Champion Hill: Proposed Ground Redevelopment

Discussion in 'Dulwich Hamlet FC' started by Fingers, Aug 26, 2015.

  1. BrandNewGuy

    BrandNewGuy Active Member

    The affordable housing criterion was actually the fifth of five reasons Southwark Council gave when they set out to the Planning Inspectorate the five reasons why they would have turned down the application (see below). The MOL issue was the first of these five reasons. Apologies for quoting at length, but I think it's important to get these details in now before the application is made.

    "Summary of Key Issues in relation to Appeal APP/A5840/W/16/3164823

    Impact on Metropolitan Open Land
    8.1 The Council will submit evidence to support its case that the development is inappropriate on land designated as MOL. If the Council had been able to determine the application, it would have refused permission for the following reason:
    “The proposed football ground with its associated boundary treatment, terracing and floodlighting is an inappropriate development which would fail to preserve the openness of the Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) within which it would be located. Insufficient ‘Very special circumstances’ have been demonstrated by the application to justify inappropriate development on MOL. As such it is contrary to Policies 3.25 `Metropolitan Open Land' of the Saved Southwark Plan (2007), Strategic Policy 11 ‘Open Spaces and Wildlife’ of the Core Strategy (2011) and Policy 7.17 ‘Metropolitan Open Land’ of the London Plan (2016)”.

    Development on Other Open Space
    8.5 … If the Council had been able to determine the application, it would have refused permission for the following reason:“The residential blocks and stadium building would be located on land designated as Other Open Space (OOS). The development is not ancillary to the enjoyment of the OOS, is not small in scale, would detract from the prevailing openness of the site and fails to positively contribute to the setting and quality of the open space. Land of equivalent or better size and quality would not be secured and the development would therefore be contrary to policy 3.27 ‘Other Open Space’ of the saved Southwark Plan (2007), Strategic Policy 11 ‘Open Spaces and Wildlife’ of the Core Strategy (2011) and Policy 7.18 ‘Protecting Open Space and Addressing Deficiency’ of the London Plan (2016)”.

    Reduction in sports facilities
    8.8… If the Council had been able to determine the application, it would have refused permission for the following reason:“The proposed development would involve a reduction in sports facilities across the site. As such, it would fail to contribute to the health and well-being of borough residents contrary to saved policies 2.1 ‘Enhancement of community facilities’ of the Southwark Plan 2007, Strategic policies 4 ‘Places for learning, enjoyment and healthy lifestyles’ and 11 ‘Open spaces and wildlife’ of the Core Strategy 2011, and Policy 3.19 ‘Sports facilities’ of the London Plan 2016.”

    Height, scale and massing of the residential development
    8.11… If the Council had been able to determine the application, it would have refused permission for the following reason:“The proposed residential blocks, by reason of their height, scale and massing would result in an overly dominant and visually intrusive development which would be out of character with the prevailing built form of the locality. It would be overbearing when viewed from the adjacent open spaces and appear as an alien form within the local townscape. It would therefore be contrary to saved Policies 3.11 ‘Efficient Use of Land’, 3.12 ‘Quality in Design’, 3.13 ‘Urban Design’, and 3.27 ‘Other Open Space’ of the Southwark Plan (2007), Strategic Policies 11 ‘Open spaces and wildlife’ and 12 ‘Design and Conservation’ of the Core Strategy (2011) and Policies 7.4 ‘Local Character’, and 7.6 ‘Architecture’ of the London Plan (2016)”.

    Affordable Housing
    8.14 This proposal would provide 16% affordable housing when measured by habitable rooms. This is significantly below the 35% expected under Core Strategy policy 6, and the mix of affordable homes does not include the social rented homes required by that policy… Therefore, if the Council had been able to determine the application, it would have refused planning permission for the following reason:-
    “The development fails to contribute the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing to meet the needs of the Borough, London and the UK as a whole. The development has not demonstrated that it could not support the expected level of affordable housing whilst remaining viable. It is therefore contrary to Policy 4.4 ‘Affordable Housing’ of the saved Southwark Plan (2007), Strategic Policy 6 ‘Homes for people on different Incomes’ of the Core Strategy (2011) and Policies 3.12 ‘Negotiating Affordable Housing on individual private residential and mixed use schemes’ and 3.13 ‘Affordable Housing Thresholds’ of the London Plan (2016)”."

