Stuart Fordyce
Well-Known Member
Would join, runs from my old flat in Streatham to Champion Hill. 9/10, will use again.
Champion Hill: Proposed Ground Redevelopment
- Thread starter Fingers
- Start date
Al Cunningham
Brockley Hamlet
372 for , 111 against at the moment
Pink Panther
Well-Known Member
I'd certainly join that group. The P13 runs the length of Underhill Road, where I spent the first 18 years of my life and where my family had lived since 1935. The route didn't exist until after I'd moved away but I've always taken a keen interest in its evolution. I recall a South London Press article around 20 years ago in which a handful of nimbys were complaining about it. They blamed it for causing traffic congestion. (Nothing to do with excessive numbers of poorly parked cars.) Someone even claimed buses running past kept them awake at night. I think it was a half-hourly service at the time (small single deckers, as now) with the last one scheduled for around 10.30pm. They wanted it rerouted along Lordship Lane, completely missing the point that a service like this provides a valuable link for non-drivers living away from the main bus routes. Some people will just complain about anything that's of no use or value to themselves.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
What's the "social scheme" they are opposing?
Nivag
Well-Known Member
I was making up a group that had an acronym DROSS due the bullshit they keep saying
Ben Clasper
Active Member
A very understandable opinion but accepting the (insert insulting adjective here of choice) prior owners sold us all out please tell me how to secure the club’s future without playing the hand we have been dealt. Ideas based in reality only please. I get the conflict. We all feel it. But the current owners of the club or the land or the current council did not create this situation they are all trying to do the best they can with what they have all inherited. This scheme delivers fairly for all, everyone benefits. We are not here to punish developers for the sake of it, if they deliver housing Southwark needs and a stadium that the club needs and regeneration of a site that the community needs do we not all gain?
editor
hiraethified
I'm not disagreeing with you at all, but the housing Southwark actually needs (i.e. social housing and actually affordable housing) is hardly central to this development, is it?
Ben Clasper
Active Member
The balance of housing on this development is exactly what Southwark outlined as their requirement, if it didn’t it wouldn’t have been approved by their planning committee. This development is absolutely central to their needs. They defined their needs, this development exceeded them so it was passed.
Pink Panther
Well-Known Member
Now 466-119
Deadline for submitting comments is today, 23rd March, presumably at midnight as I can see no specific time given.
editor
hiraethified
Southwark. The people who sold off the Heygate estate for pennies and destroyed its community.
scousedom
Well-Known Member
Hard to argue that. However from DHFC point of view, what are they supposed to do - in the situation they find themselves in - if they believe the housing target / type is not enough / right? Do they go into the planning meeting telling Southwark to up social provision to 50,70%? Do they go in asking for permission to be refused? Both courses would be nuclear to Meadows (or whoever it is now) and there would be instant lockout. Given that, I can see why that wasn’t done.
I’m not saying btw that that isn’t what they should do / shouldn’t have done, if social housing policy is something that’s a red line and a hill you’re prepared for the club to risk dying on. I’m just curious what you think the actual thing is they should have done differently, in the real world situation they find themselves in.
editor
hiraethified
I've got no answers - I'm just explaining my moral and personal reasons for not enthusiastically backing the development. I think I'm entitled to make that choice.
I haven't written anything on Buzz about choosing not to support the development and it's not like the lack of my signature is going to make the slightest bit of difference.
scousedom
Well-Known Member
No, I completely agree that you are, and I completely respect your view and your reasoning. As I hope was clear from my post. If it wasn’t, then consider it made clear now.
But the point remains, the club can’t take that position. They have to do something.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
There are a few comments on this thread that make out that those objecting (for whatever reason, whether they are nearby residents, or object to the loss of green space) just object to everything, or don't care about the football club or want to frustrate the football club's interests.
But some of these comments seem to ignore the fact that what's happening here is not just DHFC getting its grounds, it's a commercial developer getting their way, successfully getting previous planning conditions (intended to prevent exactly what's happening now) overturned and effectively developing on open space.
