Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Really appreciate the responses if someone had come on here before or even at the consultation answering the questions it would have potentially helped.

Appreciate the comment about the other parks in the area but I think there are differences, but understand it maybe personal preference.


Living in the area I only ever seem to see the various schools using those pitches for athletics / sports days / etc but maybe outside of the hours I visit as you say it used must be being used football.


So just to confirm if the application gets rejected the reason the football club will fail is due to Meadow wanting money from the club for using its land?

> If this application is refused...what particular

> cost will make the club fail?


The cost for keeping this current ground to an acceptable safety standard is, and will be a huge cost and will only increase year on year.


The current ground is a money swamp.


I was not a fan of the club when this ground was built (in 1982?) but I have been told by a lot of people it was built on the cheap and that is now showing.


The club and the trust have ensured the new design will be built at an acceptable standard of quality that will last years.


I do not have the costs to hand but we spent an absolute fortune making the club safe for fans after our return from Tooting and the club was only unoccupied for eight months

@dulwichfolk - As I said in the first post, we did have plenty of events and have tried to get this info out there as much as possible but we know we won't get to everyone! That's why I'm here today I guess!! So sorry it's a bit late.


I think we have to be realistic, Meadow are a property development company, not a stadium management company. They want to develop the land for houses. They either do it with us, in a brand new, 125 year lease stadium with the future of the club secure for another few generations, or without us with no club.They own the land, so can do that.


That is the choice we face here. It is that stark. The development allows the club to stay alive, and thrive in the future. If the application gets turned down, the club will fold. Our time at tooting and near insolvency proves that will be the case.

savedulwichhamlet Wrote:

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

> > If this application is refused...what

> particular

> > cost will make the club fail?

>

> The cost for keeping this current ground to an

> acceptable safety standard is, and will be a huge

> cost and will only increase year on year.

>

> The current ground is a money swamp.

>

> I was not a fan of the club when this ground was

> built (in 1982?) but I have been told by a lot of

> people it was built on the cheap and that is now

> showing.

>

> The club and the trust have ensured the new design

> will be built at an acceptable standard of quality

> that will last years.

>

> I do not have the costs to hand but we spent an

> absolute fortune making the club safe for fans

> after our return from Tooting and the club was

> only unoccupied for eight months



1992/3 - We had to delay our move in due to the fact they put *too much* sand on the pitch and it was unplayable, and this sparked our first ground share with our loathed rivals over at Sandy Lane (Tooting's old ground) for the start of that season

Appreciate they are a property company hence different objectives.


So with regards similar planning permissions previously being tried when very similar consequences were mooted why is this one any different?


What I'm trying to get to is why does this planning application look like it might pass when others have failed what is actually different?

@YTC the astroturf and the land around it are a community resource, a wonderful wild green area where people from the densely populated neighbourhoods in the area go to unwind, walk their dogs and enjoy some of the untamed greenland. The lockdown has shown, if there was any doubt before, how important this is. I'd urge you to please go and take a look at the astroturf during the day tomorrow if you don't believe me. Children play there, there's room for sports, and groups congregate to chat (socially distanced for the most part, which the space allows). And others walk in the green areas behind. Please do this tomorrow, visit the astroturf and maybe it will change your mind about this development, which will kill off this important use of the metropolitan open land as it stands. It is not derelict land, it is an important community resource.


I'm very sorry to hear of the plight of DHFC and its battle with the sharks at Meadow, I attend games at the club too, but if the solution to those problems is to take open land from a commnunity that vitally needs it then that's the wrong solution.

eastdulwichhenry Wrote:

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

> @YTC the astroturf and the land around it are a

> community resource, a wonderful wild green area

> where people from the densely populated

> neighbourhoods in the area go to unwind, walk

> their dogs and enjoy some of the untamed

> greenland. The lockdown has shown, if there was

> any doubt before, how important this is. I'd urge

> you to please go and take a look at the astroturf

> during the day tomorrow if you don't believe me.

> Children play there, there's room for sports, and

> groups congregate to chat (socially distanced for

> the most part, which the space allows). And others

> walk in the green areas behind. Please do this

> tomorrow, visit the astroturf and maybe it will

> change your mind about this development, which

> will kill off this important use of the

> metropolitan open land as it stands. It is not

> derelict land, it is an important community

> resource.

>




The choice here is a derelict piece of astro turf which is not fit for purpose and the end of a 126 year old football club or a state of the art community and sports centre which anyone can use.


If the astro turf was ever refurbed to a high standard, it would be fenced off. The only reason it is not fenced off now is because of the state it is in.