    As I'm sure many of you will remember, I have a foot in the Green Dale camp, being an active member of Friends of Green Dale. And as before, I see nothing in these new proposals to make me support them. Without wishing to pick a scrap, I'm hoping this time that the fans and DHST are not so trusting of the developers and their intentions.
     
    iamwithnail, blueheaven and Crispy like this.
  2. B.I.G

    B.I.G Well-Known Member

    Who was trusting of them though? What will the friends of Greendale do for us when we get evicted AGAIN?

    Will they keep pretending we can stay at Champion Hill like they did last time?

    The council should build council houses on this shithole piece of Greendale and give us a 1000 year lease on our stadium.

    And they should borrow the money to do so as it will end up making a profit.
     
    DanBrown likes this.
  3. BrandNewGuy

    BrandNewGuy Active Member

    Who was trusting of them?
    The Memorandum of Understanding for one thing, which wasn't worth the paper it was written on. Plus many fans believing all their vague figures about how massively indebted the club was.

    The Friends of Green Dale doesn't exist to help the club because it's, well, the Friends of Green Dale. Last time around, suggesting to the club that there should be a Plan B to an pplication that was almost bound to fail was helpful, even though the suggestion was ignored.

    Will they keep pretending we can stay at Champion Hill like they did last time?
    There was (and is) every possibility of staying at Champion Hill and profitably redeveloping some of the land around the actual stadium. The proposal that Rio Ferdinand's group put together showed that to be the case.

    That 'shithole piece of Greendale' is protected as MOL, so your or my opinion on that is worthless.
     
  4. B.I.G

    B.I.G Well-Known Member

    Classic Friends of Greendale evasion.

    What future do we have at Champion Hill without a lease? The answer is none.

    Without a new owner or development what hope is there of a new lease?

    And if Friends of Greendale cared about anything other than house prices, I would hope that the wasteland was redeveloped in a way in keeping with MOL, a 4G football pitch perhaps :)

    We will see, how long Southwark and the government care about MOL, I remember a time when the green belt was hard to build on.
     
  5. BrandNewGuy

    BrandNewGuy Active Member

    I don't see anything evasive about what I've written.

    "And if Friends of Greendale cared about anything other than house prices..." No idea what that means.
     
  6. B.I.G

    B.I.G Well-Known Member

    If Friends of Greendale want to pretend they care about the existence of the football club they should explain how the football club is going to have a sustainable future on a piece of land they don't own and don't have a long term lease on.

    And its my contention that Friends of Greendale does not care about preserving the land as its a shithole, but merely about preventing houses being built.
     
  7. BrandNewGuy

    BrandNewGuy Active Member

    First point, I already mentioned the offer made by Rio Ferdinand that would have given Meadow a profit on their dealings but which they turned down. That's one way. What about you? Just agree to whatever Meadow want?

    And your second point is bollocks.
     
    EDC likes this.
  8. Dulwich Mishi

    Dulwich Mishi Old Skool Terrace Dinosaur-embracing the new-veau!

    I love it...like you've never done that before...! :D
     
    alcopop likes this.
  9. B.I.G

    B.I.G Well-Known Member

    And how do we force Meadow to sell? All Friends of Greendale is pie in the sky stuff.

    And if the Friends love the land so much why has it been covered in rubbish for so long?
     
  10. BrandNewGuy

    BrandNewGuy Active Member

    Nobody can force Meadow to sell. What's that got to do with Friends of Green Dale?

    It hasn't been "covered in rubbish for so long". We did plenty with volunteers to keep it tidy while Meadow did nothing about it, despite it being written into their lease that they keep it free of rubbish. When Southwark got the lease back, they became responsible for litter collection, but the Friends continue to liaise with the Council to keep it as tidy as possible.
     
  11. Dulwich Mishi

    Dulwich Mishi Old Skool Terrace Dinosaur-embracing the new-veau!

    Just one question for Friends of Greendale: Will they ever acknowledge that the land HAS been built up in the past, when there was a football ground on the land, fully enclosed, with a grandstand & changing rooms, that held crowds of up to 10,000 spectators for big games?
     
    the 12th man and B.I.G like this.
  12. B.I.G

    B.I.G Well-Known Member

    I doubt they will, same reason they are "supportive" of the club, like how prior to us getting evicted they claimed there was no reason to worry about eviction.
     