But some of these comments seem to ignore the fact that what's happening here is not just DHFC getting its grounds, it's a commercial developer getting their way, successfully getting previous planning conditions (intended to prevent exactly what's happening now) overturned and effectively developing on open space.
editor
hiraethified
You're talking to the guy who regularly turned down tens of thousands of pounds of advertising for this site back in the day, and who would rather see it die than have adverts all over it,.
So if by some terrible, terrible mistake the club had left me in charge, then I would have told the developers to fuck right off when they locked us out of the ground and been happier playing somewhere else, even if meant a massive drop in income and in inevitable slide down the leagues. I would have preferred a ground share at Peckham than enabling these cunts to get their way.
Not practical in any way of course, but that's the way I roll.
scousedom
Well-Known Member
Fair play. If this was the mid-80s you’d be the Militant Tendency and I’d be Manchester City Council.
Excuse me while I have a word with myself.
That’s not necessarily a compliment…
Militant had contempt for “trendy” causes such as feminism, gay rights and nuclear disarmament, which were seen as distractions from the group’s historic mission of positioning activists strategically inside Labour and the unions, in preparation for the inevitable revolutionary moment.
scousedom
Well-Known Member
My metaphor was intended more narrowly on the 85 rent-capping episode. But happy to be educated if I’m wrong there too. My memory is hazy as I was seven at the time.
scousedom
Well-Known Member
Need time to put their bat boxes up innit.
Hi,
I should start by saying that I'm a pretty new Hamlets fan although I've lived in SE15 for the last 16 years. I'm sure i don't fully understand the history of this redevelopment but (as an Architect) it piqued my interest to understand the proposed plans etc. I can see the Freehold of the site is owned by private development company (off shore based of course!) although there are clear restrictions to redevelopment of the site for housing - it would appear that everyone (club owners and Southwark) is keen to see the current permission delivered. This latest application is the last 'legal' hurdle in achieving that goal (no pun intended!)
I understand why this is felt to be the only route to securing the future of the club as, presumably, the land owners could, in theory, lock the gates. I can see that moving the club elsewhere could be untenable and therefore backing this redevelopment plan would appear to be the only sensible solution for the future of the club. Whats 'not' to like? - new shiny ground and club facilities and security of tenure (site owned by Southwark) and use protected.
However, and this is the crux of my post. what about the future? Given the current run of play (
for Friday v Cheshunt) it seems strange to talk about expansion of the club but surely that would be everyone's aspiration? Although there will be a bit of extra capacity (600 - 700?) in the new ground, lets face it, on a good sunny Saturday, we could fill that ground now. From what i can see, the ground in its new position will be hemmed in from all sides with no room for growth (the proposed new housing on the north side and heavily protected public green space to the other 3 sides). This will be a 4000 capacity stadium forever. If the club were to go where we all want it to go, I'm guessing its only option would be to move off-site to increase capacity (or maybe Sainsburys will donate their land!! 
)
On the face of it, the ground as it is, has much more scope for expansion. As well as redevelopment of the existing stand, in theory there is scope to create stands on the other 3 sides (north to car park, south towards the existing derelict astro , and east to the access road. I'd be interested to know if feasibility of this has been explored but would hazard a guess that this could up to 10,000 seats?. I would think that would future proof the clubs existence way beyond most fans expectations.
This current plan definitely secures the clubs position for the short term future. However, long term i fear it will 'nail in the coffin' for growth of the club. But maybe that's okay? - it will continue to make lots of people happy (and Sad!!) at this level.
I should start by saying that I'm a pretty new Hamlets fan although I've lived in SE15 for the last 16 years. I'm sure i don't fully understand the history of this redevelopment but (as an Architect) it piqued my interest to understand the proposed plans etc. I can see the Freehold of the site is owned by private development company (off shore based of course!) although there are clear restrictions to redevelopment of the site for housing - it would appear that everyone (club owners and Southwark) is keen to see the current permission delivered. This latest application is the last 'legal' hurdle in achieving that goal (no pun intended!)
