Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Hadley's reveal new stadium design

crocustim

Well-Known Member
Can't say I'm impressed by their website home page. Umpteen different views of the same ugly tower block of flats.
Yup. Two small residential projects which look mediocre at best doesn't give me much confidence.
 

mick mccartney

Well-Known Member
everyone seems remarkably calm about this . have meadows agreed to all of hadleys promises - fan ownership , buying whatshisface out etc ? and how much did they pay ? as DHFC is the only asset involved , be nice to know what we're worth to the developers
 

3010

Well-Known Member
I'm sure I see these guys on the terraces every weekend, salt of the earth types through and through:
Who we are | Meadow Residential LLP

Don't worry Blake Bennison has our back.
What is the connection between Hadley and Meadow Residential as almost everyone on that "Who we are" page are ex-Hadley:
Peter Bennison (MD at Meadow) - formerly MD of Hadley
Blake Bennison (Associate Development Director at Meadow) - formerly of Hadley and I presume son of Peter Bennison
Alex Vogel (Development Manager at Meadow) - formerly of Hadley
Lee Goldberg (Assistant Development Manager at Meadow) - formerly of Hadley
Tamalin White (Business Manager at Meadow) - formerly of Hadley
 

editor

hiraethified
What is the connection between Hadley and Meadow Residential as almost everyone on that "Who we are" page are ex-Hadley:
Peter Bennison (MD at Meadow) - formerly MD of Hadley
Blake Bennison (Associate Development Director at Meadow) - formerly of Hadley and I presume son of Peter Bennison
Alex Vogel (Development Manager at Meadow) - formerly of Hadley
Lee Goldberg (Assistant Development Manager at Meadow) - formerly of Hadley
Tamalin White (Business Manager at Meadow) - formerly of Hadley
kirk.gif
 

Radical-Cliff

Old Spice
This is what the friends of Greendale's discovered and updated last night.

Is this what the club is supporting?

Proposal Summary;

“Discharge/deletion of the following obligations contained within the S106 Agreement dated 16/10/1990: 1) Clause 4(3), giving access to the facilities by members of the football club, to be discharged in its entirety 2) Clauses 7(3) and 7(4), which relate to use of the land in the event that the football club cease to exist, to be discharged in their entirety 3) Clause 8, which restricts use of the football ground to leisure, recreational or educational purposes, to be discharged in its entirety 4) Clause 10, which gives users of the all-weather pitch access to the club dressing, showering and toilet facilities, to be discharged in its entirety | DULWICH HAMLET FOOTBALL CLUB, DOG KENNEL HILL, LONDON, SE22 8BD”

Friends of Dog Kennel Hill Wood - Greendale Property Company Ltd plans

http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?casereference=16/AP/4051&system=DC
http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=_STHWR_DCAPR_9569339
 

Taper

Mark McGann
I don't trust FO Greendale (or DH Woods) to have the best interests of the club at heart on this issue. They've spread mis-information in the past on the re-development. And our very unfriendly ex-councillor lurks somewhere behind all of this.

But what they say is happening in a vacuum of information from the club and the developer.
 

BrandNewGuy

Well-Known Member
Couple of questions, taper. When did Friends of Green Dale 'spread misinformation'? And was there anything on the above linked Friends of Dog Kennel Hill Wood page that is misinformation?
 

Taper

Mark McGann
There was a bizarre tweet from FoDKW some time ago saying that people playing five a side on the all weather pitch were being allowed to do so for free if they backed the proposal. Also, misquoting what Hadley said at the public meeting. And was it FoDNW who retweeted something about 3G pitches giving cancer? There's a lot more. Plus of course Mr Govier lurks behind one or two of the groups and he has in the past been actively antipathetic towards the club and pretty nasty with it.

Misinformation in the above? the "without any publicity" bit in the first sentence suggests some sort of underhandedness, which is highly moot. FoDKW have said on Twitter that the DHST "object", presumably to the latest application. Is this right? I haven't seen anything so far that suggests that. And then in the link above they write

  • is fan ownership the best future for DHFC? Do DHFC need a 4000 seater stadium given their current attendance and position in the league?"

Given that the DHST support the development, having consulted fans, I'd say it is pretty clear that the FoG and FoDKW cannot be truste4d to represent the best interests of the club or the fans.
 