  13. BrandNewGuy

    BrandNewGuy Active Member

    To Mishi, not on what's now Green Dale MOL there wasn't.

    To B.I.G., at no point did I ever say there was no reason to worry about eviction.

    If you two are going to resume your having a pop at a small group of local volunteers, could I suggest you'd be better off turning your attentions as to the actual reasons Meadow failed in their previous application and why they are more than likely to fail again?
     
  14. Crispy

    Crispy The following psytrance is baṉned: All

    EDIT: incorrect information
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2019
  15. B.I.G

    B.I.G Well-Known Member

    Let's see :)

    If I was a friend of Greendale I'd be very suspicious :)

    And when it comes to a small group of local volunteers what makes them to special to save them from having a pop, is it their self appointed, middle class bullshit, claiming to care about the club, when if it was a choice between the club and their little bit of land, they would sell the club out everytime, just the same as Meadow.
     
    DanBrown and Cyclodunc like this.
  16. Dulwich Mishi

    Dulwich Mishi Old Skool Terrace Dinosaur-embracing the new-veau!

    The picture that the picture you have illustrated is the former Champion Hill, which was home for Dulwich Hamlet Football Club from 1931 until 1991. I would politely suggest you look at where Dulwich Hamlet Football Club played between 1912 and 1931.
     
  17. BrandNewGuy

    BrandNewGuy Active Member

  18. Crispy

    Crispy The following psytrance is baṉned: All

    Having trouble googling it. Could you help us out?
     
  19. Dulwich Mishi

    Dulwich Mishi Old Skool Terrace Dinosaur-embracing the new-veau!

    It was on the site where the disused all weather pitch is now.
     
  20. Crispy

    Crispy The following psytrance is baṉned: All

    Ah yes. This old OS map shows it. Outlined in red below, with the subsequent (and current) stadium site outlined in blue.

    upload_2019-1-3_16-57-31.png
     
  21. Dulwich Mishi

    Dulwich Mishi Old Skool Terrace Dinosaur-embracing the new-veau!

    Could you please tell me where I have 'resumed having a pop...'
     
  22. B.I.G

    B.I.G Well-Known Member

    He was talking to me Mishi about having a pop because the friends of Greendale are duplicitous when they say they care about the club but have a fantasy about how we will get a lease, which is why they said and did nothing when we were homeless.
     
  23. Pink Panther

    Pink Panther Well-Known Member

    I can't see that image clearly on a tiny screen, but the Hamlet played on a pitch on the site of the current astroturf from 1912-31, in a fully enclosed ground with a stand and terraces that accommodated crowds of up to 10,000, and that's a fairly well known historical fact. Remnants of the banking for the terraces in that ground still exist beyond the northern and western edges of the astroturf. Those aren't geological phenomena, they're part of a previous football stadium. If that ground isn't visible on the linked photo then its date is wrong.
     
    Dulwich Mishi likes this.
  24. Dulwich Mishi

    Dulwich Mishi Old Skool Terrace Dinosaur-embracing the new-veau!

    No, he clearly stated 'you two'...
     
    B.I.G likes this.
  25. B.I.G

    B.I.G Well-Known Member

    Ha! You are right I just wanted all the credit.

    But no point engaging with local NIMBYs, all they care about is their own little world.
     
    alcopop likes this.
  26. Cyclodunc

    Cyclodunc Where's the slam tent, mate?

    Just found this setting on google maps that gives you a 3D overhead view and it is pretty good (and quite addictive)

    Screen Shot 2019-01-03 at 18.13.31.png
     
    Pink Panther likes this.
  27. Cyclodunc

    Cyclodunc Where's the slam tent, mate?

    Wasn't a concrete path recently laid on the greendale site leading to the west side of the astro-turf?
     
  28. dcdulwich

    dcdulwich Well-Known Member

    Not sure what the material is but, essentially, yes.
     
    Pink Panther likes this.
  29. Pink Panther

    Pink Panther Well-Known Member

    Not sure of the exact materials used, it might be woodchip or some such, but the Council have definitely been carrying out some sort of pathway/access works. I think there are notices outlining the works involved attached to the fencing along the cycle/footpath bordering the southern edge of the site.
     
    dcdulwich likes this.
  30. EDC

    EDC A Slightly Less Invisible Cyber Fan These Days

    Gravel resin, like you see around tree bases.
     
    dcdulwich, Cyclodunc and Pink Panther like this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice