DulvilleRes

.....on the basis that Shephards in Dulwich Village isn't East Dulwich, half the posts on tonight's page should be moved as well. Turney Rd, Court Lane, Charter School East, Nunhead, Peckham and Red Post Hill aren't East Dulwich either. Most people define themselves as living in Dulwich - I live in Dulwich VIllage, but go to Lordship Lane/ East Dulwich all the time, and from the sounds of the posts, the situation is vice versa. Many of the concerns of all the separate Dulwich areas feed into each other. It is narrowing the richness of this forum to start discriminating. Administrator, what do you think?

NormalForNorfolk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well that's a custom more honoured in the breach > than the observance. Have you seen the hideous new > developments at the village end of court lane or > the plans for the Audi garage? The Scheme of > Management aside, the objectives of the Dulwich > Estate are to maximise income for its > beneficiaries i.e. the foundation schools, chapel > and almshouses. It cannot (and does not) > compromise that for the benefit or convenience of > residents. In other words, it doesn't have to give > a stuff about the locals. The frontage of the > proposed Sainsbury's is no more or less offensive > than the ridiculously generic (and largely empty) > Caf? Rouge or ten-a-penny Pizza Express. I spoke > to the staff again this evening and they seem more > than happy about it. Shepherd's is literally a > waste of space and, given that it should remain a > grocery store and no smaller company could afford > it, the Estate has, for once, approved something > which is of some use to the people who actually > live here. The line that the Dulwich Estate peddle is that they have 'no choice' in their decisions when it comes to maximising their income. They patronisingly referred to it in their latest PR accompanying their Scheme of Management invoice demands. Whatever the 'hue and cry'( their quote) of local residents ( err.... a 600 strong petition opposed to their activities around the SG Smith development and a demonstration), their hands were tied in their actions to put profit above everything.However, talking to charity professionals, this simply isn't true. The Charity Commission allow a certain amount of leeway to take in other, wider factors into consideration as to how a charity conducts it's business. Irrespective of this, there is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of their brief - on the one hand taking cash off us to preserve the area, and telling us we can't put a dish up or touch a tree without their consent (for which there will be a fee), and on the other having licence to wreck the area with dubious development schemes. They are both gamekeeper and poacher at the same time - nice work, if you can get it. I think they are fundamentally discredited as an organisation that should have any kind of pretext of authority to conserve Dulwich, as is the Dulwich Society, with whom they have close links. The Estate should have no input into local affairs, and should be seen for what they are - a money making machine subsidising predominately the local private schools, for whom local residents don't have any more status than serfs. On a more fundamental level, the Estate's charity model doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. The original will which Edward Alleyn left to educate '12 poor scholars' and educate poor local children got subverted by an Act of Parliament in less enlightened times to translate into subsidising the big local private schools - their input into state schools in minimal. I think it is time that Act of Parliament was revisited.

rch Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I heard about the CGS cancellation from the chair > of the Dulwich Society, who met with two > councillors... it could be confusion about the > double bid, but the basic reason given for the > cancellation was that it was thought that the > police wouldn't use the annexe and that it was a > poor use of funds considering budget cuts. So even > if the funding is still intact, it doesn't sound > like the premises will be available for a > community safety contact point, which means that > we'll have to find somewhere else anyway. > > In any case, the communication from the council > has been so bad that it's questionable whether > this will work out or not, even if the funding was > still available. Everyone is so fed up that we're > beginning to feel that we simply need to do > everything ourselves now... > > Can you try to find out what's going on and let us > know? How come the Dulwich Society are in the know, and the rest of the community has to find out what is happening from them? Who do they represent? Certainly not me - their ties to local vested interests makes them far from impartial arbiters of what is best for the area.

