Dulwich Estate - fit to run conservation?

[DulvilleRes]

The Dulwich Estate positions itself as Dulwich?s conservation guardians ? those of us who live in their jurisdiction have become used to having to get their blessing to touch so much as a tree branch. However, some of their decision making lately is so jaw dropping, it makes me ask ? are they really fit to be in charge of conservation issues in the area?

The Estate is currently trying to push through a plan to build predominately multi million pound houses on the site of the SG Smith garage workshops. This site is right in the heart of Dulwich Village, bordered by Gilkes Crescent, Calton Avenue and Gilkes Place. There is a small affordable element to the proposal, but this was only after pressure from local residents.

Leaving aside the question of whether building multi million pound houses is the best use community wise of any development site, what is so extraordinary is that it will involve demolishing a rare surviving example of a 1930?s Petrol Station, which perfectly compliments the lovely Arts and Crafts St Barnabas Village Hall over the road. Similar examples have been listed, and when the garage SG Smith tried to get consent to demolish it a few years back, it was allegedly Southwark Council who stepped in to prevent them.

The plan also involves moving the historic site of the village stocks memorial, on Calton Avenue, next to the bookshop, with its 1760 inscription invoking good behavior. This site has become part of the fabric of Dulwich Village, the sign states it is ?on or near? its original site, and as yet, it is unclear what the plan is for it. Residents who have tried to engage with the Estate directly on conservation issues arising from the proposed development report being met with a wall of silence.

It is not as if the plan for what is going to replace these two historic sites has an overwhelming architectural merit. The plans have just gone live online on the Southwark website

http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=9556375

Many that have viewed them in detail report that overall they find them pretty unremarkable, despite the much heralded design credentials of the architects Panther Hudspith. They seem to be more about ramming as many high value houses onto the site as possible, rather than creating something with a lasting broader legacy and community use.

The plans are also reportedly riddled with inaccuracies and conflicting information, and in allowing for constructing a residents underground car park for 21 cars, throw up a number of unsettling questions about flooding and the water table. Planning for cars emerging from underground on a busy walk to school route is hardly the most neighbourly of acts. Construction will involve driving 400 concrete piles, 10 metres high, into the ground to act as foundations, the vibration from which, according to qualified people who have viewed them, could well threaten surrounding buildings, including the historic Village Hall.

Why would Dulwich Estate allow this? They are co developers with the garage SG Smith (for those of us who know SG Smith, a match made in heaven), and stand to make millions from it. Understandable behavior from a purely commercial developer, rather more puzzling from the people who I have to pay a charge every year to help preserve the unique character of the area, and act as judge and jury as to whether I can put up a satellite dish or not.

In my book the Estate should decide either decide to continue their brief to look after the character of the area, or make a pile of cash, and let someone else do the conservation. They can?t have it both ways. What do you think?

[fazer71]

They're a complete shower who have allowed one poor planning permission after another who shouldn't be allowed to run a kids art play group let alone decide on architecture in the Dulwich conservation area.

Their chief architect is constantly contradicting himself and really should have moved onto car park design department of some 3rd world country.

Shocking bunch of numpties who haven't got a clue.

Check out the houses being built on Court Lane in the village what a crock!

For the Dulwich Estate It has and always will be about the money because that is ultimately their brief, raise as much money from the estate as possible to spend on the various "charities"...

[edhistory]

DulvilleRes Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The plans are also reportedly riddled with

> inaccuracies and conflicting information

The desk-based Archaeological Report is good for a laugh.

Does Brian Green know he's been "quoted" as a source?

[nxjen]

..

[DulvilleRes]

The Estate still seem to run Dulwich with a post feudal mentality that wouldn't be out of place in the late 16th century when they were set up - accountable to no one but themselves.

It feels utterly inconsistent in the 21st century that on the one hand they can make huge planning decisions that involve bulldozing/ moving potential heritage assets, and on the other have a hissy fit when someone to park a car in their front garden without their consent, and no one seems to be be able to do anything about it.

