Petition for reasonable rents from Dulwich Estates

[LondonMix]

Or better yet, donate the 40% to a for profit business, because that's what Just Williams is.

Why should a for profit enterprise be subsidized by anyone, much less a charity.

[Blah Blah]

Dulwich Estates made the Vanessa Radio show yesterday too over the sale of playing fields at the Judith Kerr School to build alms houses on.

[bawdy-nan]

According to the Dulwich College accounts (2014). 1% of boys have a full scholarship. (4% of boys have 75% -100% scholarship).

Whatever it is its not what I'd call extravagant.

[LondonMix]

Bawdy-nan can you provide a link please?

The figures sound slightly off. 4% of pupils would be about 48 pupils.

[LondonMix]

Actually never mind, 48 pupils on near full bursaries if they were boarders would actually be 1.8m which almost the cost of the annual bursary from Dulwich estate.

If you have the link though, I'd be interested in reading more about the breakdown.

[bawdy-nan]

Of course - the total figure of boys on bursaries of 75-100% of fees is 68 out of 1664 pupils. 19 out of 1664 are on 100% bursaries.

The figures are provided in the accounts which you can see here: http://www.dulwich.org.uk/college/about/annual-report-and-accounts

[LondonMix]

I found the information on page 7 here which doesn't exactly match http://www.dulwich.org.uk/docs/default-source/annual-report-and-accounts/dulwich-college-financial-statements-for-the-year-ended-31-july-2014.pdf?sfvrsn=10

Dulwich College has 1,339 pupils.

The college provided 158 pupils with bursaries in 2014-- so 11.8% of the school's intake is on some form of needs tested bursary.

19 are on 100% bursary-- 1.4% of the total school population

68 are on 75%-100% bursary- and additional 5.1% of the schools total population

So 87 kids are on near full scholarship, more than half of the total bursaries the school provides.

[LondonMix]

Either way, its clear they need the funding to support the bursaries.

I'm aware Alleyn's is trying to fund raise an additional endowment so that it can offer more scholarships. They are in the process of raising millions so they can permanently offer an additional 12 full fee bursaries in perpetuity (on top of what the offer with the funds from the Estate).

[bawdy-nan]

I took the information from the published official accounts on their website. I'm not clear whether the 75-100% figure is additional to the 100% figure.

[LondonMix]

For those interested- here is JAG's information.

http://www.jags.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/JAGS-Statutory-Accounts-Year-ended-31-8-15.pdf

They disburse 1.9m in bursaries of which 1.4 typically comes from the Dulwich Estate, the rest comes from additional fund raising they've done to provide more scholarships.

The provided 121 bursaries in 2015 (which is 15.5% of total pupils- senior school population is 781)

Of these:

53 covered 100% of the fees

49 covered between 99.9% and circa 75% of the fees.

So roughly 84% of all of the bursaries were awarded to cover vast majority of the fees.

To get full fee remission household income can't exceed 13k (among other factors) so those 53 children on full awards are genuinely from very low income families.

[LondonMix]

bawdy-nan Wrote:

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

> I took the information from the published official

> accounts on their website. I'm not clear whether

> the 75-100% figure is additional to the 100%

> figure.

My information is from their published accounts as well. Bursaries are only for the senior school which is why the pupil numbers differ. You might be right about the 68 including the 19 full scholarships. I can't be sure about that.

So at worse, 5.1% are on 75-100% and 11.8% in total are on some kind of partial bursary.

JAG's information is much more detailed. I've heard before that Alleyn's offers the highest proportion of bursaries of the 3 schools but I haven't come across their accounts.

[bawdy-nan]

er pupil numbers on page 7 1664 ...

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> I found the information on page 7 here which

> doesn't exactly match

> http://www.dulwich.org.uk/docs/default-source/annu

> al-report-and-accounts/dulwich-college-financial-s

> tatements-for-the-year-ended-31-july-2014.pdf?sfvr

> sn=10

>

>

> Dulwich College has 1,339 pupils.

>

> The college provided 158 pupils with bursaries in

> 2014-- so 11.8% of the school's intake is on some

> form of needs tested bursary.

>

> 19 are on 100% bursary-- 1.4% of the total school

> population

> 68 are on 75%-100% bursary- and additional 5.1% of

> the schools total population

>

> So 87 kids are on near full scholarship, more than

> half of the total bursaries the school provides.

[LondonMix]

Like I said, I am pretty sure your higher number include the junior school (though not DUCKs). The bursaries are only for the senior school (year 7 and beyond) and so I am using the senior school figures to calculate the percentages.

