Planning application for new children’s gallery at Dulwich Picture Gallery

[legalalien]

I know it’s not strictly speaking in East Dulwich but still relevant to ED residents I think.

I noticed on the Southwark website that the planning committee is due to hear an application to renovate/ extend the cottage next to the gallery, to open up and landscape the meadow south of the gallery, and to build a new children’s picture gallery close to the current entrance on Gallery Road.  Was surprised that this was the first I’d heard of it - I would have thought it was something that loads of people locally would have been aware of /discussing given the proposed size of the development.  Seems I may not be alone in this given there seem to have been only 36 public comments, 34 of which were in support.

Officer’s report here

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s115298/Report Dulwich Picture Gallery Gallery Road London Southwark SE21 7AD.pdf

Seems likely that they will approve the cottage extension and landscaping but not the new building given it’s quite large and this is Metropolitan Open Land - given the way MOL works It seems to me quite difficult to argue the new building is permissible (I also think it’s quite ugly/ unsympathetic to the existing buildings - but that is of course a matter of personal opinion). There’s some suggestion that if the new build doesn’t go ahead then the other changes won’t either, as the funding comes from the new building at least in part (ticketed  entry). 
 

The planning meeting is on 18 July https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7742

[SpringTime]

In all I think this sounds like a good idea. Perhaps I'm a little drossy but I've sometimes found the Picture Gallery a little stuffy. There are also often children visiting with grown-ups; the kids quite evidently being disengaged. It'd be great if the kids' gallery were to showcase exhibits from children too, which I imagine it would - the Southwark pdf mentions visiting children up to 8 years but I really think up to 14 years would be better as there's so little provision for the 10-14 year group in the borough IMO - am I wrong?

[legalalien]

From what I read the new building would be some sort of interactive space, not  a space to display children’s art as there are glass walls/ no hanging space - but I stand to be corrected!  I like the idea of more child friendly activities (I thought there were some spaces in the existing building for this, plus  the renovated cottage is intended as a reception area for school groups - but really don’t like the proposed design of the new building.

[Penguin68]

Thete was a full exhibition of the plans with a chance to to talk to staff and planners about it in the gallery itself a few months back, which I went to. This is not something very new that has been sprung on people. It seems to be making better use of the land and in particular extending its educational remit. The new building is for teaching, not really display. There is already space for education so this will be additional, hence perhaps, as it is more isolated, for younger age groups. Part of the area to be encorporated in the landscaping was previously inaccessible, I believe, so it's probably a net gain of public space free to enter,at least during gallery opening hours. And the existing little sculpture park which has recently been installed is a bonus and will only be further improved. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

I'm a bit torn on this one. I really like the idea of the extension, but the design doesn't appeal to me. Bit ugly imo.

[Sue]

On 21/07/2023 at 10:09, Earl Aelfheah said:

I'm a bit torn on this one. I really like the idea of the extension, but the design doesn't appeal to me. Bit ugly imo.

I don't like the design either. I wonder what alternatives were submitted, if any.

[legalalien]

The planning application was approved at a meeting earlier in the week, quite a controversial decision I’d suggest in that the majority of councillors (it was a split decision) overruled the planning officer’s recommendation and approved such a large new building on Metropolitan Open Land due to “special circumstances” that seemed to focus on the gallery’s need for a new revenue source to plug an ongoing hole in its finances (as one councillor pointed out no actual evidence of this had been provided other than statements made in the meeting), a desire for the gallery to expand its outreach programme to local state schools (who seem to have indicated they don’t want to come in the absence of a decent sized classroom space and toilets that better allow supervision from a safeguarding perspective) and the desirability of opening up the meadow next to the art gallery to the public. As I understand it the council are going to try and negotiate an agreement with the gallery about free state school visits as a condition of finalising the approval, but I don’t think anything was said about mandating open access to the meadow, which felt like a bit of an oversight given the councillors voting in favour clearly put a lot of weight on that.  
 

In terms of design, also a bit of a strange one, the chair commented that someone had suggested to him that it looked a bit like a public toilet and some of the other councillors also thought it needed a rethink, and there was mention of the need to have further discussion with officers about materials ( I think I heard that the current design reflected input already given from officers on that front and there was some debate about whether approval could be given in principle to a theoretically different design).

The official statement of reasons at the end seemed to include some details that weren’t actually discussed which was also odd - I suspect it was designed to make sure as many as possible regulatory boxes were ticked.

There was also some suggestion that planning dept had thought the proposal was so “not possible because MoL” that it shouldn’t have made it to the committee in the first place. I’m guessing the local councillor who spoke in favour of the proposal may have had a hand in getting it on the agenda.

All in all a bit of a strange one / interesting precedent - you can watch on YouTube.

 

 

[OutOfFocus]

Was voting along party lines, or was it effectively a free vote.

Add - a more general question. What sorts of topics are voted for on party lines v. Free vote 

[legalalien]

No I think the two councillors who voted against were Labour councillors. I have at the back of my mind that there are special rules around planning decisions on that front, but I don’t know on what basis I think that. Time to google!

 

ETA here’s the local government association advice.

 

https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/34.2_Probity_in_Planning_04.pdf

Edited July 23, 2023 by legalalien

[Romnarz]

I think the proposed building is best described as a "carbuncle" seems a bit odd placing this next to an elegant building that has such lovely painting within. 

[vladi]

I love the idea of a children's gallery but the design is horrendous. Why not have something in keeping with the rest of Dulwich Village. Surely it is best that all buildings, within the boundaries of one site, should have a substantial degree of consistency in terms of materials and design. Otherwise it's a mish mash that creates an obscenity.