Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Seeing as though Dulwich Hamlet Football Club have been their usual slack selves with regards to local community engagement I thought I'd make local residents aware that there is a planning application meeting this weekend which I found on another thread. Details are below - I'd strongly recommend anyone who lives nearby attends as the plans could obviously have a huge impact on the area.


The first stage of consultation on a proposed development of the stadium and surrounding area will take place on Saturday 19th July


Hadley Property Group have released the following information regarding the future of the club and stadium and the contents of the newsletter is below. All fans, along with the local community, are welcome to attend and add their comments.


Welcome to our first community newsletter. As you may know Dulwich Hamlet FC has been in financial difficulties for a number of years. Hadley Property Group has recently acquired an interest in the site and Club and we have spent the past 6 months putting both its football and business operations on a more sustainable financial footing so that the Club has a future at Champion Hill. However as currently configured the facilities cannot continue to support the Club and a change in the layout and footprint of the buildings is needed. There is an opportunity to provide a new stadium and to invest in the open space located around the stadium. We have engaged the architects Farrells who are leaders in the field of masterplanning to work with all who have an interest in the area, including Club supporters, local residents and businesses, sports and recreation groups and Southwark Council. The first stage will be a consultation event to give everyone an opportunity to respond to our intial ideas for the future of the area based on the opportunities and constraints.This will take a place on Saturday 19th of July 2014 at Dulwich Hamlet Football Club. We hope that you are able to attend, but if this is not possible please feel free to contact us at [email protected].


Yours sincerely, Hadley Property Group

Samsung Galaxy S5 16GB - Blue - Factory Unlocked ---$260

the China Cheap original electronic is discount for selling now, Purchase to visit: w w w . p a d s e l l . c o m

The samsung GALAXY S5 configuration 5.1 -inch 1080 p Super AMOLED screen, 2.5 GHz qualcomm Xiao dragon 801 processor, 2 gb RAM, 2.1 million front rear + 16 million, support 4 k video.Fuselage inside the heart rate sensor, with 2800 mah removable battery, support USB 3.0 and fingerprint recognition, support IP67 waterproof and dustproof.Samsung on February 25, 2014, issued the GALAXY S5, it also will introduce the second generation of smart watch GALAXY Gear 2 [1].

The final edition of actual around 10.73 GB available storage space

Exposure date: 2014

Mobile phone type: 3 g mobile phone, smart phone, camera phones

"The first stage will be a consultation event to give everyone an opportunity to respond to our initial ideas for the future of the area based on the opportunities and constraints."


Well that's nice, but I would feel like I had even more of an opportunity if they'd actually published what those initial ideas are...


The same newsletter is printed on a lamppost near the ground actually, and ominously it features a picture of the metropolitan open land behind the stadium, which suggests they're likely to bring back up the proposal to relocate the stadium there. I hope the council and the national planning inspectorate are able to stand up to their pressure, especially given the inadvisability of increasing the homes to services ratio yet further in the area, but somehow I fear the worst here...

I suggest we all wait to see the initial plans first. Seems to me there's a possibility here of a significant three way benefit for the area: more houses, desparately needed in London and our part of it; a secure future for the football club, the beating cultural and spiritual heart of East Dulwich ; and the potential to develop Greendales into a community open space, while enhancing its contribution to local biodiversity.


I undersrtand the qualms about pressure on local services, and clearly any housing development needs to be proportionate. The fetishisation of Greendale however confuses me. I use the space quite a lot. It has enormous potential. But at present is overgrown, unlovely and rarely used by locals. I would not want to see it built upon. But if a new stadium design required some encroachment onto the ugly poor-condition all weather pitch, and there was a quid pro quo to enhance the green space as a genuine space for community use, then that in my eyes would be a positive development. If investment can be levered out of Hadley to develop the space to enhance its utility for locals and wildlife (eg local growing, better bio-diversity, link up with DKH Wood) then this would be a huge boost to the area.