BrandNewGuy

Well-Known Member
It's not, Mishi. He hasn't given one shred of evidence that FOG have spread misinformation. It's a serious charge and I'd be grateful if you or he could back it up.
 

Taper

Mark McGann
I've just found the DHST's comments on the application. Sounds sensible and very necessary.

"I write on behalf of the Dulwich Hamlet Supporters Trust with regard to application 16/AP/4051 pertaining to vartiation to the planning obligations for Champion Hill Stadium, engrossed and signed in 1990. The removal of these clauses must be handled with specific care to ensure the long term position of Dulwich Hamlet Football Club. We understand that it is the applicant's intention that these variations only become implementable following the signing of a new s106 agreement linked to application 16/AP/1232. However, if the obligations linked to the 1990 agreement are removed prior to a new ground being built, there is a significant risk to the club and recreational land use as the current ground could be lost to a different land use without adequate reprovision of a new stadium. As such, we would ask that additional wording be inserted to prevent the removal of these obligations until Practical Completion of a new stadium has been achieved.? This would be in line with both the Council's Strategic Policy 4 within Southwark's Core Strategy, would support the broader ambitions of the London Plan and crucially, align to applicant's phasing of development as applied for in 16/AP/1232 and noted in the Heads of Terms for the new s106 agreement (para 6.155 of the Planning Statement dated March 2016). If you wish to discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to contact me."
 

Radical-Cliff

Old Spice
I have to agree with Taper, in regards to trusting the Friends Greendale.
Outside the allegation of "free play for comments in favor" and their opinion on the development I cannot pinpoint the misinformation.

In my opinion, The Freinds of Greendale are a self-interest group that has no real concern for DHFC and would use the information out to prove points about not supporting or trusting developers. They have never supported any proposed development publicly and always seem to bring a feeling of chaos at the previous exhibitions. I believe the cause for green space, but not a fan of this particular group, when comes to how they work and relate to the club.

Regardless of their motives and getting back to the point, we cannot ignore the facts on the southwark site
 

BrandNewGuy

Well-Known Member
So again, you have nothing against Friends of Green Dale beyond a lack of trust (that allegation you mention has nothing to do with FOGD). Fine, but you have not backed it up in case anyone else wants to make up their own mind. FOGD did not exist when the Sainsburys and Homebase applications were made, so the current proposed developments are the only ones we have taken a view on. And the key view, as I see it, has been opposition to building on Metropolitan Open Land.

It's not in our remit to take a view on the club, but we have been happy to speak with HPG and DHST and DHFC, and have been open in what we have said. And we have voiced genuine concerns at public meetings about HPG's intentions with regards DHFC and whether or not they can really guarantee a sustainable future for the club in terms of the stadium, ownership and finances. Of course by our very nature, Green Dale is our number one priority, but that doesn't mean we don't care about what happens to the club. With that logic, you could just as well say that DHST doesn't care what happens to Green Dale.

I can understand you not supporting FOGD, but don't just throw around this 'misinformation' nonsense. I'd still like to believe as I have all along that a genuine debate about the future of the club and of Green Dale is possible.
 

Radical-Cliff

Old Spice
BrandNew-Guy points taken.

Though highlighted, the main issue should not be our relationship with your group, it is the current application.
Which is very concerning, considering the public consultation is open till the 26th November (5 days left). As I for one, have no real understanding of the whole process and would like the club or someone to interpret what is taking place so I can make an informed decision. Surely planning notices are meant to be displayed? Again I am completely ignorant to the process and rely on the forum and other communication channels from the club.

Whats happened to the "Support our Stadium" team? Support Our Stadium why are they not saying anything?

At this moment of time, I am taking a position to object until it is clear what is taking place.
 

BrandNewGuy

Well-Known Member
The planning officer told me:
"The application to which you refer is an application to vary a legal agreement and the Council does not normally advertise such applications beyond publication on the website, which you have seen. It is not an application for planning permission and as such it will not show up in the same way as planning applications. In this case however we have taken legal advice and we will be publicising the application by way of a site notice and press notice." Which is far from ideal.