In terms to background to development in Southwark, certainly one of the key factors with the SG Smith garage site I've been involved in was the developer - the Dulwich Estate - offered the Council free cash to go and build some social housing elsewhere, in return for getting pretty well unfettered permission to do whatever they wanted. Having been on the inside of this for over it a year to felt to me that the all the serious negotiation with officers went on away from the public gaze, and that the planning consultation was largely a farce. I think to stop developments like Railway Rise, it needs pressure on the local politicians, who with the exception of our local Labour MP and the Tory Councillor, were useless. There were plenty of grounds to reject the application, as the tireless work of the Gilkes Crescent /Callton Avenue Resident Associations demonstrated.

Stop being rude to Fazer! He has made a completely legitimate point about aircraft noise. Lots of people have backed him up in finding it disrupts their life. If people are rude enough to call him nuts for reacting like he does to the noise, he is entitled to defend himself. The issue is Aircraft noise - not Fazer.

James' political party will be the same one whose members on the planning committee abstained earlier in the summer on the SG Smith garage site vote - one of the most opposed local developments in recent history. Over 100 formal objections against, one in favour, a petition signed by over 600 people. Everything you need to know about where the Liberal Democrat commitment to local views lies.

If it is a benefit to any of you for us to share some experience, please PM me. The last year has been truly eye opening as to how things work in Dulwich.

The experience with the Dulwich Estate development on the SG Smith garage site in Dulwich Village (see the Dulwich Estate - Fit to run Conservation? thread) has led most of us involved in it to believe that infringements or otherwise of planning guidelines don't seem to bother Southwark Council in the least. It is all about what the Council officers recommend, and to that degree, the real agenda in the case of the SG Smith development seemed to be carried on outside the formal planning process. A deal was done with the developer, and despite the compelling arguments against the widely resisted proposals, it is going though. The best way to resist a development you don't like is to start a political process as early as possible. Talk to your MP, councillors, local media to bring pressure to bear.

siouzie14 Dulwich Estate are far from the socially diverse charity that your comments imply - 85% of all their donations go directly to the big three private schools of Dulwich College, Alleyns and JAGS. Local state schools, in relation to this, receive a tokenistic amount. As this thread has established, Alleyn's original will was all about subsidising poor and local children, so historically speaking, it should be the other way round. A deft bit of footwork by the Estate to historically translate it into the model it currently operates under, and they pay themselves well to do it. Having worked closely with life saving charities, who rely almost exclusively on volunteers to do their work, the Dulwich Estate in my view looks pretty shabby in comparison. On the masons, maybe in the interests of transparency in local affairs, anyone involved with the Estate and the beneficiary schools would consider declaring their membership, or otherwise. Or maybe I could join the the local masons to find out, but what might put me off is, unlike trade bodies and local organisations I belong to, is swearing an oath to have my tongue ripped out if I fall out with their agenda. To a degree whether there is masonic influence or not is interesting, and maybe even illuminating, but not the ultimate point. The fact is there is widespread local unease at the insular and many would argue high handed and anti community way in which the Dulwich Estate is currently operating.

Possibly something of an aside, but something that has always puzzled me is the insular nature of the Dulwich Estate/ Schools/ Society axis - they seem to operate in a very self contained manner. Digging around, there seems some evidence of Freemason activity around parts of it. Dulwich College has an openly advertised lodge, recent former pupils at Alleyns report lodge meetings of some kind taking place there, and one of the great and good on one of the various boards/ committees has been 'outed' online - of course, never the most reliable source of evidence. There is no link between impropriety and Freemasonry per se, and no evidence to suggest that any Freemasonry has an influence on how affairs are conducted in Dulwich. However, if is true that the Masonic influence is heavy, it does provide an interesting context. Does anyone know anything more about it?

Agree with broadening out the debate around why we're all contributing like feudal serfs to this archaic charity, which is essentially a self perpetuating privilege machine. I would favour exploring whether we could get a Parliamentary debate to revisit the 1857 Act - after all, times have changed, and what is happening now is a long way from what Alleyn originally wanted. I'd also favour a campaign to withhold their levy - cash is the only thing that they listen to. Looking at the various people associated with their operation, there are a good many lawyers/ judges (some with interesting provenance), so I suspect it wouldn't be easy. However, they really don't like being in the spotlight, and have had a very easy ride from local people over the last few years.