Thank you Tom for clarifying that, in summary, DHFC has a long history of poor governance and inept decision making from within including most recently and leading to the current situation allowing itself to be taken over by Meadow. The solution as DHFC now see it then is for them to be bailed out, to wall off and restrict access to a piece of publicly owned land (MOL). To repeat, DHFC sold their football ground to meadow - what on earth did you think was going to happen?


Your full and eloquent post sets out DHFC's self-made plight very well but says nothing to those people who use the space every day for a whole range of reasons from kids learning to ride bikes to dog walkers to say nothing of the environmental impact on the many species of birds and animals in the area. Yes, there are some other places for people to find the space for games playing, as you suggest. But why should local residents have to travel to use an open space? By the same measure there are also other places to play a football match once every two weeks, as recent history has shown. Maybe trying to think of other clubs who want something like the same thing as DHFC as something other than 'loathed rivals' might help here.


Does DHFC still have the highest player wage-bill in their league and the league above? This is a genuine question, I think it was true a season or two ago. Long term control of outgoings might have been a good way of ameliorating any reduction in receipts.

savedulwichhamlet


Over the last few months the astroturf has been been 'fit for purpose' for playing football, volleyball, kids riding bikes, for dog walkers, cricket matches, running laps, circuit training, bmx tricks, and just being in an open space with a wider horizon than might be seen from a window. Broader, less controlled, possibly more human usage than a 'state of the art sports centre' . It has been vital.

almost peckham Wrote:

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

> savedulwichhamlet

>

> Over the last few months the astroturf has been

> been 'fit for purpose' for playing football,

> volleyball, kids riding bikes, for dog walkers,

> cricket matches, running laps, circuit training,

> bmx tricks, and just being in an open space with a

> wider horizon than might be seen from a window.

> Broader, less controlled, possibly more human

> usage than a 'state of the art sports centre' . It

> has been vital.


My point is, something is going to be done with that land regardless. If it is refurbed, it will be fenced off, if Dulwich build their stadium, it will be fenced off.

Hi dulwichfolk

Like Tom I am also a fan and director. One quick clarification, there hasn?t been any previous refusal for these plans, the last application was withdrawn when the council did not take it to committee, it was never determined.


So, what else is different? This application has a recommendation to approve because we have worked hard with the council on what is best for the community and the council have done a great job fighting for whatever is submitted is to the greatest benefit to all. The recommendation to approve has been the result of listening to a lot of hard working experts at the council after we have all had our say, for and against. The attacks on the council for making a decision is a worrying trend towards the sort of politics we as a community in Southwark should be joined together to fight. The club has always said it would accept the recommendation of the officers, it?s a shame others groups have decided that they will now adopt the ?experts know nothing? line when the outcome is not to their advantage, personally I have seen enough damage in the past few years from that stance and hope our local community does not become the latest victim.

Hi Ben

I should have been more specific.


When I meant planning rejection I meant over the years various proposals were put forward, DIY shop, BMX track, etc


The ones which were refused noted on the decision notice things such as


Building on MOL

Increase in traffic at DKH

Reducing the openness of the MOL


Just wondering why now these don?t seem to be a concern for the council.

Hi ?almost peckham? I do wish we had real names to speak to

Some interesting points so important for some fact checking.

The club never sold the land to Meadow. The land has changed hands numerous times before the current situation.

The MOL you refer to has never been ?public land? it is the club?s land under a lease. it is a football pitch now and was a football pitch 100 years ago. The banks around it are our old terraces. I have no issue with people wanting to argue for its value in its current state, i.e. you would rather keep that piece of land open than have a football club, that?s a valid opinion but people need to stop pretending it is anything other than that stark decision.

Let?s also be clear on the space, how does renovating our pitch stop people walking their dogs or playing on the majority of the land on Green Dale that will be unaffected, is there not room for that and our beloved community club? I assume you have not believed the misleading statements that the whole of Green Dale is under threat?

On the wage bill. Oh my word, I wish. It is fair to say all of our income goes to running the club on and off the pitch but I would love to introduce you to the owners that fund their clubs beyond matchday income and perhaps you can convince some of them to throw some cash our way. We have no funds other than matchday income and we are miles off what you claim.

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.

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

Ben. I am not sure if you have deliberately misinterpreted my post. My point was that the astroturf has been heavily used over recent months thus making clear its amenity value. I said nothing of the stadium being underused - of course it hasn't been available to use - just like everything else that has been shut.


How you then groundlessly extapolate that I might campaign for the closure of libraries and community centres is baffling and offensive. I would like you to retract this false claim. It is one of the reasons some prefer not to use real names - in case someone makes baseless claims that might spread.


