Jump to content

Recommended Posts

@BrandNewGuy: Thanks for this. Please PM me to obtain an e-address that I check more regularly than I do the forum, one at which I can receive updates from the proposed interest group. I have missed the Fox-on-the-Hill pow-wow tonight, which I regret, but I want to make what contribution I can to offering alternatives to developers' BIG IDEAS.

Just posted on the blog:


A lively meeting at The Fox on The Hill last night voted to form a new Friends Of group for Greendale. Work is underway to set up a constitution and to draft objectives. All present were firm in support for keeping Greendale green and for @DHFC?s future.


Updates to follow over the coming weeks. Please do get in touch if you would like to be a member - [email protected].



http://keepinggreendalegreen.tumblr.com/post/92614401974/friends-group-to-form

I must admit, I don't understand the obsession with Greendales. The area is nothing but an in-accessable to the public, dump of an area that attracts nothing but trouble-makers and fly tipping. I personally think Hadley's plans will only improve the area and make more of the green space.


What a lot of people have failed to mention here is that they are not planning on encroaching on anymore greenspace than is currently taken up a the minute, just moving round the configuration of the site for the better - moving the ground away from nearby houses, removing the quite frankly, anti-social, local nuisance of a seven a side pitch, completing the green space connection between the park and Greendales (the existing alleyway would be moved upwards behind the bottom block of new houses and a more natural country path created), and yes building some new houses, which I think we all just need to accept ED needs!


Also, if you'd have asked the transport rep there he would have told you the existing entrance to Abbostwood Road would remain but re-modelled (in a similar way to traffic calming solutions seen in South Kensington) where the greenspace and pavement naturally blend into the existing road to create a more attractive entrance. There would be then further access throughout the new build which would drive traffic to the football ground away from residents and put it somewhere more appropriate. There will also be a new 'loop road' created for access around the new area.


It's also worth considering that these were just top line proposals to canvas local opinion, and then based on the comments (which really should be submitted to them, not debated on this forum!) they will restructure the plans, hence why there was little detail on specifics.

It's not an obsession, it's concern for the future of a valuable slice of open space. Greendales [sic] is not entirely inaccessible, but I don't see why open space should only be valuable if everyone can tramp all over it, having had it tidied up and 'de-natured'. There is a wildlife issue too to be considered.


The access and ?loop road' you mention - can you point us towards some sort of map or plan that shows this?


And a forum is just that - a place to discuss issues. If people then reach their own conclusions and then contact the developers, that?s fine, surely.


I?d just add that I have no material interest in the development or otherwise of the site ? I occasionally watch DHFC, I use the footpath to walk to Sainsburys and I occasionally birdwatch in the area. It would be good if other contributors state if they have an interest, direct or indirect, in these proposals, too.

MoneyKelly


I have sympathy with your views. Greendale could be improved hugely, without de-naturing it (indeed by enhacing its biodiversity) and linked up to other green areas such as DKH wood. Preserving everything as is is the option that most concerns me.




My interest is primarily as a DH supporter, but also a user of Greendale (dog walking).

I'm not in favour of 'preserving everything as it is'. I just need to see the full impact of these proposals before making my mind up. Here are a few starters:


1. Fitting DHFC into the existing artificial pitch area is laughable ? the 'plan' allowed for full facilities (changing rooms, bar, function room, board room etc) taking up a space of about 18 feet x 40 feet on the west side of the pitch. No details about proper access.


2. What is the 'development' proposed? Houses (as with Abbotswood Rd etc), flats, a huge block? We've no idea.


3. Linking to DKH wood is a good idea, but a full wildlife/green assessment of 'Greendale playing fields' (The Metropolitan Open Land) needs to be done. At the moment, the thin strip of land by the railway tracks (which consists almost entirely of wildlife-unfriendly sycamores) is currently listed by Southwark Council as of greater natural value than Greendale playing fields ? which currently is listed as having no wildlife value.


