Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Not the first time this has happened - the last time they tried to turn the ground into a Homebase. That time Greendale was ruled out as an alternate location for football ground and it was concluded that the level of congestion created by a further development would be too great for the area to sustain. Interesting that the South London Press mentions planning permission granted in 2005. This is news to me as never been consulted about a planning request and would expect to be, together with number of other residents on St Francis estate.

There's more info in the article here:


http://www.southlondon-today.co.uk/tn/News.cfm?id=42266&headline=Dulwich%20Hamlet%20FC's%20ground%20'for%20sale'


I thought that when this came up before, the Homebase was refused and it seemed to be the case that anyone wanting planning permission for anything other than a football ground / sports facilities would have difficulty getting it through. Perhaps things have changed?

Ive just read this article.


This is an outrage! Ive enjoyed going to the games at Dulwich Hamlet since we moved here a year ago. The football ground is an important part of the local history.


I'm not suprised that the owner wants to sell out to property developers and make a killing.


Im afraid it also includes the gym of which im a member.


This is not good!!

Selling the ground for redevelopment, has indeed, been tried before. I very much doubt that there is planning permission for anything on this site, whatever the SLP states. As Ipool points out, there would undoubtedly have been consultatation with local residents (as in the past). Also, although I'm not sure exactly who owns the land off Greendale - they didn't want the football club there last time so it seems unlikely they'll want it there now...

The greendale land is owned by Southwark Council and leased to the football club. The lease is up for renewal and the council are looking for alternative options according to a recent newsletter.


I can't see them allowing building on the site. It appears they want it kept as a nature conservation site which would prevent development.


https://ldfconsultation.southwark.gov.uk/inovem/consult.ti/corestrategypo/viewCompoundDoc?docid=240724&partid=245108

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/Uploads/FILE_44285.pdf

Hi all


Bad news indeed. I hope it's just a baseless rumour. Ideally I'd like to see the council purchase it, allow dhfc to stay, and develop its leisure potential for the community. In my view we need another big store (of any kind) like we need a hole in the head. I will support any campaign to keep dhfc here.

I have spoken to my local councilor on this issue and here was his response to this guys proposed plan to sell:


'Due to complicated planning rules the site is on Metropolitan Open Land. It would be extraordinary if any developer were to buy this land, even if it was for sale, as the MOL status would make it very long winded to convert to non MOL. Such a status change would be contrary to all Southwark Council strategic planning document, London Plan. It would have to get past planning committee, if they appealed after being refused a planning inspector. It would then go to the secretary of state.

That would take 2-3 years AFTER any application was made'


I must say that this greatly re-assured me.

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 1.8 million unemployed Brits could do the work that Brits won't do. Make minimum wage higher than the maximum benefits payments. So it's more profitable to be in work than it is to be unemployed.   anyway, round 2 today of Labour's attack on immigration. This one is reminiscent of their "hostile environment" that Liam Byrne created in 2007. 
    • He's always been clear he'd rather be elsewhere than Westminster: https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2024/06/18/starmer-davos-interview/ "Westminster is too constrained. It’s closed and we’re not having meaning. Once you get out of Westminster whether it’s Davos or anywhere else, you actually engage with people that you can see working with in the future. Westminster is just a tribal shouting place."   That's who he is.
    • These are the times he used the word "fight", in context. And Rudy [Giuliani], you did a great job. He’s got guts. You know what? He’s got guts, unlike a lot of people in the Republican Party. He’s got guts. He fights. He fights, and I’ll tell you.   ... For years, Democrats have gotten away with election fraud and weak Republicans, and that’s what they are. There’s so many weak Republicans. We have great ones, Jim Jordan, and some of these guys. They’re out there fighting. The House guys are fighting, but it’s incredible. ... Did you see the other day where Joe Biden said, “I want to get rid of the America First policy”? What’s that all about, get rid of -- how do you say, “I want to get rid of America First”? Even if you’re going to do it, don’t talk about it, right? Unbelievable, what we have to go through, what we have to go through, and you have to get your people to fight. And if they don’t fight, we have to primary the hell out of the ones that don’t fight. You primary them. We’re going to let you know who they are. I can already tell you, frankly. ... Republicans are constantly fighting like a boxer with his hands tied behind his back. It’s like a boxer, and we want to be so nice. We want to be so respectful of everybody, including bad people. And we’re going to have to fight much harder, and Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us. ... And we were going to sit home and watch a big victory. And everybody had us down for a victory. It was going to be great. And now we’re out here fighting. ... [ I GUESS THE BBC REALLY COULDN'T USE THIS ONE:] The American people do not believe the corrupt fake news anymore. They have ruined their reputation. But it used to be that they’d argue with me, I’d fight. So I’d fight, they’d fight. I’d fight, they’d fight. Boop-boop. You’d believe me, you’d believe them. Somebody comes out. You know. They had their point of view, I had my point of view. But you’d have an argument. Now what they do is they go silent. It’s called suppression. And that’s what happens in a communist country. That’s what they do. They suppress. You don’t fight with them anymore, unless it’s a bad story. ... With your help over the last four years, we built the greatest political movement in the history of our country and nobody even challenges that. I say that over and over, and I never get challenged by the fake news, and they challenge almost everything we say. But our fight against the big donors, big media, big tech and others is just getting started. ... Our brightest days are before us. Our greatest achievements still wait. I think one of our great achievements will be election security because nobody until I came along, had any idea how corrupt our elections were. And again, most people would stand there at 9:00 in the evening and say, “I want to thank you very much,” and they go off to some other life, but I said, “Something’s wrong here. Something’s really wrong. Can’t have happened.” And we fight. We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.
    • Saying the election had been stolen was pretty provocative wouldn't you say? Pardoning the rioters would suggest that he agreed with them.  Wouldn't you say? Being an apologist for leaders of a country who execute political enemies, is a sad reflection of civilisation.  Wouldn't you say? Whether the above stands up in a court of law is another question but surely it is obvious to most of us.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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