I understand why this is felt to be the only route to securing the future of the club as, presumably, the land owners could, in theory, lock the gates. I can see that moving the club elsewhere could be untenable and therefore backing this redevelopment plan would appear to be the only sensible solution for the future of the club. Whats 'not' to like? - new shiny ground and club facilities and security of tenure (site owned by Southwark) and use protected.
However, and this is the crux of my post. what about the future? Given the current run of play (
for Friday v Cheshunt) it seems strange to talk about expansion of the club but surely that would be everyone's aspiration? Although there will be a bit of extra capacity (600 - 700?) in the new ground, lets face it, on a good sunny Saturday, we could fill that ground now. From what i can see, the ground in its new position will be hemmed in from all sides with no room for growth (the proposed new housing on the north side and heavily protected public green space to the other 3 sides). This will be a 4000 capacity stadium forever. If the club were to go where we all want it to go, I'm guessing its only option would be to move off-site to increase capacity (or maybe Sainsburys will donate their land!! ) On the face of it, the ground as it is, has much more scope for expansion. As well as redevelopment of the existing stand, in theory there is scope to create stands on the other 3 sides (north to car park, south towards the existing derelict astro , and east to the access road. I'd be interested to know if feasibility of this has been explored but would hazard a guess that this could up to 10,000 seats?. I would think that would future proof the clubs existence way beyond most fans expectations.
This current plan definitely secures the clubs position for the short term future. However, long term i fear it will 'nail in the coffin' for growth of the club. But maybe that's okay? - it will continue to make lots of people happy (and Sad!!) at this level.
Pink Panther
Well-Known Member
They turned down an offer of £10m from Rio Ferdinand's consortium 5 years ago, so you'd be looking at a figure well in excess of that before even funding any improvements.
The current ground was designed with a view to make piecemeal improvements to the three terraced sides if necessary, so you could probably do one side at a time without closing the ground altogether, but rebuilding the poorly designed main stand complex would be a problem.
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
Apart from the massive amounts of cash involved I'm not sure the growth potential is there to that degree anyway to be honest. Obviously the growth of the crowds has been amazing - no-one would have ever though the crowd would be straining at the seams of the ground ten years ago, it would have seemed impossible. It's still based on cheap tickets and a piss up though. If you're getting up into 10,000 seater stadiums you're going to be looking at moving up into the lower League levels and also the changes that go with that. Would 3000 people getting in for not much more than a tenner and having a few beers watching the game translate into two or three times that paying £25-30 a go to watch lower league football from a fixed seat with no drinks? I wouldn't think so.
EDC
A Slightly Less Invisible Cyber Fan These Days
HamletsHi,
I should start by saying that I'm a pretty new Hamlets fan although I've lived in SE15 for the last 16 years. I'm sure i don't fully understand the history of this redevelopment but (as an Architect) it piqued my interest to understand the proposed plans etc. I can see the Freehold of the site is owned by private development company (off shore based of course!) although there are clear restrictions to redevelopment of the site for housing - it would appear that everyone (club owners and Southwark) is keen to see the current permission delivered. This latest application is the last 'legal' hurdle in achieving that goal (no pun intended!)
I understand why this is felt to be the only route to securing the future of the club as, presumably, the land owners could, in theory, lock the gates. I can see that moving the club elsewhere could be untenable and therefore backing this redevelopment plan would appear to be the only sensible solution for the future of the club. Whats 'not' to like? - new shiny ground and club facilities and security of tenure (site owned by Southwark) and use protected.
However, and this is the crux of my post. what about the future? Given the current run of play (
On the face of it, the ground as it is, has much more scope for expansion. As well as redevelopment of the existing stand, in theory there is scope to create stands on the other 3 sides (north to car park, south towards the existing derelict astro , and east to the access road. I'd be interested to know if feasibility of this has been explored but would hazard a guess that this could up to 10,000 seats?. I would think that would future proof the clubs existence way beyond most fans expectations.
This current plan definitely secures the clubs position for the short term future. However, long term i fear it will 'nail in the coffin' for growth of the club. But maybe that's okay? - it will continue to make lots of people happy (and Sad!!) at this level.
Similar threads