At the moment Meadow have everyone where they want them. They have set up a false bi-partisan, binary situation of splitting the greater population into the two camps of for the club and for the open space with implied counter views of wanting the demise of the other. This, in my experience is not true. Most want the continued survival of the club and the continued existence of the open space. But Meadow have everyone over a barrel, fighting each other.


I do not believe DHFC should be 'killed off'. I joined many of the protests to show support for the club over the last few years. My view was, and still is the club should be supported to remain in and redevelop the existing ground without further encroachment on open ground and without the building of a six storey block.


At the least, I think the decision should be postponed and for the following reason: No-one yet knows if a return to mass attended, closely populated events will safe in the post COVID landscape. We are still waiting for expert (and yes I do listen to read and otherwise engage with the views of experts) opinion to shape how our behaviour might have to change. We don't yet know if 4000 people can stand, shout, be together safely, and it might be foolish to build a stadium until we know one way or the other.

The point about the rest of Greendale being untouched is an important one - and one that I've seen misrepresented many times (eg on the banners on the Greendale fences which have coincidentally appeared during lockdown), so thank you for clarifying @Ben Clasper. It's really good to know that there will still be lots of open space and wild areas as only the astro and the historic terraces will be used for the stadium.


I agree the logic that we shouldn't be using the usage of public amenities during lockdown to measure their intrinsic worth because, as you say, the extension of that logic is that spaces that haven't been used could be considered surplus to requirements. And we can't pick and choose the bits of a logical position that we like.


For me, it comes down to the fact that match days see average crowds of over 2,400. I can't think of anything else in the local community that engages that number of people so regularly. And such a cross-section too!


Just a thought: if the future is a world in which attendances at sporting events are capped/attendees need to be more socially distanced then having the new stadium with it's 4000 capacity and up-to-date facilities will surely be even more vital to the Club's survival?

If this application is rejected (as previous efforts have been)it would finally be clear that there is no prospect of building houses on the football pitch or new football stadium terraces and fencing on MOL. The current football stadium site (with its sporting use covenant) will then have absolutely no value to a property developer. It would be worthless to anyone except a football club

'The point about the rest of Greendale being untouched is an important one - and one that I've seen misrepresented many times'


This is just not true.


How can the rest of Green Dale remain untouched - imagine the building stage of this and how it will affect the place...imagine looking across this space and seeing a huge stadium with 6 stories of flats behind. I can honestly say that I have walked Green Dale almost everyday for the last 6 years - it is an amazing place. I and many others are utterly devastated by this. I would suggest passing on this wild space, as it is, to future generations is a duty we should all have to carry out. Imagine a future with more pandemics and needing this type of space more and more - once it's built on - that's it - it's gone. Only a couple of years ago the council were supporting Green Dale as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) in their New Southwark Plan. Southwark could lead the way and show that it cares for its community, their health and future in ways that we may only just be discovering are so important.

i dont believe for one second people are actually bothered about a decrepit bit of old astroturf- they just want to object and argue about it to have a purpose right now and in life generally. Dog walkers are a particular bunch who think that they have untold amount of rights to public space because they need to exercise their captive animal. They would probably object to a brownfield patch of ground that once house a nuclear power station and is wildly radioactive. "I object to this patch of land being developed- its where i walk my dog each day!"

almost peckham Wrote:

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


> My view was, and

> still is the club should be supported to remain in

> and redevelop the existing ground without further

> encroachment on open ground and without the

> building of a six storey block.


Can I ask how you would expect that to happen? I think it's already been explained that redeveloping the current Champion Hill isn't an option. Even if the money required to do that was available, Meadow would need to be supportive of it, and why would they be?


I understand that some people don't want the development to happen for their own reasons, and that's totally fair enough, but what I don't understand is what realistic alternative they have in mind.

If the council make it clear enough to Meadow, in black and white terms, that they will never sanction the eviction of the club from its site and allow them to build flats there, then eventually the penny will drop with them. They made a gamble when they bought the stadium, that eventually someone would buckle and allow them to build. That gamble doesn't have to be successful though. If they realise it's never happening, then they'll just sell the land on to someone else (a custodian of the club or similar) at whatever rate they can get for it. For the directors of the club and Southwark council to be giving in to the sort of blackmail they've used here, at the expense of residents of the area, is mind-boggling.

If we had a custodian of the club with a spare 30 million or could find a property developer who was going to buy the land that they could not get any planning permission on that would be excellent... but it is not realistic.


And that does not solve the problem of the current stadium being in the state it is in.

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

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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