Great research Qwe = getting the 1857 Act revisited so that a broader range of local children will benefit, as per Alleyn's original intention, is the way to go.

Qwe Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Personally I would like to see a new Dulwich > College Act redefining the obligations and > beneficiaries of the Dulwich Estate. > > A potted history is that in the early 1600s an > actor called Alleyn bought quite a bit of land. No > one really understood where he got the money from. > Alleyn set up his 'foundation' and later died. His > descendants were repeatedly accused of not running > the Estate properly. In about 1857 an Act of > Parliament took the Estate out of their hands and > set up the new structure. > > I think the world has changed a lot from 1857 and > it is time to spread the benefit of the Dulwich > Estate more widely in the community. They have > benefited hugely from tax allowances and the > general increase in wealth of the country. All > they do is sit back and watch their investments > grow. They did get a setback with the Leasehold > Reform Act, which forced them to sell freeholds. > > It would probably be unlikely to happen, but a > Private Members Bill to reform the Dulwich Estate > is long overdue. The 1857 Act took over the > Dulwich Estate and another Act of Parliament could > do it again. > > I would like the beneficiaries to be local state > schools in London and the Dulwich Estate to be > much more accountable to the wider community. It > is probably unlikely to happen, but I suspect it > would have a lot support. This is a brilliant suggestion. Edward Alleyn left his cash for the 'education of 12 poor scholars', which the current regime of the Dulwich Estate has masterfully translated into a well oiled machine giving cash to local private schools, and creating a virtually self contained and largely unaccountable mini industry within our community while doing so. Someone said on this thread that a lot of charities are more akin to businesses than actual charities, and this one in my view takes the biscuit. It would be great to see if there was any legal grounds to challenge their interpretation of their brief.

The planning timeline works very well for the Dulwich Estate - surprise, surprise - they sign the contracts on 3rd September, so I expect the hoardings will go up round the site on the 4th. SG Smith effectively moved out of the garage workshop 6 weeks ago, which I took as a clear indication they were confident of getting the result they wanted. Lets get a demo together, and work out details between all the interested parties. PM me, or a couple of the active residents associations can be contracted on [email protected]

Bicknell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So planning permission has been granted. But that > doesn't mean it's all over. The Dulwich Estate > doesn't have to build it like the plans. They > could put forward something better and get that > approved instead. How about a good old-fashioned > march with banners to get them to change their > minds? Great suggestion, and as far as everyone I've spoken to concerned with this saga, this is far from over. There is widespread discomfort at how this has been handled, both in the microcosm of the planning committee itself, and in the broader picture of the year to get to this point. The only thing the Estate will understand is if their 'charity' model comes under pressure and scrutiny. They very rarely break cover to actually answer local concerns, but interestingly were forced to around the time of the last demonstration outside SG Smiths. They are very used to their back room model of operating, and really don't like a light been shone on their activities.

The Planning Committee last night approved the Dulwich Estate's plans for the SG Smith site without a single change. There was a great turn our from local residents and a spirited opposition in their allotted 3 mins of speaking on the grounds of overdevelopment, breaches of Southwark's own planning guidelines on basements, garden size, heritage and the Dulwich Village Conservation area, and concern over child safety in the Construction management Process. Everyone who was there was of the view, whether true or not, that the result was a foregone conclusion - the feeling was it wouldn't have mattered who turned and and what was said. In fact our local MP Helen Hayes did turn up to speak on residents behalf, rushing from the Commons to do so, but against custom in these committees (Simon Hughes would do it regularly), she wasn't allowed to say a word. The Council uploaded some key documents about the basement construction submitted by Dulwich Estate, much of which looks highly dubious, only last Friday, so concerned local residents had no chance analyse or comment. The Planning consultants claimed that they didn't know Dulwich Village Infants School was split site. This is how much attention they pay to a 538 signature petition on child safety, and the feedback of local residents. If you continue to feel strongly about this development you can: write to John Major, in charge of the Dulwich Estate - the developer Helen Hayes - your local MP Your local councillors The head teachers of Dulwich College, Alleyns and JAGS - schools which are all the ultimate beneficiaries of the cash raised by this development. Two of them, Dr Jospeh Spence (Dulwich College), and Dr Gary Savage (Alleyns), according to information I can find, are also on the Dulwich Society's Executive Committee. The Society, whose stated aim is 'to foster and safeguard the amenities of Dulwich' were curiously quiet about this development, and did nothing to list the heritage assets on and around the site. Or if you are a member, and feel strongly, you could resign. Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this thread - there has been a lot of useful information shared.

