Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Hadley's reveal new stadium design

sleaterkinney said:
That's a worrying development.
Click to expand...
I don't understand 'legalese', but apparently this is standard procedure with this sort of development & will go hand in hand with the current application.

I asked one of our fans who has been very involved in the Supporters' Trust work on the new ground, and he did not seem overly concerned by this new application.

There was a Supporters' Trust Board meeting recently, after this application had been posted, and they haven't mentioned it to members, so -as a member of the Trust- I find that reassuring too.
 
There was a little planning notice about this next to the car wash on Saturday. I scanned it but couldn't make head nor tail of it.
 
As I understand things a developer cannot just vary the terms of a Section 106 Agreement but has to remove them where renegotiation comes into play. As the new ground is taken into account regarding the percentage of affordable housing involved it may well be that any increase in the affordable housing would necessitate changes to the particular clauses where the ground provision is weighed against that?
 
Dulwich Mishi said:
I don't understand 'legalese', but apparently this is standard procedure with this sort of development & will go hand in hand with the current application.
Click to expand...
I'd feel a lot more comfortable if they waited until planning permission for the new ground had gone through. Because if not, they could just raze the current stadium to the ground once the lease is up.
 
If there's nothing sinister in the new application - and I have no idea whether there is or isn't in and of itself - then why isn't it mentioned and explained in the press reports? Why not add a line to the effect of "A separate / complementary application has been made but everyone calm down it's just standard routine"?

The fact that this hasn't been done, but that coincidentally to the timing of the second application a set of (let's face it) six-month old CGIs has been re-hashed into a press release to attract everyone's attention and make us think "Ooooh, Gooooood Hadley", is to me highly suggestive.

Like I say, I know nothing about whether the process being followed is sinister or not, but the behaviour pattern certainly is.

Baaaad Hadley.
 
scousedom said:
If there's nothing sinister in the new application - and I have no idea whether there is or isn't in and of itself - then why isn't it mentioned and explained in the press reports? Why not add a line to the effect of "A separate / complementary application has been made but everyone calm down it's just standard routine"?

The fact that this hasn't been done, but that coincidentally to the timing of the second application a set of (let's face it) six-month old CGIs has been re-hashed into a press release to attract everyone's attention and make us think "Ooooh, Gooooood Hadley", is to me highly suggestive.

Like I say, I know nothing about whether the process being followed is sinister or not, but the behaviour pattern certainly is.

Baaaad Hadley.
Click to expand...
To be honest...I haven't seen any press releases, so can't comment on them...but one thing...it's NOT Hadley driving this anymore, but a company called Meadows Residential, as far as I know...

But, in general terms of communication, yes, I personally do believe fans should be told the basics of what is being planned...after all, we are the ones to benefit most from a football perspective, if we get what has been promised.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YTC
Below is clarification on procedure from the club owners


We understand some of you have asked why a s106A application has been made to vary the existing S106 agreement relating to the stadium, and can see from the wording contained within why alarm bells might ring! The application has been made in order to allow the proposed scheme for the new stadium to be carried out, and should therefore be read in conjunction with the planning application - the intention is for the two to be considered together, and without submitting this, there can not be a new S106 agreement. When planning permission is granted the delivery of the new stadium is secured through a new S106 agreement. In essence, without modification of the old s106 agreement we would not be able to deliver the new scheme - so although it is a technicality, it is nonetheless very important to the Club that the relevant modification is made.
 
From which the logical question follows.... If this is "to be read in conjunction with the planning application", why the six month gap? It's the gap that gives the appearance of something sinister, of a change of strategy...
 
But in theory, could the latest application not be granted while the original application was still being "sat on", thus enabling current or future owners to build on the land at will...? If this can't happen, why hasn't it been explicitly made clear to fans? If it can happen, why has it been done?
 
It is that very scenario that lead to my approach to the owners for clarification. Unfortunately, they cannot be reviewed in the round so 2 applications have to go in. In theory there is a chance that could happen but I am assured it is not their intention and that the council would never approve such a thing.
 
EDC said:
A couple of interesting new posts on the EDF.

The East Dulwich Forum
Click to expand...
Funny thing is... they just voted in favour of a property developer, whose company is registered in an off-shore tax haven, to build 155 flats on their stadium, whilst shirking the requirement by the council to build a *minimum* of 35% affordable housing (they are proposing 16% because building the stadium for the ethical DHFC fans means they can't provide Southwark's minimum). The property developer also got creative with their viability assessment to make it all look less feasible so that they can pocket even more profit from the scheme. And I haven't even started on the fact that their planning application includes building on protected green space that they don't even own.

How ethical is that??!
Click to expand...
Ouch!
 
Thanks very much for all the comments / clarifications, Liam.
I can't say I'm fully reassured however. There's no denying that a development site without the current S106 limitations would be more attractive than one with. While it might not be the stated intention to take advantage of that now, it could be in the future. I've also very little faith in what council's "would never approve", from bitter experience.
 
I feel like this comment (the edf forum one re: ethics... sorry cant do quotes ) is kind of similar to the people who criticised people for getting a coffee at Starbucks during occupy.

My take is....

If the current plan A goes ahead DHFC (a historic institution) has secured its future in the area. As well as its ability to continue its good works in the area. It will have brought in 100% more housing than is currently on site 16% of which is affordable. 35% of nothing isn't very much.

It's just pragmatic and makes things just slightly better in a hostile, capitalist environment . The community will get nothing (possibly less than nothing) if Meadows don't get their profit.

I also dislike the way that as soon as you start helping people, armchair wags start thinking they can hold you to arbitrary standards. See Alan Algers comments on the Betsafe podcast...
 
Last edited:
Can we just Clarify, Hadley have nothing to do with this development anymore. 'Meadows residential' are the financiers of the club and of the development. Feel we should all get our heads round this ASAP.
 
"We work on the principle of collaborative working with Council's as a starting position. This is, of course, not always possible and we are equally able to identify those circumstances where a more aggressive approach, that may involve the need to appeal, may be the best course of action to maximise the opportunity. When we do this, we would work with our professional teams to identify and quantify risks to enable informed commercial decisions."

Who we are | Meadow Residential LLP

If you're prepared to put, in the public domain like that, that you'll play (schmooze) nice right up until the second you don't get your way, after which you'll unleash the hounds.... Well, says a lot.

When did these guys take over from Hadley? Was there anything put into the public domain about it?
 
For info: DHST have written to the Council to try and work out a better and more straight-forward approach to this, in particular asking for additional wording to be added to prevent the removal of the planning obligations in the existing s106 until practical completion on the new stadium has been achieved.

We have also requested a meeting with Meadows to discuss the current situation and seek confirmation of their aims and support in respect of fan ownership.
 
Love Dulwich Hamlet. Hate everything Meadows stand for.

Much as I want a secure future for the club, there is no way I could endorse this dreadful development. It's a Thatcherite wet dream of a project.
 
Meadow's extensive network of valuable contacts and direct access to discretionary investment capital...
Click to expand...
image.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Hamlet feature in a new book
Replies
1
Views
345
Nivag
Nivag
Pink Panther
Cray Wanderers v Hamlet (Isthmian League) New Year's Day 2025, 3pm ko.
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
Pink Panther
Pink Panther
Pink Panther
Chatham v Hamlet (Isthmian League) New Year's Day 01.01.24 (3pm ko)
Replies
29
Views
2K
DHFC_Programmes
D
R
O/T Farnborough seek investors / new owner
Replies
0
Views
291
Roger D
R
sleaterkinney
  • Poll
Gavin Rose leaves Dulwich Hamlet and new interim coach appointed
7 8 9 10 11
Replies
319
Views
25K
Cyclodunc
Cyclodunc
Back
Top Bottom