Fears Kentish Town FC could be planning stadiumon Chase Lodge in Mill Hill

12:20pm Thursday 18th March 2010 in News Photograph of the Author By Alex Hayes

Councillor John Hart at the ground in Page Street Councillor John Hart at the ground in Page Street

A NEW football stadium could be developed on land recently bought by a Camden community group in the heart of Mill Hill.

Plans have emerged revealing Kentish Town Football Club want to develop a stand on the Chase Lodge Playing Fields as a new permanent home for the club.

The semi-professional Spartan South Midlands Premier Division outfit currently play at nearby Copthall Stadium due to a lack of pitches in Camden itself.

In December the 16-acre site in Page Street was sold to the Camden Community Football and Sports Association (CCSFA) bought the site from the council for £700,000.

Councillor John Hart, a Conservative representative of the area, said he would strongly oppose any development plans at the site.

He said: “This is green belt land and any attempts to put a football ground here would inevitably lead to it being eaten up by tarmac and concrete. A stand would be disastrous on this site.

“There were a lot of questions being asked about how a community group could get their hands on £700,000 in the current climate, but if there is a commercial interest behind it that would explain it.

“Residents are already unhappy with the amount of parking in Page Street on weekends for people going to play sport, so this would make things worse still.”

Related links

After the sale of the ground in December a statement appeared on the club website saying they had “secured a home which they can call their own”.

Chairman Catherine Dye told the club's website: “There will be many more long and hard days ahead but when we finally lay that first brick on Chase Lodge, then the dream will be finally realised.”

Mike Connolly, who owns a cottage in the grounds, said he will fight “tooth and nail” against any new stadium.

He added: “What we do not want is hundreds of chanting football fans on Saturday and Sundays.

“They are already planning a large intensification of use with up to 600 children coming to play there at weekends, so this would make things even worse for residents.”

John Turtle, the chairman of the Mill Hill Preservation Society said they would also oppose developments there.

He added: “This is a green belt site and we would oppose any attempts to expand the built environment there, it should be kept open and putting a stadium or stand there is not keeping it open.

“If they build a stadium it will have to pay its way and that means corporate hospitality and things like that.”

Diane Culigan, the chairman of the CCSFA, would not be drawn on any future plans for the site.

She told the Times Series: “We plan to improve the site and make it much better than it is now.

“What we need to concentrate on in the short term is things like replace the nets and maintain the fences as well as clearing up the litter and making sure the grass is cut.

“Lots of straightforward things that will not be detrimental to the people around.”

Comments(21)

Rog T says...
12:58pm Thu 18 Mar 10

It's funny how John Hart is strangely silent about known planning breaches by his friends in the Hendon Conservative party but with an election around the corner is oh so keen to get his picture in the press opposing something where there hasn't even been a plan announced.

Sadly Mr Hart is only interested in opposing overdevelopment in Barnet when it doesn't affect the profits of his rich friends

Report this post »

MichaelH says...
1:21pm Thu 18 Mar 10

A few observations:

If Green Belt land is so sacrosanct, how did Copthall Stadium get built back in the 1960s?

Why have Bristol City FC just been given permission to build a 30k stadium on Green Belt land? http://bit.ly/cQhNk1


Why is a prominent Barnet Tory allowed to build a kids' farm on Green Belt land? http://bit.ly/dhT1vz


Why was there such little fuss made when a floodlit golf range was opened next to Copthall Stadium?

Why all the the fuss? There's already tarmac as far as the eye can see behind Cllr Hart in that photo...

Report this post »

Mr Reasonable says...
1:32pm Thu 18 Mar 10

I checked the club's website and guess what their average attendance is? This season the average attendance was 29. Not 2900 or even 290. Just 29 people on average turn up to watch Kentish Town. The highest attendance match all season was only 55. I think the word stadium conjures up images of the Emirates, White Hart Lane or even Underhill. Perhaps a more appropriate term would be pavilion. I really don't understand what the problem here is. A charity are offering to do up a run down playing field so that more boys, girls and children with disabilities can play sport. They are doing it at no cost to Barnet council taxpayers. Once a fortnight 29 people will come along to watch Kentish Town play. And people are clamouring to stop it dead in its tracks - I utterly dispair!

Report this post »

Antoinette says...
3:47pm Thu 18 Mar 10

Mr Hart would do well to stop attempting to deflect interest in the completely inappropriate greenbelt developments of certain Tory party activists by scaremongering over this non story. As regards this area, I think anyone wishing to object would do well to check out the fact that the area is I seem to recall a known site for an endangered species, as recorded by the council's own natural conservation surveys. There are also archaelogical features which need protection. So hands off, developers.