This is where pressure should be brought to bear on Hadley. But my fear is we will get an unthinking lobby to preserve things how they are, losing a huge opportunity.

Taper, for the most part you speak good sense, I'd like to see good use of that Greendale site as well. Although it is frequently used by footballers from around the area, some of whom may not automatically have anywhere else to play, and might otherwise be forced to turn their attention to criminal activity, so it is not altogether a bad thing.


However, your comment about new houses is way off, and I wonder why this is so often repeated by Councillor Barber and others? Are there vast industries or employers in East Dulwich that require all this new housing for their staff? I assume the "housing shortage" is a reference to the need to house more people who work in central London, which is all well and good, but it's not something we *have* to be concerned about immediately in our area, and right now our services simply can't cope with the existing population. Schools are all oversubscribed. Doctor's surgery waiting times are horrendous. Build more of those things first, and then I'll be right on your page about building more houses.

It would be a rather novel approach to planning and development to look only at the East Dulwich economy in judging what level of new housing was needed. We all live in London and London needs new houses. There's a huge issue about affordability and about local services. But these can be considered and lobbied for as part of the of the development process. I think anyway the idea that we can't cope with more people is over-stated and can be planned for over the time of this development. GP surgeries are an acute problem with or without this development.


I'd just like it for once if people could view this as an opportunity for the whole area. My first concern is the health of the club. But if this is done right everyone can benefit.

Plan -- 1) Acquire metropolitan open land. 2) Move stadium there. 3) Build housing with "amenities" at the Dog Kennel Hill end, where stadium and carwash now stand. 4) Pocket much money.


Cut out the intervening steps, and it's: 1), 4) Acquire metropolitan open land and pocket much money.


The new owners of DHFC with their purchase have placed a bet that they can turn a profit. This profit depends on Southwark providing the subsidy of the metropolitan open land (buy as greenfield, sell as housing / flats). I hope that they lose their bet.

Building on MOL depends on approval by Sec of State ,Southwark can recommend approval but it's not entirely up to them .


Though I have no figures for how often approval is refused if the LA recommend .


Sadly I think your synopsis is right on the button Alex K .

first mate Wrote:

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

> It is also wise to consider the setting of

> precedents. Once ML is opened up for use in this

> way the same could be done elsewhere in the

> borough.


Where else is there MO/Land ?

There's a not entirely clear map here


http://www.london.gov.uk/thelondonplan/images/maps-diagrams/jpg/map-3d-3.jpg


But below on pg 75 is a more detailed map for the area concerned. OS128 is Greendale, including the all weather pitch


http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/6877/southwark_open_space_strategy_2013


Interesting report all round. There's lots of open land about. But its under utilised (as with Greendale imv).

Lots of "metropolitan open land" in Southwark, it appears. In this .pdf document --


http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.southwark.gov.uk%2Fdownload%2Fdownloads%2Fid%2F6877%2Fsouthwark_open_space_strategy_2013&ei=nSfFU4q9H8ef7Aa9h4DoCw&usg=AFQjCNFZqb4kzTtqtkOggKUDKWJbZbxxGg&sig2=EfdCzFBC3GZXw4t37ufG6A


-- you can see it all. The bits of particular interest to this thread are mapped on p 75, with this key on p 94 --


OS128 Greendale Playing Field

Camberwell

Natural or semi-natural greenspaces

2.12 ha


OS129 Greendale Artificial Playing Pitch

Camberwell

Outdoor Sports Facilities - private

1.04 ha


OS130 Dulwich Hamlet

Camberwell

Outdoor Sports Facilities - private

0.80 ha


"Underused" is the term deployed in the document. Interesting to learn that OS129 is privately held.

first mate Wrote:

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

> It is also wise to consider the setting of

> precedents. Once ML is opened up for use in this

> way the same could be done elsewhere in the

> borough.


