DulvilleRes

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.

Dulwich Estate are actually the developers who are proposing removing this unique bit of listed history - one of only 3 similar inscriptions in the entire country - and putting it in the wall of a Barratts style house. This is from the same people you have to get permission to stick a shed up, in case it clashes with their alleged conservation brief. But when it comes to lining their own pockets, very different rules apply, and they are quite happy to build all over a community resource. It would be laughable if it wasn't so shocking. Dulwich Society are doing nothing - in fact I heard allegedly they are behind the scenes challenging English Heritage's reading of the history on this one. They are also questioning the notion that there is widespread local opposition to the SG Smith development, despite the evidence of over 80 letters of objection to the Council, and nearing 300 signatures on the petition above. A cynical eye might say that the networks who run Dulwich are all very cosy with each other on this one.

Thanks very much Qwe and fazer71 for the further advice, which I will be following. The Gilkes Residents Association has done a great job in going through the application, and pointing out the huge inaccuracies and misleading sections, but new ones keep rattling out. For me the pearler in the Estate's planning application was brazenly referring to ugly structures/ buildings on the site as a conservation justification for redeveloping it, that actually no longer exist! They were pulled down years ago. Either the Estate are staggeringly incompetent, which is worrying given their stewardship of local flooding risks involved in the construction of the huge new basement, or they are just liars. I know which my money is on. fazer - every time I pass those new buildings on Court Lane, my heart sinks. It looks like its 1943, and Hitler is building some new defences along the Atlantic Wall.

Thanks very much for the advice and clarification on the Estate's role and remit. So, they basically just do what the like, nothing unexpected there then! We'll find out soon enough what Southwark's take on this development is - it looks like going to planning sub committee in a month or so. Over 80 people wrote in to the Council to formally object, so there is widespread opposition to the development. As soon as I hear a committee date and location, I'll post it, so that if anyone wants to come in person, to see democracy in action or otherwise, they can!

My understanding is that they have been granted the responsibility to look after conservation in Dulwich by act of Parliament. It stems from the point in the 1970's when they were forced by legislation changes to offer homeowners freeholds as opposed to leases, so they made the argument that they needed control of the area's conservation to protect the value of their investments in the area as a charity. It might well be one for the Charities Commission, but any legal insight into these intricacies would be much appreciated. Most of us who live in their jurisdiction have long been aware of how they selectively enforce the conservation brief - no cash machine in the village, special permission required to stick a shed up, architects visit for any alterations in case it alters Dulwich's 'special character', but when it comes to lining their own pockets, they are quite happy to attempt to ride roughshod over the conservation standards of the land. The fact that their plans have been partially blocked by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on conservation grounds really is crossing some kind of Rubicon in terms of their credibility. The current plans for the SG Smith site are all about maximising return, and nothing to do with the real historic footprint of the site. Prior to the existing garage and workshop getting built after the war, there were some country cottages style two story houses on the site, all set in generous gardens, mirroring some of the surviving houses over the road. The Estate have of course chosen to gloss over this in their often inaccurate and misleading planning application. Redeveloping the site potentially offers the opportunity to restore some of that special green character. Instead The Estate are going for a monolithic block of multi million pound houses with virtually no gardens, and a massive underground basement car park. if it goes the way of much of the rest of the London luxury market, it is more than likely that many of these will be simply investment properties, not homes.

Those of you that followed this thread from last year might remember that the Dulwich Estate is planning on blitzing or moving a number of heritage assets on the SG Smith garage site in the heart of Dulwich Village, so they can build a dense collection of incongruous multi million pound houses to sell. One of those heritage assets is the Village Stocks monument on Calton Avenue, next to the bookshop. The good news is that this monument just gained the protection of a grade II listing from English Heritage, meaning that it will have to stay exactly where it is, rather than get moved to an exposed and inauthentic site, which is what the Dulwich Estate and their architects Panther Hudspith were proposing. The bad news is that the overall ill conceived development is still steam rollering its way through the planning process, and the charming 1930's Petrol Station - a rare surviving example - looks like it won't survive. I find it astonishing that local residents have to protect Dulwich against the actions of the very people who are tasked to conserve it - for English Heritage to have to step in and protect a heritage asset from the Dulwich Estate is a damming indictment on the Estate's fitness to protect the area. Also I find The Dulwich Society's role in all this puzzling - why in this instance aren't they protecting Dulwich's heritage? They are allegedly a local interest/ lobby group with a conservation brief. On the SG Smith development, they have been noticeably toothless. Their relationship with the Estate all looks a little too cosy. Are there any lawyers out there who know the legal landscape for challenging the Dulwich Estate's remit to conserve Dulwich? To be overruled by English Heritage, they are, in my opinion, clearly discredited in their fitness to do it.

I've also noticed a lot of road madness over the last couple of weeks, though the one described in this thread really is a league apart in terms of unpleasantness, and very scary to be caught up in. The only thing I can think of to explain this apparent upsurge is the time of year - winter is in full swing, lots of people are skint after Xmas, and of course January is the time that the HMRC hits you - a heady cocktail to set off the rattlers.

'Employing 25 people to run a 240mm property estate for 0.4% per annum doesn't sound particularly egregious... What do you think is a fair cost (given the required expertise and maintenance)? Depends on how you look at the figures. The vast bulk of that ?250million is managed investments, which the Estate pays outside professionals to do. In terms of actual income - cash coming into the Estate - they are paying themselves over ?1 million to manage ?10 million - so 10% + per annum. Also the physical maintenance of Dulwich is actually raised separately by the Scheme of Management levy on anyone who lives in their jurisdiction. Plenty of charities with greater conviction rely to a large degree on volunteers to get their work done - maybe the senior managers of the Estate should consider putting a few stints in for free.

'Maybe anyone who is interested could write to the chief executive and trustees of the charity or their nominating bodies (they are all listed on the DE website) and ask them to confirm that they know the school uses the space and explain their rationale as representatives of an educational charity for wanting to take it from the school and develop it as luxury housing instead' I think it is a great idea to write to the Estate, as the rely on a general ' they might do the odd thing wrong, but isn't Dulwich pretty' inertia to push through their various dubious enterprises, so being confronted with objections might give them pause for thought. However, don't expect an answer - they've certainly never got back to me about anything contentious.

Genius research Dadadada. The Estate put out a leaflet a year or so ago when they were under pressure about their treatment of commercial leaseholders, saying that they had no choice but to behave in the rapacious way they do. It seems that actually they have a lot of choice.