Glemham

Perhaps someone who works there owns a Tesla and is keen to promote more sales. After all poor Musk needs all the support he can get right now 😢

Isabel Ramirez a journalist with Southwark News wrote an article - sadly behind their paywall - in October last year. “Why has this pub in Dulwich been vacant for twelve years?” There was no response from the Dulwich Estate. Perhaps you could contact her: [email protected] M.07939857532 As the lease is due this year, and nothing has happened since last October she might be interested in asking some more questions. Many years ago Private Eye published an article criticising the Estate’s response to parents in West Dulwich who wanted to adapt their home for a disabled child. I seem to remember that the Eye referred then to the DE as the ‘Village Idiots’.

Now that’s an idea worth considering #ab29! The Grove saga should be coming to an end soon as the lease from the owners - The Dulwich Estate - held by Stonegate Pubs should run out this year. The group recently found financial backers to help with its £2.2 billion debt. The Estate refuses to reveal anything about their plans for the site citing commercial confidentiality. But they have had many years to plan for the lease ending. However they spent three years refurbishing The Crown and Greyhound aka The Dog in Dulwich Village so don’t hold your breath for anything to happen to The Grove in the near future!

Thanks to all who responded to my request. I’ve now found someone to do the work.

Indeed! You are entitled to your opinion and to speak freely as long as you don’t criticise the Council agenda ………….now where have I been reading recently about similar attitudes to “Free” speech?

Please could you explain the difference between being a “political activist” and “people engaging in local politics”? You seem to be suggesting the former is not to be trusted, but the latter is acceptable.

If all cyclists were required to have liability insurance, and their bikes registered and therefore recognisable surely this would be a deterrent for the antisocial behaviour of those who break speed limits, ignore traffic lights and cycle on pavements.

I am looking to have my brick front path repointed so would be grateful for recommendations or replies from anyone interested in doing the work.

As the car is parked outside the NHS clinic at the end of Townley Road, could the car belong to a member of staff or a patient? Perhaps the clinic has negotiated with Southwark for permits for staff who need a car to do their work.

Have no recollection of any mention of RPZs by the Dulwich Village Councillors, Margy Newens and Richard Leeming. This is very definitely their patch. Again if you are a stranger to the area how are you supposed to know that you can’t park there at certain times. How would you know where to go for a permit? Are RPZs the future? I do like the irony that it’s to minimalise the need for too many signs and street furniture, when not a million yards away at the junction there’s a plethora of signs and cycle racks …………

Until next Monday the tickets are warnings, fining in earnest starts on Monday. If you don’t know the area, have been driving sensibly and not looking up at signs that require you to get out of your vehicle to read them and park in Calton during the proscribed hours, would you have a valid reason to appeal? Please could someone/anyone from the Council explain the rationale behind this system?

Yes, see my post with photos from January 8th. The two signs have now been amended to remove the ‘one hour only’ notice. I understand that in nearby Gilkes Crescent which is now a CPZ as requested by the residents, the signage is the same. Rumour has it that Southwark has outsourced the ‘design’ of these CPZ areas to a private company.

The CPZ in the main part of Calton Avenue is now live but penalty free until 20th. There are no markings in the road nor any kerbside signs. Just a sign fixed to the Belisha beacon at the zebra crossing close to the Woodwarde Road junction and one on a lamppost at the junction with Townley Road. See attached photos. Both could be easily missed by drivers. It appears that parking is only allowed for one hour. No visible information about obtaining a permit. Perhaps it’s only a temporary arrangement……….

Residents and people who travel to work in Dulwich, have had an early and unexpected Christmas gift from Southwark Council. In 2023 Southwark consulted about a CPZ for a wide area in Dulwich Village. All but one road declined the offer and the scheme was withdrawn. This year the council proposed a smaller zone to cover Townley Road, Calton Avenue, Gilkes Crescent, Gilkes Place and part of East Dulwich Grove. Once again only one road, Gilkes Crescent, was in favour of the scheme. Adjacent residential roads made clear their opposition citing displacement of parked vehicles to roads that were already congested during the week. Last week the roads that were consulted were informed that a decision had been made and the CPZ would be operational from January 6th. The hours: 8 to 9.30 am and 3 to 5 pm on weekdays. The decision has taken everyone by surprise because nothing had been heard since the consultation. Residents had understood that only those roads that specifically wanted a CPZ would get one. None of the adjacent roads were informed. The timeline is, to say the least, very tight given it’s only two weeks to Christmas and most people’s minds are not fixated on CPZs. There are some who think that this is a deliberate ploy by Southwark to cause parking and traffic chaos so that residents in roads who chose not - for whatever reason - to have a CPZ last year will quickly change their minds. Time will tell; but what is not in dispute is the failure of Southwark Council and our elected representatives to inform residents of the result of the consultation(sic) process and to allow a reasonable timeframe before implementation.

The paving in front of the shops has been done and presumably paid for by the Dulwich Estate and the ‘shields’ are those of the Estate. There to remind us all of who holds sway over the ‘Manor’ of Dulwich and to whom many of us pay the annual ‘tithe’.