The only thing that is regulating them is the wider planning process. However that is pretty flawed, in that it is weighted towards the developer - the council would have to pick up the Estates costs for any failed appeal. Given the massive resources/ cash that the Estate are throwing at the SG Smith development to get their way - hiring full time planning consultants who specialise in putting a favourable spin on everything - it is a brave council who picks a fight with them.

[DulvilleRes]

The whole planning pitch is a masterpiece of spin and selective quoting - I'm finding plenty of references to the former 1970's garage canopy that no longer exists as something that is a detriment to the area, but strangely no reference at all to the rare and charming 1930's petrol station, complete with its Arts and Crafts style canopy at the other end of the site, which will be demolished if the Estate get their way.

I'm not sure if Brian Green knows he has been quoted. If I was in his shoes, given the Estate's power and sway over its commercial tenants, if I was quoted without consent, I'd be uninclined to make a fuss!

[spider69]

There seems to be a concerted effect to diss the Dulwich Estate on all number of fronts.Why?

Is it envy.You have I don't so like most things I want it no matter.

My old mother said " If you want it, work for it"

How times have changed

[Loz]

I must say, I can't really get too fussed about shifting a plaque that probably isn't in the correct place anyway.

And none of the houses they are intending to build would sell for "multi-millions of pounds". Even in the Village, you need a very big house on lots of land to attract that sort of dosh.

[DulvilleRes]

The inscription by the plaque states 'on or near', and the historical evidence I've dug up points in that direction. I think the main point about the plaque is that it is now part of the fabric of Dulwich Village - kids walk past it on the way to school, visitors stop off to read it, and in its current location, it has a proper presence. It feels the shame to move it for the sake of a few extra quid in the Dulwich Estate coffers. More to the point, it is the Estate who should be asking themselves these kinds of questions, not me.

As regards house price, The Dulwich Estate themselves in their initial planning pitch were describing the houses as ?2 million plus, and that was some time ago.

[SLad]

Am also opposed to this development but on the basis that what is needed in this country at the moment is more affordable housing, not more housing which is totally out of the reach of the ordinary person and particularly those who are local to the area (saying this as someone who migrated in from Yorkshire).

Also, point of correction, Loz, even relatively ordinary 5 bed semis attract multi-million pounds in the Village: see the ?2.5mill in need of modernisation one on Dulwich Village on this link http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/Dulwich-Village.html

[fazer71]

SLad Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Am also opposed to this development but on the

> basis that what is needed in this country at the

> moment is more affordable housing, not more

> housing which is totally out of the reach of the

> ordinary person and particularly those who are

> local to the area (saying this as someone who

> migrated in from Yorkshire).

>

> Also, point of correction, Loz, even relatively

> ordinary 5 bed semis attract multi-million pounds

> in the Village: see the ?2.5mill in need of

> modernisation one on Dulwich Village on this link

> http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/Dulwi

> ch-Village.html

Nonsense point of view ..

All housing will be beneficial.

As people move up it releases more affordable housing.

Imo build thousands of multimillion pound homes please.

At least the poor quality of uk housing would improve.

Edit

Actually... Yes build more cheap poor quality crap housing...

Make what I have look good. :(

[Elephant]

I have to agree with the comments that DulvilleRes makes. It seems that we must question who Dulwich Estate serves and who will be the financial beneficiaries of this development apart from SG Smith, Dulwich College, JAGS?

Given the adverse publicity that is currently surrounding southwark council, lend lease the developers, and the redevelopment of the elephant and castle with far fewer affordable properties being built in that location than was proposed, I fear that the planning process may be a forgone conclusion?

If I can support in any way happy to do so.

http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/sep/17/truth-property-developers-builders-exploit-planning-cities

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/davehillblog/2013/feb/13/elephant-and-castle-southwark-council-regeneration-rights-and-wrongs

[macutd]

so what is happening to the car workshop and the jobs of the people working there?