Report this post »

Grumblepop says...
4:28pm Thu 18 Mar 10

Last week I paid a HUGE compliment to a Conservative with a bit of common sense, sadly everything is missing here. Let me Remind you, Fom part of Flower Lane, into Bunns Lane on the site of the old Featherstone Garage is an Housing estate. John Laing Buildings another Housing Development, The Old Gas works a concrete jungle. Mill Hill East Frith Lane on both sides, soon. Some examples of how much development has taken place on Green Built land since I was a paper-boy. Largely Conservative years. of destroying the Green Belt of Mill Hill.
Daws Lane is relatively untouched, but give it time, before the ex TS Barossa building is sold off by your Conservative colleagues. Part of Copthall is likely to dissappear. I say the following with a very very heavy heart, Judging by your photo and the handle-bars, many will have been extremely lucky not to have been under your command.

Report this post »

Mr Helpfull says...
5:26pm Thu 18 Mar 10

As a concerned local resident, over the future development of the site, after making enquiries, it seems that it will only be a good thing for us all, it seems that the parking in page street will be reduced and the site which at the moment is a bit of a tip, will be cleaned, repaired and looked after properly, which can only be a good thing, for us all. People are putting the this organisation down already before hearing what there future plans could be. I think as responsible residents we should at least hear what they have to say, before coming to conclusions. As for Mr Connolly, as far as i know he does not even live in the cottage and probably does not even live in the borough. If this organisation improve the site it can only be a benifit to us all, and maybe my son and daughter will be able to play football in nice/safe surrondings for a change.
So please let not knock it till we see whats a foot, and I think we will be pleasently surprised. First impressions can be a dangerous thing.

Report this post »

Don't Call Me Dave says...
8:38pm Thu 18 Mar 10

MichaelH

Some development is permitted on green belt land, and sports stadia are included in the list. This may seem strange given the amount of tarmac and concrete used in the construction process, but clearly the rules were drawn up in such a way so as to allow plenty of wriggle room!

Report this post »

Mr Public says...
9:44pm Thu 18 Mar 10

I never knew that stadia were allowed under greenbelt land. What i don't get is why no one has asked residents or shared with residents the public about what will happen to public land. I disagree with the wait and see approach. If action is taken later it is too late. Why can't these new owners state what their plans are? If they are not detrimental to the local community then why don't they share them with the community? What have they got to hide. Secrecy just breeds suspicion and i'm starting to get a nasty feeling about the long term aims for this site. No one is against children playing sport on the site unless they cause problems for residents then a balance needs to be struck. I applaud for once local councillors for trying to highlight this issue.
Thank you Mr Hart i was unaware of the stadia issue. Also who is this Diane Calligan? Can she not speak up for herself and disclose the plans she has for the site? She is meant to head this body so why doesnt she just say what on earth she plans to do with it. Can the executive officer of whoever this person is please stand up and account for their actions for this site.

Report this post »

Grumblepop says...
2:51am Fri 19 Mar 10

Mr Public, following is the link to the earlier report, you also left a comment there.
http://www.times-ser
ies.co.uk/news/topst
ories/5062210.Reside
nts_anxious_over_fut
ure_of_playing_field
s/#

You will discover,that local people also make use of the playing fields. So Once again for you, quote unquote,

" Diane Culligan, the chairman of the charity, said there is no need to worry about the future of the pitches.
She said: “It's a community playing field so we want to improve what's there at the moment with things like girl playing football and children with special needs being able to use it as well.
“Local teams will be able to use the pitches it's just a community organisation has got together to try and run them better.”
Councillor Flick Rea, who is in charge of culture for Camden, said: "We're delighted that the land at Chase Lodge will be run and owned by a Camden community group, dedicated to promoting sport in north London.

Mr Public, Seems like neighbouring Camden had, and now a Camden Charity is, providing sports playing fields for Barnet's children. More than Barnet is providing for their own. Your Councillors have been keeping a secret from you. Mill Hill East Frith Lane is about to be a Massive Development soon. Most of Mill Hill East has already been turned into a concrete jungle. Camden Councillor Rea's contact details for you
Councillor: Flick Rea (Liberal Democrat)
Telephone:020 7431 6753
Email:flick.rea@camd
en.gov.uk

Report this post »

Rog T says...
10:20am Fri 19 Mar 10

I have been making extensive enquiries about this issue. It seems quite clear that Councillor John Hart has been deliberately scaremongering so that when plans which never existed don't happen, he can take the credit for stopping something which was never ever proposed.

