Planning application submitted for new DHFC stadium

[kiera]

I'm quite sure the council will not do this, as the information is online and therefore already available to everyone.

[BrandNewGuy]

I will be making sure they do :-)

[jay66]

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

[taper]

The Dulwich Hamlet Supporters Trust's views are here:

http://dhst.org.uk/your-club-needs-you-supportourstadium/

[BrandNewGuy]

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

[thedukeofmonclar]

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.

[BrandNewGuy]

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

[taper]

Do you have a sense about how influential Southwark's view will be at the Planning Appeal?

[BrandNewGuy]

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.

[taper]

Indeed. Not sure where that will leave Dulwich Hamlet.

[BrandNewGuy]

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.

[taper]

The Supporters Trust are an observer. They don't have the power to deliver a plan B. Meanwhile the club will lurch into an uncertain future.

[BrandNewGuy]

They don't have the power, but they can have the vision. Especially if whatever the future holds includes supporter involvement in the ownership and management of the club, which it should.

[ruffers]

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..)

[taper]

Possibly. I suppose jumpers for goalposts on the Greendale AstroTurf might be an option. It was their old pitch after all.

[dc]

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.

[BrandNewGuy]

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'...

[Sue]

Is it still owned by Nick then?

[BrandNewGuy]

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.

[Sue]

Ah OK, thanks

[Inbetweener]

Clubs having 'undisclosed' fees is not specific for a reason here, it is fairly common throughout football, both non-league & Football League.

[BrandNewGuy]

It is, but presumably it has to show up at some point for accounting purposes.

[ianr]

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]

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

[ianr]

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.