The reassurance that it should be 'taken together' with the main planning application has, as far as I know, no legal basis. They're saying this because, if the original application were to be approved, then this second application would have to be OK'd otherwise the flats couldn't be built on the current stadium site. But as these two applications (the planning one and the one to vary the legal agreement) are not being considered at the same time, the worst case scenario for DHFC would be that the original application is refused after the legal agreement has already been varied – meaning, as I understand it, that the club could be kicked off the current site with no prospect of a new stadium being built elsewhere. I'm not saying that that's the developers' intention, but it needs to be considered.

As you say, the lack of communication and discussion about this is very unhelpful.
 

Taper

Mark McGann
On the face of it FoGD have been a lot less partisan than FoDKW on this issue. But then the latter has on this issue been pretty much indistinguishable from the former. And on this latest application, unless I am mistaken, all the campaigning has been done via FoDKW, which is odd given that the new proposal has little to do with DKW and everything to do with Greendale. In fact the FOGD website and Twitter feed is silent on the latest application and have both been moribund for months. Have the FoGD contracted out the campaign to the FoDKW?
 

Pink Panther

Well-Known Member
There was a bizarre tweet from FoDKW some time ago saying that people playing five a side on the all weather pitch were being allowed to do so for free if they backed the proposal. Also, misquoting what Hadley said at the public meeting. And was it FoDNW who retweeted something about 3G pitches giving cancer? There's a lot more. Plus of course Mr Govier lurks behind one or two of the groups and he has in the past been actively antipathetic towards the club and pretty nasty with it.

Misinformation in the above? the "without any publicity" bit in the first sentence suggests some sort of underhandedness, which is highly moot. FoDKW have said on Twitter that the DHST "object", presumably to the latest application. Is this right? I haven't seen anything so far that suggests that. And then in the link above they write

  • is fan ownership the best future for DHFC? Do DHFC need a 4000 seater stadium given their current attendance and position in the league?"

Given that the DHST support the development, having consulted fans, I'd say it is pretty clear that the FoG and FoDKW cannot be truste4d to represent the best interests of the club or the fans.
Well, for a start the proposal is not for a 4,000 seater stadium so that's "misinformation", and anyone who has attended the games where attendances are above 2,000 would understand that an improved stadium with greater capacity is desirable.

As for our position in the league, what's that got to do with it? Maidstone were in this position two years ago, and now they're two divisions higher. Anyone who knows anything about non-league football knows you have to plan ahead, you can't just wait to win the league then think about improving your facilities.
 

Griff_Turnstile

Flitting in & out like Tinkerbell on Meth
Seems strange that FOG & FODKW seem now to be be backing the club given their antipathy towards us in the past. Surely by kicking the Hamlet out of the application and building on the football ground the Greendale will be preserved as untouched wilderness for those who wish to enjoy it as such? Oh and that nasty football club that allowed that uncultivated hinterland to develop will be gone for ever.. Personally I see this merely a subterfuge for a second planning application that will be more in keeping with the council's desire for a greater affordable element to the development, even if its something Southwark are not keen to apply to themselves.
 

BrandNewGuy

Well-Known Member
On the face of it FoGD have been a lot less partisan than FoDKW on this issue. But then the latter has on this issue been pretty much indistinguishable from the former. And on this latest application, unless I am mistaken, all the campaigning has been done via FoDKW, which is odd given that the new proposal has little to do with DKW and everything to do with Greendale. In fact the FOGD website and Twitter feed is silent on the latest application and have both been moribund for months. Have the FoGD contracted out the campaign to the FoDKW?
Your first two sentences seem to be contradictory, but there you go... On your other points, FODKHW can answer for themselves, but strictly speaking, this latest application does not directly affect Green Dale – it covers the boundary of the football club. We've simply suggested to our members that they oppose the application based on it potentially putting the club into a very awkward spot.

On the subject of the full planning application, everything has gone quite from LBS, HPG etc, so given that we have made our views clear, there's not much to do at this stage until the planning process moves forward. Although we – and I'm sure others – would really appreciate some more detail about:
1. The status of Meadow Residential vis a vis HPG and Greendale Property Co. Ltd.
2. The revised plans/drawings for the stadium.
 