How desperate is he?

Report this post »

Antoinette says...
11:43am Fri 19 Mar 10

This scaremongering tactic is a classic diversionary trick and evidently working very well. Let us all turn our attention to the real issues which the council does not want us to think about ie what will happen if they are re-elected and these neo Thacherites get their wicked way with Futureshape. The warden snatching attempt will pale into insignificance; services will be cut, put out of house, and staffing, already pared down to a totally inadequate level will be further cut, with huge impact on service delivery, especially to those most in need. We need a coalition of Labour, Lib Dems, and new fresh thinking independents to hold the balance of power on this council and ensure that the Tories are not given another four years in power, or we will all live to regret it.

Report this post »

Grumblepop says...
11:55am Fri 19 Mar 10

I'm VOTING FOR ANTOINETTE and Any Coalition in the Finchley ward who supports her, but THE LABCON No Way, they would Concrete over every piece of spare Green including Roundabouts

Report this post »

Mr Public says...
7:32pm Fri 19 Mar 10

If she wanted to be honest why not disclose her detailes plans for the site. Searching the internet she put forward detailed long term plans for the site to camden. If she has detailed proposals let the residents see them. A three line quote is not enough for me but it may be for Gumblepop. Doesn't gumblepop want to see the detailed plans for the site or does he expect our fears to be allayed by the words of a few officials without seeing the full documentation. Gumlepop may be satisfied with a few vague oral assurances I am not! They submitted a proposal at the time of bidding for the land. LET US SEE THE PROPOSAL. NOT A SUMMARY; NOT -SHOW THE PUBLIC THEIR PROPOSALS PLEASE otherwise don't comment because they are treating the public with contempt.

I don't get it - if they have nothing to hide - disclose all documentation please. What is the problem Gumblepop. Or maybe Gumblepop could get the documentation/propos
al and post it on this blog for us all to read? Can you Gumblepop? Then i might give what you have to say some credibility.

Report this post »

Rog T says...
8:24pm Fri 19 Mar 10

Mr Public,

Why are you so keen to prevent Grumblepop from commenting, just because he hasn't seen something, which may not even exist?

One assumes that if they are going to change the site and build/change anything they'll have to submit the plans for planning permission, at which time we'll all see the detail and we'll all be able to comment. That's the process and if they ever do submit these mythical plans for a 60,000 seat stadium for Kentish Town FC (average crowd 100) then we can all get together to organise the mother of all protests.

Until then I'm afraid to say it all looks rather like Tory scaremongering before the election.

If you've found these mythical plans on the Internet, then post a link so we can all see them, rather than having a pop at Grumblepops quite reasonable comments

Report this post »

Grumblepop says...
11:24pm Fri 19 Mar 10

Mr Public, As Rog T says, Camden Sports Trust will have to apply for planning permission to Barnet Council. However, it is their land, they own it and as you have stated "Searching the internet she (Presumably you mean, Diane Culigan, the chairman of the CCSFA) put forward detailed long term plans for the site to camden". "They submitted a proposal at the time of bidding for the land. LET US SEE THE PROPOSAL. NOT A SUMMARY; NOT -SHOW THE PUBLIC THEIR PROPOSALS"

Camden Council owned the land a Sports Trust Created presumably for Camden and BARNET's residents. Everybody reading the Camden New Journal (Camden's Local Newspaper)may have read a SUMMARY of the plans

Mr Public, you as a Barnet resident, "searching the internet" could presumably, have asked Camden Councillor Flick Rea and also The Camden Trust's Spokesperson, if you could see the detailed plans SUBMITTED to Barnet Council. HAVE YOU MADE A REQUEST TO CAMDEN COUNCIL or to BARNET's Planning Department as a Barnet resident TO SEE THE PROPOSALS submitted to Camden, Have Barnet Councillors failed to SEE THE PROPOSAL you mention, on your behalf. NO! Why not?

The Hendon Times article above, is in ENGLISH, it DOES NOT say, "Where the plans have emerged."
It is also more than a bit rich for Conservative Councilllor Hart, to remark on the finances of any of Camden Community Group, when his Conservative Party and Council have LOST £27 million of Barnet's taxpayers money. I do not see Councillor Hart and his Conservative Colleagues, dipping into their own pockets to return the negligently lost money to Barnet's residents, instead of axing services you may need someday.
Please, before you comment, never ask anybody to do it for you. Do note which council is treating Barnet's residents with contempt. You need to hold our Barnet Council to account, not Camden Council. English truly is a simpleton's language. I'll stick to blarney and wind.