I totally agree. It's not that long ago (4-5 years) that Southwark made a bid to grab MOL in Honor Oak including the public sports facilities there (for development/use for council services). The only thing that stopped that plan is that the precedent for developing MOL is very, very limited and it was clear that a legal challenge to their plans would very likely succeed.


I'm not suggesting that everything should be preserved in aspic for ever, and goodness knows I'd like DHFC to be put on a better financial footing than they are, but large parts of our open spaces and public facilities in Southwark are on MOL and I worry that this plan will effectively open them up to development too.

Looks like we've cross posted: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?6,1356936,1356936#msg-1356936


Peter John, leader of Southwark council has said this recently in an email regarding DHFC / Greendale :


"Please be reassured. I have now told these people twice in the clearest terms that they will never build on or remove any MOL at Greendale."


However, even though Southwark own Greendale (and DHFC lease it off them), any planning applications still have to go through the usual channels. Councillors can't tell the planning committee how to vote so any moves on Greendale could still get approved. Worth noting that 2 applications have been put in in the past: one for a Homebase about 13 years ago and another a couple of years ago to do just as explained above (build new stadium on current artifical pitch, build flats on current stadium).


Not heard before about the pitch being privately owned - this needs further investigating.


Opening up MOL to developers is indeed a dangerous game as it starts with one area and then others succomb to the same fate.


Anyone interested in what becomes of Greendale, please have a look here: Keeping Greendale Green: [keepinggreendalegreen.tumblr.com]

I'd like to point out that now is the time to get mobilised, get involved with Hadley and try to amend the scheme to something which benefits the area in ways other than housing delivery and preserving dhfc . A bit like voting, if you don't do it, you can't moan.


To those concerned about infrastructure, should permission be granted the scheme will be subject to either CIL or s106 payments which theoretically should provide for the services you want. It's no good beating up the developer, they do their bit and pay the money, the better question is why does southward not spend it quickly and locally. Put pressure on the council.


Cheers to progress.

Agree s106 should in theory provide for community development. But in practice it seems that developers always do better than councils in this negotiation.


My take is that pretty much the entire planning gain should be taken by s106 levies - as this gain is entirely due to the council awarding development rights / changing use. From that point onwards, developers are welcome to whatever value they can generate from new construction / making an area more attractive.


If such an approach leads to less development then so be it - the alternative is a straight transfer of value from the community to a developer.

We went along to the Hadleys information day at DHFC on Saturday and marvelled at how slippery they are at actually describing what development they intend to carry out. There is a meeting at 8pm tonight in the Fox On The Hill to set up a possible 'Friends of Greendale' group to lobby for the best solution for the whole site. It's short notice, but at this point it's more important to move quickly and then keep others informed about how they can contribute.


The 'Keep Greendale Green' blog has some photos of the proposals ? none were available printed or as pdfs, tellingly - and further details here:

http://keepinggreendalegreen.tumblr.com/post/92458493134/hadleys-proposals-on-view


"On Satruday Hadleys, the developers who have bought the freehold which DHFC sits on, exhibited their proposals. In summary these are:


To build on the existing DHFC site &

To relocate the DHFC football pitch to the artificial pitch on Greendale


The architects (Farrells) drawings show two options (see photographs below):


To extend St Francis Park into the car park/car wash area and to use the whole of the existing club footprint for building.

To connect Greendale Fields with St Francis Park by converting the existing roadway to the south of the pitch to a green corridor.


There were no plans for specific types of building development on show and the plans for Greendale were concentrated on building a perimeter for the new pitch. It seems that this will be the key area for consideration, in terms of its MOL status, allowable use and encroachment on the green space.


Do come to the meeting about a possible Friends group tomorrow evening, Tuesday 22nd July at The Fox On The Hill pub at 8pm onwards. Apparently Southwark council have expressed opposition to the current plans and are planning their own consultation on the future of Greendale later in the year. So now is a great time for local people to come up with ideas about how best to use the space in the future."

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 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.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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