If anyone feels strongly on any of the issues this proposed development brings up, I would urge them to get down to the planning committee tomorrow night. Otherwise the way we are heading is a huge piece of over development that will make the two new houses at the end of Court Lane look like cottages. The plan is for a huge basement the size of two Olympic Swimming Pools covering the entire site, justified by the Estate with a rationale bordering on fantasy. The Dulwich Estate application falls foul of a large number of national and local planning guidelines, but for all the efforts of local residents pouring hours into rationally arguing the case, pitting their efforts against the paid Dulwich Estate Planning Consultants, the Council Officers in their recommendations to the Planning Committee are pretty well fully endorsing the Estate's position. Their rationale seems to be they are getting some (largely off site) affordable housing out of it. No one I've spoken to is against either development or affordable housing, but on a scale in keeping with the area. A show of strength might help focus the Committee's mind on the fact that many see this as a rotten proposal on every level.

The Planning Decision for the SG Smith workshop/ garage development will be made this coming Tuesday 14th July by Southwark Council Planning Committee. The Committee are meeting at 7 pm in room G02, 160 Tooley Street, London SE1 2QH. Local representatives from Gilkes Crescent and Calton Avenue Residents Associations, along with others, will raise concerns about this huge - scale highly disruptive development and it's environmental and road safety implications for Dulwich children. The future of the stocks plaque will also be on the agenda. If you want to support them, join them on July 14th at North Dulwich Station at 5.50pm for the 6.01 pm train to London Bridge. The application reference is 14/AP/3104, and it will be first on the agenda. See SG Smith petition on Change.org for more information. A local show of concern and support can really help make a difference. Many thanks.

I had to do the Dulwich - West End commute twice today for various obscure reasons twice on a push bike up the Walworth Rd. Never seen anything like it - it was solid the entire length of the Walworth Rd ( 1.5 miles?) at 08.50, and still solid at 10.20. An ambulance had just given up, and was sitting in the traffic with the blue light on, people were pissing out of cars. Others were getting out and wandering around, just to have a look. If you are not cycling into town avoid like the plague - go to Brixton and tube it/ get a train in

For those concerned about the enormous and unnecessary basement proposed on the SG Smith development site, and it's implications on child safety, there is protest planned for tomorrow morning at 8.15 outside SG Smith - see this link for details https://www.change.org/p/the-dulwich-estate-sg-smith-child-safety-before-profit

Qwe and Edhistory This is genius research! My kids love the idea of the stocks - they've always asked me about them on the way to school. It would be great to get some replicas up, and what better pretext than maintaining Dulwich's Village status? I think that if the Estate were so inclined, they could really help create a community feature, which I think would also help local businesses. It would be yet another part of the landscape for people coming from other parts of London on a sunny weekend.