Report this post »

Mr Public says...
7:58pm Sat 20 Mar 10

Gumblepop i am not interested in party politics. I am interested in transparency. As a resident i would have thought the new owners and as i learned today, they are not the new owners yet, should consult widely with local residents on what they intend to do with the site in 1 year, 5 years and 10 years. If they care about local residents the prospective owners should want to have public meetings and share their plans. Not hide away and wait to be cajoled into quotes by the local press. This is common sense irrespective of a legal obligation to do so. They have chose not to. There has been no consultation with local residents. Pursuing the purchase of this area without proper consultation shows, in my umble opinion, that they don't care about local residents. They are just interested in pursuing their own agenda regardless. This is the only conclusion I can reach as the vast majority of local residents did not know about this until the newspaper investigated and made a headline. Lets focus on one thing: what will happen to the proposals for the site in 1 yr, 5 yrs and 10 years. Why haven't they sort to involve local people in the discussion? What havent they sort local opinion? WHY HAVENT THEY SHARED THEIR PLANS WITH LOCAL PEOPLE. They have not bothered it seems to me. Tell me Mr Gumblepop do you think it is right and proper for a new owner of community land to not share with local residents before their purchase in 10 days time their plans? I am fascinated with your answer. Its the only question i have for you.

Surely it must be negligent on their part to not share their plans with local residents properly??????????

PS Before you say they did - i fundamentally object - as i nore my neighbours nor their neighbours nor anyone on my road knew anything about it and we live very close!!!!

Report this post »

justitia says...
11:49am Sun 21 Mar 10

if and when any proposal comes up it will be after the election ... it will either turn out to be a fuss about nothing or a consultation process will begin. In the latter case, this will be a formality as no notice, post election, will be taken of residents' feelings - the decision will already have been made whether or not the proposal will go ahead, according to who has the strongest influence on the council's decisions. This is how planning works in our borough, and actually pretty much in London wide developments too (Brent X etc). If you don't like the sound of that, think carefully when you go to the polling station next time for local and London elections. Our elected representative are supposed to represent our best interests, not dabble in politics for their own ego trip fuelled reasons. The longer they are in power, the more morally corrupt they become: Barnet - and London - deserve better - time for a change.

Report this post »

Grumblepop says...
1:38pm Sun 21 Mar 10

Mr Public,
Justitia of Barnet has now given you the clearest explanation of, HOW It REALLY WORKS.
You learned again, you say. English is a simpleton's or is it simple language, I'm sticking to Blarney and Wind.

You state, (1) " I am interested in transparency" (2) "common sense irrespective of a legal obligation to do so" (3) " it must be negligent not to share their plans with local residents (Please don't call Lord Clashfern to explain Negligence)
(4) " i am not interested in party politics." Within the context of the Newspaper Report, " Party Politics" it is, and you should ask Barnet councillors, Why they did not TELL YOU First, amongst many other more important CIVIC issues, such as, Why Barnet's Councillors did not consult you before "negligently" losing your £27 million, rather than the local rag doing so?
Like any other nation, It's about time we put Civics on the school curriculum - not wait until 'A' level and voting age before understanding what is being said and done in a Civic Community. A democratic one, so they tell me.
" If you don't like the sound of that, think carefully when you go to the polling station next time for local and London elections." " Barnet - and London - deserve better - time for a change." Justitia you're spot on.

Thanks Justitia once again.

Report this post »

Rog T says...
10:28am Mon 22 Mar 10

A few facts about Kentish Town FC.

They already play at Copthall Stadium, next door to Chase Lodge - there will be no extra traffic.

The biggest crowd Kentish Town FC attracted in March was 28 people.

They play at 3pm on a Saturday afternoon. The worst times for parking congestion is Saturday and Sunday morning, when the 11 a side pitches are in use.

This club plays in Spartan South Midlands League Premier Division. The whole issue has been blown out of all proportion to scare residents.

Report this post »

Grumblepop says...
2:12pm Mon 22 Mar 10

Roger as you said on your blog, but the joy was in Citizen Smith getting wound up more by a non-descript Conservative Councillor Hart and me being wicked.
http://barneteye.blo
gspot.com/
'Power to the People' Mr Public

Report this post »

dellertron says...
8:23am Tue 23 Mar 10

Are these the same Conservative councillors that have consistently refused all attempts to keep a football stadium at Claremont Road in Cricklewood?

Why not give that stadium to Kentish Town to redevelop?

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree