Champion Hill: Proposed Ground Redevelopment
- Thread starter Fingers
- Start date
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
Likely to be the MOL thing, again, isn't it?
Pink Panther
Well-Known Member
Possibly. It was also mentioned at last week's forum that there are numerous precedents for overruling MOL restrictions, it's by no means the absolute barrier to this redevelopment that many seem to believe.
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
Sure - I'm speculating based on my perception of the situation, I'm certainly no expert.
There's a bit of a contradiction in there though isn't there. I'd understood the argument was that the fenced off area didn't contravene the MOL rules - if it's now that MOL rules can be overturned I think that's a definite shift.
blueheaven
Well-Known Member
This story in the press yesterday: Countryside campaigners bid to halt Dulwich Hamlet's ground move
Presumably where open land is at more of a premium, so more worth conserving it?
Last edited:
editor
hiraethified
scousedom
Well-Known Member
Putting the cunt into countryside (as Billy Connolly once nearly said).
Pink Panther
Well-Known Member
First of all I don't think it's helpful if we get drawn into a slanging match with objectors, or make a habit of ridiculing any objections. Anyone can see comments posted online so I feel it's important to be reasonable at all times.
I have a couple of concerns about this article. First of all:
"Of the 423 comments to Southwark council, 280 were in favour and 141 against – but in the first three months since June last year, residents who wrote in were almost all in favour – but now the pendulum has swung the other way." where has this renewed opposition come from? Are these genuine locals, or have the original minority of objectors rallied support from the sort of "professional campaigners" who will always oppose anything like our ground redevelopment, and who have no actual connection with the local community?
Secondly: "
CPRE head of green space campaigns, Alice Roberts, wrote to Mayor Khan: “The redevelopment of the stadium should not be at the expense of much-used and valued natural open space, including a well-used community football pitch." This is just not factually accurate. Greendales is an open space, but that's about it. It's been poorly maintained and under-used for decades, and the astroturf pitch is also no longer "well used" and is clearly no longer fit for purpose. Anyone claiming otherwise either knows little about football or hasn't even seen it. It clearly needs to be completely relaid before it can be safe for community use, which will happen with the 3G pitch in the proposed new stadium. Our club has also added value to the neighbouring St Saviour's & St Olave's playing fields by making use of them for training and contributing to the coaching of local schoolchildren I believe.
editor
hiraethified
I can't lie about this: I fully understand why the objections are being lodged, and it's a bit nitpicking to start questioning where the objections are coming from given that many of the supporting comments would have come from Hamlet fans, many of whom live nowhere near the proposed development. Just like the club encouraged fans to register their support, it seems that those against it are mobilising in much the same way, not that I think such input from either side holds much sway when decisions are being made.
By definition it’s not the countryside
Metropolitan Open Land" or "MOL" is a term or designation used only within London.[1] Land designated MOL is afforded the same level of protection as the Metropolitan Green Belt.
Pink Panther
Well-Known Member
Even if some Hamlet supporters live outside the area, they still come and support the club within its community. Up to 3,000 people attend matches, they spend money in the neighbourhood and help drive the local economy. I'm not convinced some of the objectors will have ever set eyes upon Greendales or Champion Hill Stadium, or will ever be visitors to the area if they succeed in halting the redevelopment. That's not nitpicking at all in my book.
editor
hiraethified
Similarly, people shouldn't feel pressured into completely compromising their passionately held principles in their desire for the club to survive.
I feel very much between a rock and a hard place and will continue to bite my tongue for the good of the club.
mick mccartney
Well-Known Member
'well-used' in the sense of totally worn out !
Nivag
Well-Known Member
By dog walkers letting their dogs foul it
dcdulwich
Well-Known Member
The numbers quoted in the article are incorrect and incomplete.
First, the figures from the source that appears to have been used are wrong. On the Southwark website, of the 423 comments recorded, 295 are designated as ‘supporting’ and 123 as ‘objections’.
In addition, Southwark Planning was updating its website during the time when the application was being consulted upon. There is another section of the website that can still be accessed that shows a further 821 comments: 592 supporting with 229 objections. This makes a total of 1244 comments with 887 supporting and 352 objections.
When I looked in early October the equivalent 423/295/123 figures were 397/291/101 - but the consultation is listed as having expired on 30/9/2019 so it is not surprising that there have only been 26 comments over the last three and a half months. The ‘pendulum’ comment really makes no sense at all.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
This is just a variation on the old developer trick of letting a site go derelict so that eventually people forget what was there before, and just want sonething - anything - built on it. Then they build something that no one would have been happy to have replace what was previously there.
It doesn't really matter how well maintained or used the land is now - its potential for public use is what should be considered.
Scolly
Well-Known Member
London environment campaigners say Mayor's assessment allowing an enclosed football club pitch & stands to be built on protected land at Green Dale Fields in Southwark is wrong
www.cprelondon.org.uk
London environment campaigners say Mayor's assessment allowing an enclosed football club pitch & stands to be built on protected land at Green Dale Fields in Southwark is wrong - CPRE London
CPRE London has today written to the Mayor of London over concerns that he is allowing inappropriate development on London's Metropolitan Open Land (M...
teuchter
je suis teuchter
They are quite right, especially on point 2.London environment campaigners say Mayor's assessment allowing an enclosed football club pitch & stands to be built on protected land at Green Dale Fields in Southwark is wrong
London environment campaigners say Mayor's assessment allowing an enclosed football club pitch & stands to be built on protected land at Green Dale Fields in Southwark is wrong - CPRE London
CPRE London has today written to the Mayor of London over concerns that he is allowing inappropriate development on London's Metropolitan Open Land (M...
Pink Panther
Well-Known Member
No they're not, in fact they are quite wrong on point 2:
" (2) the nature of the provision will change entirely i.e. from 'turn up and play' to book/pay
2. The new stadium will be enclosed and you have correctly advised that this is inappropriate development on MOL (impacting as it will on the openness of the MOL). However, you have said that this is acceptable because the FA requires a stadium to be enclosed. This is a circular and incorrect argument: the correct conclusion should be that any football club stadium development is inappropriate on MOL, in light of it needing to be enclosed with fencing/screening. It is also inappropriate because the enclosure means it can no longer be enjoyed by the general public. And the amenity value of the remaining MOL for the public and as a SINC is also severely compromised. These aspects of 'harm' have not been properly recognised."
The current astroturf pitch was fully enclosed by a mesh fence when opened in 1992 and has never been available to the general public on a "turn up and play basis". (Unless you count people gaining informal access after the fence was vandalised and ultimately removed.)
Scolly
Well-Known Member
The council have clearly stated that if the astro reverts to them it will be fenced off and I would suggest only available for rental not public use.
The clubs lease with the council also states we need to fence the area off when the astro is replaced. The plan was to have this done by now, however delays in a planning decision has delayed the works.... but going by the original timetable the area would already be fenced off as part of the terms given to the club by Southwark council.
So the fencing is just not a valid argument, it's going to happen.
The club have clearly stated they we will allow access to the local community to use the pitch, stadium facilities as well as it being a much needed sports area for local schools who have poor or no facilities. The whole argument that the current astro should be left for community use is alarming .... it's simply dangerous and I would be concerned about parents allowing kids on there / adults who also play.
The club is willing to work with local groups / community to understand their needs and strike a balance on the final designs / stadium or surrounding areas ... I maybe wrong, but they haven't taken up the clubs request.
Last edited:
blueheaven
Well-Known Member
On point 2: I haven't been round by the astroturf in probably a couple of years - can anyone share what the situation is with it currently? Is it even usable at the moment? Do people still play on it?
On point 3: Who are CPRE asking to "investigate" upgrading the current stadium? We can all investigate it all we like, but only Meadow have the power to actually allow that development to happen and clearly they won't do that. If it was the case that we could just upgrade the current ground, none of these discussions would be happening in the first place - surely they understand that.
On point 3: Who are CPRE asking to "investigate" upgrading the current stadium? We can all investigate it all we like, but only Meadow have the power to actually allow that development to happen and clearly they won't do that. If it was the case that we could just upgrade the current ground, none of these discussions would be happening in the first place - surely they understand that.
Similar threads