Loz wrote: According to the Dulwich Society the plaque was moved to the current location in 1968. And is almost certainly currently in the wrong position. Right or wrong position - and lets see what English Heritage make of it - it is a shame the Dulwich Society couldn't have devoted their energy to getting the stone plaque listed in the first place to protect it, rather than put their energy into seemingly attempting to shore up the Dulwich Estate's position and their credibility after the event. It was members of the public, not the Dulwich Society, who got both the stocks and the Village Hall listed. The whole situation says a lot to me about the true nature of the Dulwich Society, and where their core interests lie. The Dulwich Society's actions as regards the SG Smith site over the last few months have been puzzling, to say the least. They have happily waved through the Dulwich Estate's proposals with only a couple of minor comments, despite widespread local unease at the design, it's incongruous density and its impact on the area. They've not been over keen to meet local residents who want to discuss their concerns. They are happy for a rare surviving example of a 1930's Petrol station on the site, with it's Arts and Craft's influenced design, get demolished without so much as a debate or murmur. They seem equally happy for the once in several generations opportunity to return residential development on this site to something approaching it's original historic footprint, and in keeping with the listed/ listable properties that surround it, pass by. And they're happy for the stone plaque - a lovely and nationally near unique bit of living history - to get shoved into the garden wall of a Barratt's style house, so the Dulwich Estate can make a few more quid out of selling the site it is currently on as a walled off private garden. As they say in journalism, follow the cash, and everything falls into place.

Loz wrote Public transport to Dulwich Village is pretty dire. It's the P4 and that's about it. Aren't you forgetting North Dulwich Station, a 2 min walk from the proposed SG Smith development? Up to 14 trains an hour in both directions. And the 37 bus, with decent tube connections at Brixton. I don't know who drives into central London to work, and only a couple who drive elsewhere. Interestingly, one of the many errors and omissions on the Dulwich Estate/ SG Smith planning application to Southwark Council is the fact that it rather skated over the public transport links, presumably to try and bolster the spurious case for a huge underground car park.

Loz wrote ... that is almost certainly currently sited in the wrong place anyway. This isn't true. There is strong evidence that the plaque is exactly where it should be. 1. The book, London Old and New volume 6, author Edward Walford, published in 1878, certainly seems to bear out its current location - To quote from the book 'The village "stocks" and "cage," with the motto, "It is a sport for a fool to do mischief; thine own wickedness shall correct thee," formerly stood at the corner of the pathway across the fields leading to Camberwell, opposite the burial-ground; and the college "pound," which formerly stood near the toll-gate in the Penge Road, was, in 1862, ordered to be removed to the end of Croxted Lane.'" Furthermore, the 1838 tithe map, which is viewable in the John Harvard History library, shows the site of the structure most likely to be the Georgian lock up to be exactly in its current location. So the current on site description that accompanies the plaque which says it was affixed to a building 'on or near' its current site 's the accurate one. Given that this was the description that Dulwich Estate and presumably Dulwich Society wrote when the stone plaque was erected on it's current site, I'd be interested to know what new history has come to light in recent years to cause them to change their minds.

On TJ's post in relation to the SG Smith development, no one that I've seen or spoken to who is opposing it is anti development on the site - they just want the right one. The proposed one is disastrously wrong on a number of levels. 1. It is for fundamentally a string of ?2 million each plus houses. Not many people I know can get anywhere near that figure, so with bank rates near 0% interest, and property going up by up to 15% a year, I suspect we'll all be looking at a road full of investor safety deposit boxes, not family homes. The Dulwich Estate tried to get their proposals through without any component of social/ affordable housing - it was only pressure from local residents that has put a token element in. 2. It has a huge basement for underground car parking - with good public transport out of Dulwich, and ample on street parking, who needs that? It is completely out of keeping with both the area and 21st century environmental realities. 3. In terms of your Chinese comparison TJ, it rides roughshod over the heritage of the site, involving demolishing a rare bit of 18930's architecture, and needlessly moving a much enjoyed grade 2 listed monument. It is also a missed opportunity to return the site to its true historic residential footprint of smaller ( and thus more affordable) properties. It is going to housing committee during the school holidays, but still time to view it/ comment on it: it is on the Southwark Council planning website ref ref:14/AP/3104.