When.Tooting put in for planning application for their current ground Mishi was going to object. He was talked him out of itA bucket collection at Tooting?
Champion Hill: Proposed Ground Redevelopment
- Thread starter Fingers
- Start date
scousedom
Well-Known Member
The big problem now will come in what gets built. Construction cost inflation has been insane in the last couple of years, while house prices will fall 10-15% next year. Basically if when permission was granted Meadow were budgeting on building for 85 something they would then sell for 100 (standard-ish developer margin) then the cost is now probably 110 and the sale price 85-90.
In other words, they will go back to the Council to change the permission, or will skimp on costs - including the stadium… or both. Almost certainly both.
In other words, they will go back to the Council to change the permission, or will skimp on costs - including the stadium… or both. Almost certainly both.
scousedom
Well-Known Member
Have they lost though? Hopeless case they must have known was a loser. Their idea was delay in the hope something comes up to stop it. Well, something has come up - inflation and a housing crash - that might stop it…
editor
hiraethified
I expect nothing but the absolute worst from these developer scumbags. They'd put up a Subbuteo pitch if they could get away with it.
It certainly seems like very positive news indeed. Good for the club and good for the local community.
scousedom
Well-Known Member
Not entirely sure subbuteo would be a worse surface than 3G…
Moroccan Sunset
Well-Known Member
All true, and like editor I wouldnt trust them an inch, but they have got a reputation to rebuild - the backlash from evicting us from CH was much greater than they expected I think. I've heard anecdotally that ole Andrew McDaniel (remember him?) was in a right old flap at some of the meetings they had with the club and council when they started to realise that kicking us out our stadium was not a wise move.
A quick Google of Meadow Residential does not bring up many positive news stories. These people are greedy and will without doubt want to develop more land and make more money. But if they start dicking around again and stirring up more negative press, then how many councils are going to want to get into bed with them? Why wouldnt they sell to or deal with another cash-laden developer without the dirty image (not that there are many tbf).
This is their chance to get things right, to wipe the shit off the good name Meadow Residential, and add a bit of gloss. Yes, they'll want to save money, but they'll want to make more of it long-term, and to do that they could really do with a feel-good story that's got their name tied into it. They don't hold all the aces, IMO.
scousedom
Well-Known Member
It’s a nice thought but… Not one I subscribe to I’m sad to say. Glass half empty on this one. If that.
Developers imo (especially if they are overseas like these) don’t need to care about reputation because they don’t work with councils. They don’t buy land off them, they buy it off other owners than go into battle with under-resourced councils who have unreachable house building targets. And they don’t need to worry about their name because they’ll just change it or move the assets around to a different company or what have you and try again.
As for this lot… We know their form with us. And you’ve seen their other schemes from the sounds of it. There was one I saw, Barnet I think, where they were asking to build flats less than half the permitted size. Like, not 95% or some small little diddle. Less than 50%. It was unreal.
So basically, developers aren’t to be trusted to worry about their reputation, and this lot in particular give developers a bad name. Which gives me cause to think - even without the inflation/price crash mix I said earlier - that what they will now try to deliver will be very different from what was agreed.
Paula_G
Flitting in & out like Tinkerbell on Meth
Al Cunningham
Brockley Hamlet
I know a decision has not been made yet regarding the recommendations of the review into football governance. We have particular interest in the potential trial of drinking pitchside in the level above us and I was just wondering how does it work at the moment for food and drink. Am I right in thinking that we get a proportion of the profits from the food outlets so the bigger the crowd the more money?. Also how does it work with the bar sales inside and outside. Is it the same or do we get all the profits?
scousedom
Well-Known Member
Anyone else get emailed this? I assume it’s legit and not the rug being pulled out from under the Club?
tonysingh
Random Clever and Witty Strapline
link aint working
gnar182
i am an okay person
Yep I got it aswell.
Al Cunningham
Brockley Hamlet
Me too. Probably to all the people who commented last time. I am sure the club will give us their view of what it means
I'm sure the Club will put out something shortly, but it's nothing to worry about and helps move the project on. The Explanation of Changes document as part of the application documents sets out clearly why it's needed and what it's purpose is if you can't wait. A similar application was put in for the original scheme back in 2016.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
I've read through some (not all) the documents. The application serves two purposes. One: Cleanly separate the current stadium land from the Sainsbury's land. This is just a legal formality to remove some muddying of the waters in the years since the stadium was built in 1990.
Two: modify the terms of the 1990 legal agreement. Namely:
a)the right for public access to the all-weather pitch, and public use of the stadium changing rooms. Public access cannot be guaranteed to the AWP when it is a construction site! and
b) Only after the new stadium is built, remove the clause that forbids any use or construction for anything other than leisure/recreation. and
c)Remove the clause that says the land reverts to the developer if the club ceases to exist. Instead, the council will be taking ownership of the new ground.
