Discussion in 'Dulwich Hamlet FC' started by Fingers, Aug 26, 2015.
You could have instead of having this argument on here.
I'm not having an 'argument.' I'm just rather surprised by recent events.
From your experience does it look like a plan more likely to gain approval than the previous one? I still can't quite work out if it is actually off the MOL and how that works.
Was answering the question of whether Meadow was involved. They are
It's all up to the politics. It certainly looks like there are no "buildings" on the MOL now, but whether that counts as "no development" we can't say.
To say nothing of the housing proposal...
It’s great that the club and Meadow’s have got these plans in and that the general response is so positive. However I have serious concerns over having no covered terracing. I can’t recall having been to be any grounds at step 6 or 7 that don’t have covered terracing and I think the lack of covering will seriously deter people from computer to games on wet Saturdays. And if we do get big crowds and it’s wet won’ the sight-lines be badly affected by all those umbrellas? Why can’t the ground be completely sunken with a roof all around you and wooden shuttering up above - like a vertical blind - so that the ground would be almost invisible when games are not being played?
If we want Hamlet to be a family friendly club, then offering at least basic shelter from the elements is a pretty fundamental requirement for parents with kids/babies etc.
Cos It'd cost a fortune
What is Brixton Buzz and what have the club done wrong here? Would've thought the local rag was the obvious place to release news of a new ground?
Is Brixton Buzz a fanzine or something?
Regardless of cost, there will have to be some covered standing otherwise we won't even get a grading for our current division. There will be a minimum number of spectators that has to be accommodated under cover. I'm not certain what it is but I'm sure it will be more than the beastly number of seats in the main stand, possibly 1,000 of the 4,000 capacity. (There's a lengthy FA document available online somewhere that will spell out all the requirements unambiguously.)
Architect's drawings are frequently revised over the course of a construction project, although I'm surprised the originals indicate no cover at all on three sides.
The lack of cover is almost certainly an attempt to comply with the "no development on MOL" rule. Drawings are always revised, but only within the envelope of the permitted design. A cover to the terraces would need a new planning application.
You're trolling, yes?
Well I just hope we're missing something here. I assume everyone involved in the application will be aware of that. It's one thing to have to settle for less than we would like, but the design as presented doesn't appear to tick all the essental boxes.
500 I believe, for this step.
So it looks like we could get away with no covered standing, but there is a stated preference for cover on more than one side of the ground and I can't think of another ground above county league level with no covered standing. (Yeovil had none when it was opened around the same time as our current ground, but there was a 2,500 seat stand on each side!)
As one of that demographic, I can confirm that 666 seats should be ample for that. Thanks.
As for the rest of the ground, no cover in Dulwich is infinitely preferable to cover in Tooting. Hardly any local families made the seven mile trip there while hundreds have since returned to our sparsely covered home. So I’d say the priority is
1. Stay in Dulwich
2. See above
I assume that this figure is backed up by some kind of research because I'm not so sure that it will be enough if we're getting crowds of 3,000+ in the pissing rain.
Personally, I think the lack of cover for the vast majority of paying fans is a bit embarrassing, and these concerns shouldn't be glibly brushed aside. Will there be any other clubs in our division offering less cover for fans?
666 is from a post on the previous page which I assume to be correct. You liked it. Why wouldn’t a 30%+ increase be enough when less than that (500 seats now I think?) has been in the past?
The more pertinent point though - that you’ve failed to address - is the realpolitik of it not being realistic to demand a gold-plated moon on a stick. We have to stay in Dulwich. If we don’t we go bankrupt. That’s what last season taught us. The only long-term, even short-term, option is a move on these lines. By all means push for the best that can be got, as those at the sharp end of discussions will be doing without your prompting you can rest assured, but no cover is no issue compared with no Dulwich home.
And anyway, we’ve been over this before, it doesn’t rain that much. It’s London. And there’s no such thing as bad weather, only inappropriate clothing. Wear a hat.
There is not currently enough cover / covered seats for parents and children, especially not in the rain.
This can be seen each home game as parents and children arrive and look for seats close to kick off.
Fail to find what they are looking for as the stand is full.
30% more seats should be a massive help then, probably eliminate the problem entirely if it’s only those arriving close to kick off who struggle. And the “close to kickoff” part of that might be relevant too.
So a request for even the most basic of cover behind a goal is seen as something so outlandish and unreasonable that it can be patronisingly dismissed as wanting a 'gold-plated moon on a stick'?
Will there be any other club in our division - or even the one below - that fails to offer any covered standing to fans?
And it's not just about cover from the elements - it's about atmosphere and the noise that can be created. With just one seated covered stand, the stadium is now likely to be quieter.
Not a request no. But a demand, quite possibly. I’m no planning expert. But it seems to me from all of this that there is a very delicate planning balance on the MOL issue. Perhaps cover means rejection and no cover means permission. In which case, given the overwhelming need to stay in Dulwich, then no cover it has to be.
Most parents get to the stand close to kickoff. You want to change that? Means I will have to get to the stand even earlier than 1.30.
30% more seats probably wont be enough to make up for the missing cover under the toilets opposite.
Especially when overall capacity is also increased. But less parents and children in the stand suits me.
So play on...
I think it probably will. It won’t be enough to fit everyone who was in the TO stand in I grant you. But it will probably be enough to fit the parents and children.
But as I said, I think a pragmatic acceptance that no cover but being in Dulwich is preferable to a dogmatic refusal to request/accept less than much more or majority cover, if the cost of that position is a planning refusal with all the subsequent consequences.
Fair enough. I don’t think it will be enough for the parents and children. I just present my current observations.
But it doesn’t matter to me. Two reasons. One. I think its ridiculous that somehow its acceptable to build concrete on MOL but god forbid there was a roof.
Two. I’d rather go back to Tooting than Meadow make any profit from their previous behaviour.
Well I’m not going to argue with point one!
Point two wouldn’t be my preference. Selfishly, the trip is prohibitive to a lot of families, and more generally as we saw the club couldn’t sustain itself at anything like its current level in Tooting. I understand keeping to this level is not important to everyone. But it is to many. Not to say that the risks to the club from having to relocate would be very substantial.
In this specific context it may as well be. Personally, I think even this scheme is already on dodgy ground WRT development on MOL. The London Assembly policy in question states:
Appropriate development should be limited to small scale structures to support outdoor open space uses and minimise any adverse impact on the openness of MOL.
Given that the proposal encloses with a fence a larger area than the existing all-weather pitch, I don't see how it can be said to increase/unharm the "openness" of the land, regardless of how well you can see through it.
Is it really impossible to come up with some kind of cunning collapsing structure that could provide cover when the game is on and then be stored down flat afterwards?
Having zero cover for all standing fans really isn't good.
I don't think the design of the roof/fence is the issue, but rather the literal size of the site. It's bigger than the all-weather pitch and therefore reduces the size of the publicly-accessible MOL.
By not proposing any "structures" the developer hope to shimmy around the policy.
No cover on 3 sides is 50% worse than now. Seems odd.
Separate names with a comma.