kill grass? If so, possibly the same dog that has left its poo outside my house - pretty sure it's not fox poo.
    • Here you are, intexasatthemoment (you seem to have been in Texas for a very long time!) We went to three of the recommended places yesterday,  as they were all in the same road (just near Wallington)  and I needed to give the car a run to avoid another slap on the wrist from my garage (and another new battery). Here's my findings. BARNES Parking We thought we would go here first as it was the earliest to close on a Sunday (3pm). There was no apparent entrance or anywhere to park. One notice said do not park on grass verge, and another one said staff cars only! Flittons was opposite but I'd already passed the entrance, so I had to drive down the road, turn round at the next available place (covered in signs saying do not park here) and park in Flittons car park! Plants Barnes  specialise in hardy perennials, so that was basically what they had, but an excellent selection, and many more unusual plants (or at least, plants you probably wouldn't find in a garden centre), eg Corydalis,  lots of different varieties of Epimediums, Trollius, some lovely Phygelius, lots of different ferns). The plants were divided into sections according to whether they needed sun or shade or could cope with both. They had a particularly good selection of  shade loving plants. There was really useful information above  each group of plants, which meant you didn't have to look at individual labels. All the plants looked in good health and  very well cared for. They don't produce a printed catalogue, but they  said their plant list was online (I haven't looked yet). I assume most of  the plants they have at any one time are when it's their flowering season (if they flower). I wasn't intending to buy anything, though was very tempted, but I'd definitely go here again once I've sorted out my overgrown garden. Other Stuff Don't think they sell pots, compost, etc. No cafe/tea room and I didn't see a loo, but Flittons is just over the road. FLITTONS  Parking Easy to park Plants Sorry, but mostly terrible. There was one section with vegetables and the rest was flowering plants. There was a general feeling of delapidation. Some of what was on display was actually dead (surely it would only take a minute to remove dead plants) and a lot of the rest was very poorly maintained, eg gone to seed, weedy, apparently unwatered, or with a lot of dead leaves. There was a notice asking for volunteers to work there, so I can only assume they can't afford to pay staff. Other stuff There was a notice to a play barn (?) saying invited people only, so I think they must host kids' parties or something. They redeemed themselves with a cosy little cafe with savoury stuff, nice cakes, iced chai and oat milk, and a loo. Also a selection of books and CDs on sale for charity. If you want an Andrews Sisters CD, you can find one here. There is a small shop with gift shop type stuff and a display of the history of Flittons, which apparently is family owned since the sixties (I think it was). I suspect that the arrival of Dobbies down the road must have greatly affected Flittons' fortunes, which is sad. DOBBIES  Parking Easy in theory once you had navigated a rather narrow entrance, but it was very busy so it took a while to find a space. Plants  Lots of plants, well maintained but I imagine their turnover is high. Lots of nice bedding plants for hanging baskets, window boxes etc  to cater for all tastes (ie some of it wasn't mine, but fine if you like those horrid little begonias (my opinion only) but they did have some nice (in my opinion) stuff as well. I was tempted but decided to buy from North Cross Road market. Fair selection of climbers, various different Clematis etc. I'd be happy to buy plants from here. The prices seemed reasonable and they were in good condition. Other stuff  It's a big garden centre with all that entails these days, so a large area selling garden furniture and storage, tools, animal collars, pots, all the usual stuff you would expect. Very helpful staff. There's a cafe which we didn't check out, charging points for electric cars, a Waitrose (no idea how big, we didn't look). Only on our way out did we see that there was a drive through "express section" for compost etc, which was annoying as I wanted compost and hadn't seen any anywhere,  but I was getting tired by that time. Just Down the Road A ten minute drive away is Wilderness Island, a nature reserve in Carshalton, which is well worth a visit. We heard eleven different kinds of bird (according to Merlin) and saw a Kingfisher flying down the tiny river!
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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