Didn’t take me very long to find this article in the Guardian from March of this year: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2024/mar/28/how-child-labour-in-india-makes-the-paving-stones-beneath-our-feet?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other Did Southwark Council and/or its contractors do their research before choosing Indian sandstone? If you’ve ever visited India you will know that labouring work is more often done by women and children whilst the men ‘supervise’.

Actually DKH the delay to building on the SG Smith site was caused by the company who first purchased the site for £5.25 million from the Dulwich Estate. McCulloch Homes, based in Southlands Road Bromley, sat on the site for quite some time and made a start on clearing it, but locals will remember that it became an eyesore with a large mound of debris in the middle. Sometime later in 2021 Aquinna Homes announced they had acquired the site and were given planning permission to build expensive houses, whilst managing to remove the affordable housing requirement. Many residents had hoped that the site would be used for re-siting the Dulwich Estate Almhouses together with some retirement flats that could be sold. The Estate has been looking for a new site since the 1930’s and was refused permission to build on the Judith Kerr primary School site in 2016. They are still looking.

Complete lack of joined up thinking. When Aquinna Homes bought the SG Smith site I saw from the plans that there would be underground car parking for 20 cars. I wrote to Southwark Council asking why, when they were attempting to stop local residents from using cars, were they allowing this amount of underground parking. The feeble reply said it was in the original planning application granted to the Dulwich Estate in 2014 and couldn’t be changed. Will the residents in these very expensive rabbit hutches - most expensive being £3 million with no outlook but 5 bathrooms - want to be bothered parking their cars underground all the time? If not where will they park them? CPZs currently being proposed for Gilkes Crescent and Calton Avenue.

The latest from the great works underway at Vanity Square - aka the Village junction. The photo shows a rubbish site at the junction with a discarded bench which is reputed to have been recently outside the bookshop, and both brand new and expensive. Southwark has money to burn it seems. Will we ever find out the true costs involved in this vanity project which is supported only a minority of local residents?

It’s not really about creating yet another public space. It’s the obsession of Dulwich Village ward councillors and the pro cycling-anti-car-at-all-costs lobby. Driven, as others have pointed out, by the expensive failure of the remodelled junction. The Council and TfL were lobbied at the time by a group who crowd-funded to instruct an independent planner for an alternative model. This would have used mini roundabouts rather than traffic lights, slowing the traffic down whilst keeping it moving. Not surprisingly it was dismissed as having no merit. The re-modelled junction was, as predicted, a failure, but Southwark couldn’t lose face, nor afford to start again. Along comes Covid and the restrictions ordered by a right wing Government were, ironically, the saving grace for a left of centre Council - if it can’t be changed then it can be closed! No tedious consultation with residents needed and problem solved. Some local residents luxuriating in a few now quiet roads and uncaring about the displacement of heavy traffic to other residential roads took it upon themselves to decide that the small space at the closed junction should become a public ‘square’. Once again no wider consultation but a fait accompli aided and abetted by the Ward councillors. It only needed the trustees of the Dulwich Society to ‘indicate’ that the members (who were never consulted) would not oppose the scheme for it to become a reality. Somehow, somewhere the money has been found for this vanity project.

According to an article in Southwark News in 2017 the lease will be up next year, 2025. Meanwhile the leaseholder, Stonegate Pubs is looking at re-finanacing a debt of £2.3 billion in July of this year. The Dulwich Estate which owns the building is very secretive about any plans whilst pocketing an alleged £100,000 every year from Stonegate (which is owned by a hedge fund registered in the Cayman Islands). The building is on the Dulwich Wood Conservation Area. Southwark Council are responsible for protecting the site and have powers to make owners renovate dilapidated property. So since The Grove closed 10 or so years ago and started to slide into the disgraceful sight it is now, neither the Estate nor Southwark seem to have been able /willing to effect any change.

Got it in one First Mate!

The answer to this question Rockets is literally “blowing in the wind”. You could go to the Dulwich Society website where you’ll find the former and present constitutions, minutes of all recent executive and sub-committee meetings and SGM and AGM minutes. I particularly recommend the SGM of 2021 - the first ever in the Society’s recent history, and held on Zoom with some 150 members participating. There were only two motions both pertinent to posts on this thread. If you look very carefully, as some members of the DS have done, buried in this plethora of documents you will find that around the time of Covid and the closure of the Dulwich Village and the introduction of LTNs, the Travel and Environment sub-committee gained a new Chair and lots of new members. The local DV Ward Councillors became regular attendees at this but not any of the other sub-committees. Indeed it seems to have been a time of some upheaval in the DS as the long-standing Chair of the Society retired in 2021 to be replaced unopposed by the current Chair. At some point during this time it seems Southwark Council gained the impression that the DS and its members supported the closure of the junction and introduction of LTNs in their present form. Hence the SGMs of 2021 and May 2024.