[SLad]

"Nonsense point of view ..

All housing will be beneficial."

A fair and balanced response there.

So, person A moves out of ?1 mill ED property into ?2mill new Dulwich Estate-built housing, person B moves into ?1mill property vacated by person A from person B's 3 bed house in ED worth ?800K and person C moves into that 3 bed property from their 1 bed flat in ED which is now priced at, wait for it, ?375k - 460k: http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/East-Dulwich/1-bed-flats.html

Who is that 1 bed "more affordable" for? Perhaps those of us who earn s%%tloads working in inflated wage jobs in the City but not a great many others on whom we depend like nurses, police, teachers etc

Yours is a brilliant model though: you should recast yourself as a political strategist and I think I know just the party.

[Loz]

How does the 'affordable housing' part of this (or any, really) work? Is it rent only, or can you purchase them? And, if you can purchase them, what stops the buyer selling it on at ginormous profit and thereby making it unaffordable again?

[SLad]

I think it might be this (though I'm no expert) https://www.gov.uk/affordable-home-ownership-schemes

The shared ownership option which includes reversion right to buy to the housing association who owns the property with you for the first 21 years after you fully own the home. Could be wrong though.

[fazer71]

The WHOLE "Affordable" Housing story nonsense it's Political nonsense.. ie Boll?KS

We simply require MORE housing regardless of the type cost style or location.

The market will dictate what is required.

Forcing questionable "affordable" housing into the equation has already been shown to restrict the supply as developers take time to battle the planning system.

If politics weren't the main reason for this nonsense together with nimby envy maybe we'd have what we need IE more housing and less Politics and Ego....

[tfwsoll]

The affordable element can be shared ownership or sub - market (up to a maximum of 80%) rent.

Fazer71 - where is the evidence that'forcing' the affordable element is restricting supply? Most developers seem to be quite happy to work with social housing providers on new schemes.

[StraferJack]

fazer someone has hacked your account - clearly the person complaining about nimbys and the market deciding isn't the same person banging on daily about flight paths

[StraferJack]

as for Dulwich Estate - it's a no win situation

If they didn't exist you can imagine what the area would look like in a generation

But by existing, it's carte blance for green-ink types to let loose. I'm sure there are many reasonable objections to decisions made by DE, but any conservation force will attract "complainers" as well

[SLad]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> fazer someone has hacked your account - clearly

> the person complaining about nimbys and teh market

> deciding isn't the same person baging on daily

> about flight paths

Brilliant.

[fazer71]

SLad Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> StraferJack Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > fazer someone has hacked your account - clearly

> > the person complaining about nimbys and teh

> market

> > deciding isn't the same person baging on daily

> > about flight paths

>

>

> Brilliant.

Genie Arse.

[EDOldie]

I am quite sure that this scheme is the wrong one for this, very sensitive, location. There are all sorts of reasons the Dulwich Estate should not be looking at such a short sighted, short term, solution here. Something could be done that would benefit the charities, the Estate and the community.

Interestingly there is another proposal in West Dulwich to redevelop the old Dairy site in Croxted Road and part of the parade of shops generally known as Park Hall. This is an imaginative scheme incorporating some new shops with flats above (presumably more affordable than houses) and a new Doctors Surgery. http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=MD80P7BO0AO00

It would be far better to have something along these lines in the Village.

Perhaps the Estate Governors should heed the words of warning on the stone. ?It is a sport to a Fool to do mischief to Thine own, Wickedness shall correct thee.?

[skiddywill]

The plans really don't appear to fit in with the "Dulwich Village aesthetic" that they seem so keen to preserve (not allowing buses, takeaways etc). They have enough land to build on in and around Dulwich, so building houses for the sake of building houses seems unlikely...

[fazer71]

Why would anyone want flats rather than houses in Dulwich Village?