Dulwich Hamlet: future assured?

[Sally Eva]

How assured is it? Meadow still own the land -- is that right? All I can find on-line is that a deal was brokered in 2018 but not any real detail. There doesn't seem to be any follow-up news.

How secure is the club?

[mikeb]

Like all football clubs, I would expect DHFC to spend whatever money it has so it is unlikely to ever be 'profitable', but I can see no reason why a club that brings in c. ?20k for each home game should go bankrupt, other than via fraud or rapacious landlords.

Best way for Southwark to assure the future of DHFC is to affirm that the existing restrictions on the site will continue to be applied i.e. that it can only be used for sporting or social purposes. Meadow will eventually get the message.

[Sally Eva]

thanks. I wasn't really asking about profitability.

The problem with being owned by property developers is that hardly any football club will be as profitable as covering the ground with housing.

the second par explains all. I hope Southwark stay strong.

[AnotherPaul]

Very clear that neither of you have attended public meetings at the club about this very subject.

There is a planning application with Southwark for them review. In that application there are proposals for a new ground behind the current one, and housing to be built where the current ground is. The planning application should have been reviewed last year so if any actor in this is not doing the right thing it's the Council.

Please feel free to bang-on about things you know nothing about maybe keep the word 'fraud' and phrases like 'they'll get the message' out of it. Utterly unhelpful.

[mikeb]

Paul, no need to be so aggressive. I do struggle to understand why ?20k per week is not enough for DHFC or, to put another way, what would be enough.

I've not attended public meetings though I have read most of the planning documents. I don't think any of them address exactly why we should let a property developer have a windfall profit (about ?20m, according to Savils) through the building on metropolitan open land. This has already happened in a very similar way in 1992. Plus ca change ...

[sjsl]

According to the Dulwich Society News 'the London Mayor has changed his mind over the proposed redevelopment of the DH football ground and has said Southwark should approve the latest revised scheme'. Does this carry weight? Has anything happened? I can't find any updates on Southwark website.

[Borderlands]

Hi

Please use the link below that clarifies why Sadiq Khan's view about taking over the MOL is simply wrong in planning terms and should be challenged:

http://www.cprelondon.org.uk/news/item/2508-london-environment-campaigners-s

The slightly amended version of the plans seems to mostly concern aspects of the housing estate (minor changes), alterations to play spaces, and some insignificant/ cosmetic changes to the unsustainable 'linear park'. The main concern for many of us was/is about the taking of MOL land doesn't appear to have been addressed in any way. The designation of MOL is supposed to have extremely high levels of protection, for obvious reasons. Very disappointed that the Mayor of London doesn't think this is important and seems to he want to just dismissively swat the issue away. I am not sure what his record is on recognising the importance of planning protection for green spaces (parks, commons, greens, rail corridors, captive countryside, reserves)- but the GLA's report suggests he's not that interested (compared to his interest in traffic pollution) or whether he is aware of how important this could be in terms of setting a planning precedent for developers. But, as already noted, he's plain wrong in this instance and this needs to be pointed out to him (I don't think the deadline date in this link is important):

http://www.friendsofdkhwood.org/2020/01/write-to-the-mayor-about-green-dale-

fields-mol/

Anyone concerned about the plans, anyone who believes they should be rejected, improved, or wants to standup for the MOL (after all this is not really about the future of the football club but about planning protection for open land) needs to get their comments in to Southwark by 16 March 2020 at the very latest. I suppose this deadline could be challenged as too soon for such a big issue.

You can view the plans using by searching for application 19/AP/1867:

https://planning.southwark.gov.uk

[Borderlands]

Apologies, the date to register your comments about the amended plans is by 14 March 2020 - end of next week.

[taper]

Or you could opt to support a proposal will help secure the future of a local football club that is a cornerstone of community life in East Dulwich and the surrounding area.

Follow the link which will show you how:

https://www.pitchero.com/clubs/dulwichhamlet/news/update-050320-statement-from-the-club-and-dhst-on-our-champion-hill-planning-application-2518507.html

[Borderlands]

It should not be a case of either/or. Destruction/loss of MOL is a serious planning matter. The plans could be improved to prevent this. Why don't you support this too?

[taper]

The plans for the stadium have been changed drastically to accomodate MOL restrictions. It's for the planners to decide whether this is sufficient.

[Borderlands]

Can't say I can see this in the plans. Will try and compare again with the last set. At the moment it looks to me as if the MOL is affected as before.

Not sure you are correct about seeing MOL designations as simply restrictions - they are protections for open land - there's not much of in Centrall London. BTW, I've nothing against improving the football club facilities/buildings. I just believe this is not simply about the club, it's about a housing estate with much higher buildings than the surrounding area, planning blight if/when the developments take place, and the loss of publicly accessible open space that we can all go to. Of course, I understand this may seem irrelevant or very much a side issue, to some supporters of the club.

Not sure also about what you write about planners either. Yes they may review the proposals but this is about local democracy and the very local view too for residents: the Council and those who work for it are accountable to members of the public and to the voters in the area. It's important that locals have input into all the considerations over plans - that still can be improved. That's what consultation is supposed to allow.

[Abe_froeman]

If you look at the very last page of this, it does seem that the Mayor / GLA agree with the developer that "Very Special Circumstances" exist to build on the MOL.

https://planning.southwark.gov.uk/online-applications/files/A48E3D48D97AF8CB770B010750704577/pdf/19_AP_1867-GLA_0083C_01-815774.pdf

[pk]

Borderlands Wrote:

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

> It should not be a case of either/or.

> Destruction/loss of MOL is a serious planning

> matter. The plans could be improved to prevent

> this. Why don't you support this too?

what improvements to the plans are you seeking support for?

[Borderlands]

Sure, but there aren't. He's wrong. I don't think he's that interested in green space issues - he's good on pollution but I am not sure about his track record (as an MP or at GLA) in protecting open land. That's why I posted the link to the CPRE comments to him.

Do you know what "special circumstances" are required to undermine MOL protections? I am a bit busy now so will need to look some other decisions up or find the legislative guidance on it and get to the forum when I can. I've been in many campaigns down the years and interpretation of this kind of thing often needs to investigated and clarified.

BTW., I still don't get why you think protecting the MOL is not compatible with amending the plans so that it is along with an improved DHFC?

[Borderlands]

Didn't notice then when last posted. I am hoping to go through the plans over weekend so not entirely sure. Also I am not a planner/architect/landscape architect.

My experience is that such large, mixed plans are drawn up often based on some kind of assumptions or reassurances made - in this case it seems as they have assumed there would be support for the MOL being threatened/eroded as long as it was for the football club (get supporters on the developers side) rather than removed for housing. So undoing one element of the plan directly affects another in a sort of domino effect. This is the idea of this kind of development, the most important element of which for the developer is the large housing estate (not the stadium and facilities). It can be made to seem as if it would simply be too much of an effort to alter the plans and that the loss of publicly open space is simply and rightly inevitable. Unmanaged, or informal, public opens space is usually seen as wasteful to developers - where's the money in it?. And that's understood by architects, builders, developers and planners. Don't forget Sainsbury's wanted to build a HomeBase there twenty years ago. Same issues, same potential loss - open land is what they are aiming to remove - and public open land is always under threat and the football supporters can be played off residents like me who are quite happy for improved facilities but believe that the MOL should be protected too.

[Buxton Spring]

if things get bad maybe the diretor can sell the ?85 grand merc he drives around in

[Borderlands]

tee hee.

[creditwheredue]

Which Director would that be?