Last edited:

Dulwich Mishi

Old Skool Terrace Dinosaur-embracing the new-veau!
R.I.P.
To be perfectly honest, and I will try to be very brief, as I only have limited internet time & have no desire to waste it 'arguing' with those who oppose the development...
I do not believe that either FoG or FoDKW have any interest whatsoever in the future of the football club, other than they say this because they want it to stay where it is.
Me? I am one hundred per cent in favour of the development, and am so because I want a prosperous future for the Football Club I have supported for over forty years.
If this new ground does not go through I believe that it will hinder the progress of the Club, and certainly will see the end of any dream of supporter ownership.
If the Club were to stay where it is then I will continue to see Greendale as the overgrown wasteland it has been for decades.
I am fully one hundred per cent behind the development as it stands, and if that means lifting whatever restriction there is on the current ground AT THE SAME TIME I will take my chances...
If it wasn't for those developers we wouldn't be having this conversation anyway, as the Club would have gone out of existence three years ago...so if it goes all tits up...at least we made it this far.
 

scousedom

Well-Known Member
I don't think it's helpful to simplify this debate into such black and white, us or them terms. For myself, I'm supportive of the principal of limiting development on green(ish) space, which is obviously a community resource, and I'm supportive of a fan-owned Hamlet, which is equally a community resource. My own preference for the stadium development to go ahead then is based on a shade of grey which thinks that the community worth of the latter would be greater than the former, but that doesn't mean I don't see that some others would assess it differently.

In this case though, the "with us or against us" stance seems particularly dangerous, as in supporting everything to do with the development, it might put both the green space and the fan-owned club in jeopardy.

This separate application clearly raises the possibility of a removal of the protective covenant preventing residential development before a new ground has been built. For all the chat about "being taken together", this has to me the distinct air of the developer preparing an exit strategy - the value of their investment will go up without the covenant in place, meaning they could choose to sell out to a different developer who wouldn't give a damn about Hamlet if they so chose, or indeed they could just change strategy and go ahead with the residential development themselves.

In framing the debate in such basic terms as "for Hamlet = for development, for enemies of Hamlet = against development" though, we risk missing this entirely. I'm glad that DHST has seemingly appreciated the nuance in what is reportedly (above) its response to the council, and I think it shows that you can still be a fan of Hamlet, and the development, without necessarily being "all in" with everything the developer asks for. I will definitely be opposing this application.
 

Griff_Turnstile

Flitting in & out like Tinkerbell on Meth
The "you're either with us, or against us" quote seems to be one of the most rehashed ones in political skulduggery and one I take little truck with given the likes of George W Bush, Lenin, Mussolini, János Kádár, Hillary Clinton, Lenin, Jesus Christ and the prophet Joshua have all been attributed to using it or some variant. Fans must be allowed to question these decisions so that the best outcome for us, our club and our local community is achieved.
 

editor

hiraethified
To be perfectly honest, and I will try to be very brief, as I only have limited internet time & have no desire to waste it 'arguing' with those who oppose the development...
I do not believe that either FoG or FoDKW have any interest whatsoever in the future of the football club, other than they say this because they want it to stay where it is.
Me? I am one hundred per cent in favour of the development, and am so because I want a prosperous future for the Football Club I have supported for over forty years.
If this new ground does not go through I believe that it will hinder the progress of the Club, and certainly will see the end of any dream of supporter ownership.
If the Club were to stay where it is then I will continue to see Greendale as the overgrown wasteland it has been for decades.
I am fully one hundred per cent behind the development as it stands, and if that means lifting whatever restriction there is on the current ground AT THE SAME TIME I will take my chances...
If it wasn't for those developers we wouldn't be having this conversation anyway, as the Club would have gone out of existence three years ago...so if it goes all tits up...at least we made it this far.
How can you be one hundred per cent behind a profit-raking development by an offshore company that wants to fill its pockets by weaselling its way out of its social/affordable provisions? My love of Hamlet runs deep but not as deep as abandoning all my basic beliefs.
 

B.I.G

Well-Known Member
How can you be one hundred per cent behind a profit-raking development by an offshore company that wants to fill its pockets by weaselling its way out of its social/affordable provisions? My love of Hamlet runs deep but not as deep as abandoning all my basic beliefs.
As an aside from this development, I find the concept of "affordable" housing an odd one. Who gets to buy them?
 
Top