Important bit from the covering letter:
"In respect of the heads of terms for the proposed change to the obligation, it is suggested that the Council would covenant not to enforce the relevant obligations in order to allow works to be carried out, and discharge them on the completion of construction of the new pitch, stand and stadium comprised in planning permission 19/AP/1867, at which point the old obligations will no 3 longer be necessary"
So they are asking for the council to promise not to enforce those clauses, until the stadium is complete.
Seems entirely reasonable and is the sort of thing that always happens on construction jobs with complicated site histories. I am not a planning lawyer, but this appears to leave Southwark holding power over the developer and is all in good faith.
Two: modify the terms of the 1990 legal agreement. Namely:
a)the right for public access to the all-weather pitch, and public use of the stadium changing rooms. Public access cannot be guaranteed to the AWP when it is a construction site! and
b) Only after the new stadium is built, remove the clause that forbids any use or construction for anything other than leisure/recreation. and
c)Remove the clause that says the land reverts to the developer if the club ceases to exist. Instead, the council will be taking ownership of the new ground.
Important bit from the covering letter:
"In respect of the heads of terms for the proposed change to the obligation, it is suggested that the Council would covenant not to enforce the relevant obligations in order to allow works to be carried out, and discharge them on the completion of construction of the new pitch, stand and stadium comprised in planning permission 19/AP/1867, at which point the old obligations will no 3 longer be necessary"
So they are asking for the council to promise not to enforce those clauses, until the stadium is complete.
Seems entirely reasonable and is the sort of thing that always happens on construction jobs with complicated site histories. I am not a planning lawyer, but this appears to leave Southwark holding power over the developer and is all in good faith.
scousedom
Well-Known Member
Ah great, thank you. Sorry, didn’t mean to cause a panic. Just have no head for comprehending law-speak.
Club Statement: Club Statement 9th March 2023 - Stadium Update
What the statement doesn't say is that there's just 13 days to get your comments in so don't delay!
What the statement doesn't say is that there's just 13 days to get your comments in so don't delay!
Last edited:
Al Cunningham
Brockley Hamlet
Added my comments in support but it is about 33 in support and 33 against. Looks like most against are rehashing the old arguments but would be good for the club to encourage more to support. The Friends of Greendale have tweeted out to many groups to add negative comments. Not sure how much this matters in the great scheme of things but good to get more positive comments
Ben Clasper
Active Member
Have heard some pretty disappointing reports from and about local groups and activists on this step in the past week. I genuinely don't mind opposing views but claiming you are representing the community when you only engage with that community once every few years when you want support for your personal objectives or the arguments of your highly paid lawyers seems the height of cynical exploitation to me compared with a club that engages with and delivers for its community week in, week out. Unfortunately we are going to have to encourage fans and the wider community to remind the decision makers that we are still trying to save a club that has reached even more people than when we went through the application process.
darryl
this wasn't supposed to happen
Ah, yes. There's a bloke near me who has his own transport users' group. He is the only person in it, probably because he is a very angry and not very pleasant man. He goes up to all the meetings with Southeastern and drones on at them for ages. Nobody asks him if anyone else actually shares his views, or even if he's actually caught a train lately. The world of amenity societies and residents' groups is an odd one.
Surprised there isn't a 24/7 rota for that crappy bit of astroturf considering the number of people who claim to regularly take the grandkids down for a kickaround ("grandad, why are we on this tatty dump?")
Anyway, have added my support. Avoided the temptation to say I was the vice-chair of the Friends of the P13 Bus to try to get extra traction.
scousedom
Well-Known Member
This needs to happen. Has there ever been a greater Asset of Community Value?
Damon Green, nowadays seen on ITV News, did a brilliant piece in the Thinking Pink, Talking Blues fanzines poking fun at this sort of stuff around the time of the Hambase bust up.
It revolved around a well known local character - the one who uttered the immortal line about Tuscany - and the fictional bit strangely plausible local residents group 'Dulwich Residents Opposed To Everything.'
It revolved around a well known local character - the one who uttered the immortal line about Tuscany - and the fictional bit strangely plausible local residents group 'Dulwich Residents Opposed To Everything.'
Taper
Mark McGann
Support is leading Oppose in the consultation 2-1, as it did in the main consultation I recall. Bemoaned of course on the EDF, the natural habitat for DROTE. The Friends of Phil Addison are trying their hardest to rally the forces of reaction. I see too that bats are getting a welcome mention in many of the Oppose comments. Not so quiet batpeople.
DHFC / Green Dale latest planning application
DHFC / Green Dale latest planning application
Similar threads