A friend who is another long-standing member of the Dulwich Society and was present at the meetings on May 20th has sent me the following letter, and I reproduce it here with their permission: Maybe there is another side to this tirade which I guess was from either a Trustee or one of the plants in the first couple of rows? I had a good view from where I was sitting at the side. I am one of the people who signed up to oppose the new Dulwich Society rules, having read the letter by the signatories which was shared with me. I have known about the differences in opinion as I have a couple of friends who warned me about this schism. I actively joined with my support because all I wanted, and what they clearly wanted, was to leave those rules as they were, to make the society more accessible if there is an issue. It was not some kind of attempted coup. I have met several people who did not attend the AGM who asked me if I had been knocked up, as they had been. The long, long letter by the Chair ordering us how to think and how to vote! No wonder there was a huge turn out. And the point is this: the misrepresentation of what the original signatories was asking for, was carried on right through to the meeting. "I found it extraordinary that this grouping in Dulwich Society pushing for change....." - no, keeping it all accessible and as it was, not changed! How can there be any democracy if the Chair chooses who to speak, and made just one mistake by calling someone who accused him and the Trustees of taking a bullying stance. Oh, and by the way, speaking for 25 minutes in opposition to the Motions before they were presented and also with Trustees answering each Motion in addition to his unchallenged rant. Having received the very long letter from the Chair, I and many of the people who chose to support the signatories were astounded. By the orders from the Chair, repeated bold orders on how to vote, and a misrepresentation of the facts. Not only that, on the night of the AGM, to be given voting slips with an instruction on how to vote! I will put one thing right. I informally joined up in time to hear about the meeting invite for the signatories with the Trustees and a neutral chair. This only gave two days notice to everyone and of course this was completely unacceptable. Quite a few signatories (and me) were present at a Dulwich Arts Society lecture, and those who were not members did not want to attend Bell House as they simply could not speak for others. At the same time it seems the Chair attended Bell House with others to try and make the group against his ideas look as if they were somewhat cowardly. What rubbish. By the way, I am informed that the Pub upstairs meeting room was booked for FREE. The SGM costs were therefore non existent. The Chair has painted this group as trying to destroy the Society and threaten to resign along with all his Trustees (some looked a bit surprised at that) if he did not get his way. In fact a couple looked extremely uncomfortable. You cannot get away from the main fact that in the Constitution which was in place at the time, the Chair failed to call and hold an SGM in the correct period of 28 days., This meeting he offered was his way of looking as if he was open to talks but I and my new 'friends' could only see someone manipulating the membership. I am a member of One Dulwich but I am sure they were not behind any of this, and although they may have agreed with the anti-sentiments, I do not think they manipulated the group. I would ask add for allowing - against what the Chair said at the beginning - a rant from the balcony against one of the Proposers by a disappointed and vengeful ex-Tory, for more than three minutes, the meeting descended into a very uncomfortable rant against democracy. One of the Trustees answering a Motion completely lost it. All this from a sedate small amenity society in a defined geographical area. There were no anti-LTN feelings behind this group; we all simply wanted democracy to remain. To be asked our feelings about policies which the Society put forward as ours, to have the ease of calling an SGM with 30 members instead of searching for 120, to be included in discussions instead of not even being able to read Minutes showing what the committees are developing. It was very telling that the end of the post on EDG I am answering, it drew the readers to exactly transport issues and “online trolling”. Manipulation of events. Enough said.

Whilst we wait for DulvilleRes to answer some of the points raised above. Here is a letter from a long-standing member of the Dulwich Society sent to members of the Executive Committee: I attended the AGM and SGM on Monday expecting to gain some understanding of the issues regarding the proposed new rules of the charity as the information in the letter giving notice of the meetings was very confusing. From the beginning of the meeting it was clear that this was not an environment for informed decision making. A Chair is there to facilitate, not dominate, and should not use his position as an opportunity to impose his own views. In addition, holding the two meetings together, which the members had wished to avoid, resulted in rushing things through, constant checking of watches and reminders that we had to be out of the building by 10. The long inappropriate speech at the beginning left inadequate time for the discussion which was necessary in order to make informed decisions. There were deliberate attempts to promote guilt in the members for wasting money which could be better spent elsewhere, quoting £2000+ as the cost of providing the meeting. The instruction from the Chair on how we must vote, and the threat that all trustees would resign and the Society would cease to exist at 9.45 pm if we did not comply, was outrageous. I cannot imagine that any decision obtained in this way can possibly be acceptable in law. Correspondence relating to the SGM request shows that the Members acted in accordance with all the rules and the correct time frame, giving a very clear account of their reasons for requesting such a meeting. Yet the Chair repeated that no notice was given of the SGM request, and 'Nobody bothered to turn up to the meeting' arranged by the trustees on April 14th, when in fact members had notified him that no one would be attending. Unfortunately the rather peevish inaccurate version has now been posted on East Dulwich Forum. I am a very long time member of Dulwich society, and am shocked at the way in which this has unfolded with such lack of regard for the members and such an undemocratic approach. Working in the best interest of the Charity includes respecting its members, and listening to any concern which they may raise, it is not just about saving money.