[annafb]

Jay Rayner's written a good piece http://www.jayrayner.co.uk/news/dulwichcollege/

[LondonMix]

That's a terrible article full of false information and inaccuracies, particularly the quote below:

"More striking is the assumption that it?s okay to force viable shops out of business if it pays for the bursaries."

This line from the article shows the fundamental misunderstanding of those supporting the toy shop. If the shop cannot pay market rents, then its not a viable business. No one has argued that the rents are not at the current market level and as they are, Dulwich Estate has every right and fiduciary obligation to charge that rate.

[edhistory]

annafb Wrote:

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

> Jay Rayner's written a good piece

> http://www.jayrayner.co.uk/news/dulwichcollege/

Where is it?

[rabbitears]

LondonMix Wrote:

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

> Saying that Dulwich Estate should be maximising

> their revenue better with the pubs is no kind of

> argument for why the toy shop deserves below

> market rents. Its a total non-sequitur.

It's not a non sequitur. In fact, it sequits closely. It shows very clearl that the Dulwich Estate is absolutely rubbish at maximising market rents in the reality that they're given when two huge pubs that could be turning a profit for both landlord and lessee are almost derelict.

I find it incredible that you're swallowing the charity line - this is an entity that owns a huge swathe of south east London and yet is managing to pay the school fees of a handful of kids. There's a lot more private landlords that are putting their kids through private school and own far less land than Dulwich Estate!

[edhistory]

rabbitears Wrote:

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

> this is an entity that owns a huge

> swathe of south east London

Where? Or is this a SSW style invention?

John K

[Loz]

rabbitears Wrote:

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

> There's a lot more private landlords that are putting their kids through private school and own far less

> land than Dulwich Estate!

I'm guessing that you've never been a private landlord.

[LondonMix]

Its a non sequitur because not always doing a good job managing their assets in no way relieves the estate of its legal fiduciary responsibility to maximise revenue. Its like saying if you have ever broken a rule, the expectation is that rules no longer apply to you at all, which of course is idiotic.

I'm also not buying any line. I have read the financial accounts for myself, which I've linked- can you say the same rabbitears? That you feel the need to try to undermine and attack the bursaries for the benefit of a for profit small business chain shows a really warped sense of social justice.

The revenue from the Dulwich Estate is passed on to the beneficiaries, including the Alms House and 2 state schools. 3 of the beneficiaries are private schools and with their share they provide bursaries to students who otherwise would not be able to attend (the stated aim from the inception of the charity). In the case of Jags, the vast, vast majority of the students in receipt of bursaries are very, very poor and in all instances for the 3 schools, most of the bursaries go to students who need significant (75% or more reduction) with the fees.

However, even if the landlord in question wasn't using the money to fund bursaries, the toy shop has zero expectation of a discount on rent. Its a small for profit chain.

The biggest hypocrisy is that if all the people up in arms actually used the toy store, it would be able to pay market rent! You get the shops you support financially. Protesting after the fact because it makes you feel good about yourself is silly.

rabbitears Wrote:

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

> LondonMix Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Saying that Dulwich Estate should be maximising

> > their revenue better with the pubs is no kind

> of

> > argument for why the toy shop deserves below

> > market rents. Its a total non-sequitur.

>

> It's not a non sequitur. In fact, it sequits

> closely. It shows very clearl that the Dulwich

> Estate is absolutely rubbish at maximising market

> rents in the reality that they're given when two

> huge pubs that could be turning a profit for both

> landlord and lessee are almost derelict.

>

> I find it incredible that you're swallowing the

> charity line - this is an entity that owns a huge

> swathe of south east London and yet is managing to

> pay the school fees of a handful of kids. There's

> a lot more private landlords that are putting

> their kids through private school and own far less

> land than Dulwich Estate!

[LondonMix]

And regarding the pubs, others on this thread have already stated that the characterisation of how they were managed isn't correct. I don't know either way, but given all the misinformation being spread by the pro-toy store advocates, I wouldn't be surprised.

[Penguin68]

The sad truth is that (regarding the pubs) it is probably in the long term fiscal interests of the Charity for the pubs no longer to be run as large rangy old fashioned South London pubs - it's not a good use of their real estate/ footprint - housing is much more lucrative and holds its value better. The management of the pubs que pubs was never an issue for the Estate - but for their tenants. The Half Moon was clearly finally brought low by the flood, but the writing had long been on the wall for the revenue generation potential on that site. The Dog will operate far more successfully in its new incarnation - assuming the work is finished. I am not sure what revenues the Estate gets from the empty premises - but I suspect it costs the current tenants less to pay a rental and not do anything with the site than otherwise.