I'd urge anyone interested to get involved in the 'Friends of Greendale' group. A diversity of views is welcomed.

You make good points. I think any solution involves encroachment of the new stadium onto the all weather pitch. But not entirely. Improvements and enhancements to Greendale an essential aspect of any development
Am I missing the point here: is the reason why the club is "not viable in its current form" as Hadley continually puts it, due to cash operating losses pre rent e.g. the cost of staging matches? Or is the rent / property cost pushing it over the edge?

@Mikeb -- Or: Should the council provide a subsidy for DHFC, in the form of a gift of metropolitan open land, to allow DHFC to stay (more or less) where it is?


An alternative is for DHFC cut its coat to fit its cloth, and to say -- As we can't make a go of it here, we're folding / moving. Let the council say, God bless you and good luck.


What would happen to the land on which DHFC stands?


The document linked to by Bluerevolution, above, on p 6 contains a mention of a covenant, dated 1990, between Sainsbury's and King's College London; the latter sold the land to Sainsbury's, it seems, with the proviso ("Section 106 agreement") that restricted "use of the site to recreational, leisure or educational purposes". The present stadium was built in 1992. Does that covenant still hold? Would it be broken if housing were built on the DHFC site?

mikeb Wrote:

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

> Am I missing the point here: is the reason why the

> club is "not viable in its current form" as Hadley

> continually puts it, due to cash operating losses

> pre rent e.g. the cost of staging matches? Or is

> the rent / property cost pushing it over the edge?


And related to this if they can't be viable with the facilities they have then how can they with the tiny building proposed?

I wonder if the developer's s106 proposal will be to provide some kind of ongoing financial support for the club? I don't know if this would even be possible, but it would show they were serious about securing a future for DHFC, rather than just saying that to secure the land it's currently sitting on...

I'm sure the Hadley guys are all perfectly nice people on a personal basis (at least for property developers) but I doubt they have any interest in the club whatsoever. If they have any sense, once they have profited by railroading through a major change in local environment and diminishing a local institution, they'll put the club into some sort of supporters' trust and walk away with millions.


If the problem is that the land on Greendale is underutilised, reducing metropolitan open land by moving the club to a smaller site is not the solution.

BrandNewGuy - why do you think sycamores are "wildlife unfriendly"? One study (Alexander et al, 1996) found them to be the third joint best tree for wildlife in the UK, scoring 31 out of a possible 45 (the best were oak with 39 and birch with 34). Sycamore scored highly for foliage invertebrates (good for birds), leaf litter, pollen/nectar and epiphytes.


Ted Green an expert on tree history has even made the case that the sycamore could be a native tree!

Does anyone have the background to the restrictive covenant on the site? I've drawn a blank at the Land Registry (see attached).


Also, it appears that in 2002 / 2003, Southwark was willing to support releasing the restriction. Again, any background on this would be interesting.

DawnSE22 Wrote:

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

> BrandNewGuy - why do you think sycamores are

> "wildlife unfriendly"? One study (Alexander et al,

> 1996) found them to be the third joint best tree

> for wildlife in the UK, scoring 31 out of a

> possible 45 (the best were oak with 39 and birch

> with 34). Sycamore scored highly for foliage

> invertebrates (good for birds), leaf litter,

> pollen/nectar and epiphytes.


It's not so much the tree itself, but its tendency to populate and dominate areas to the exclusion of other trees and shrubs ? witness the sides of railway lines, for instance.

> Ted Green an expert on tree history has even made

> the case that the sycamore could be a native tree!

Looking at that pitchero plan, it seems the access to Abbotswood estate will be provided by opening up the end of St Francis road. This doesn't seem acceptable to me - that road is very narrow once all the cars are parked up, and often has people coming both ways looking for parking spots, even as it is. Forcing the road to handle all the DHFC traffic as well as all the houses in Abbotswood will create a hideous bottleneck.

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...