DulvilleRes

'The real problem with DE is that they have been misinformed or badly advised as to their purpose as a charity. DE seem to think their primary purpose is profit maximisation at the expense of everyone else to fund the private schools. If it is behaving like a commercial property developer it should be taxed like one'. Couldn't agree more Dadadada I'm doing some digging as to what exactly constitutes charitable status. Dulwich Estate is looking more like a tax avoidance racket to me than a charity - it is a brilliant virtuous circle of raising cash free tax in Dulwich, giving it to the private schools, who in turn don't pay any tax on their operations because of the Dulwich Estate charity bursaries. Along they way the Estate pay themselves a very generous, no risk management fee - over ?1.1 million in salaries. A great little gravy train that just keeps puffing round and round. I've recently worked with a proper charity, one staffed virtually exclusively by volunteers (most of whom are on moderate to low personal incomes), who actually go out and save lives, and their total running costs are less than the Dulwich Estate's wage bill. The Estate just look rotten and shabby in comparison. Anyone out there with an expertise in the law surrounding charity? JL - As regards the SG Smith development, not sure that it will be slam dunk for the Estate. It was certainly looking that way in the summer, but there is widespread resistance to large facets of the plans, not least of all because of concerns about heritage, flooding, density, a huge undergorund car park and the fact that parts of the Dulwich Estate/ SG Smith pitch are pure fiction. The Calton Avenue and Gilkes Residents Associations have been very active, and various other bodies in the borough are beginning to wake up to what is going on. The Estate clearly hoped to smash the application through by sheer force of planning bullish*t and momentum, but bit by bit, their application is getting unpicked and exposed for what it is. Lets hope it continues this way.

Fazer71 - couldn't agree more. The new low Dulwich Estate have sunk to is the fact that English Heritage are looking like they might have to step in to stop them from moving the 1760 stocks monument at the bottom of Calton Avenue, which they want to shift to an exposed and inauthentic site over the road, as it is currently an inconvenience to their plans to hoover up millions from the SG Smith site. It is a joke when national bodies and local residents have to do the Estate's conservation job for them. The Dulwich Society, who the Estate lean on heavily for credibility in their planning applications, are strangely quiet on all this.

Suicide is clearly a horrible thing for all concerned. It touches I think far more people than is generally thought, and my heart goes out to anyone affected on any level. However I think it should be talked about more openly. Whether the EDF is the right forum, I don't know, but in general terms if it remains something that is not discussed, I think that it is more likely to occur. The reason I say this is I've had a strong recent exposure to suicide recently via work, and I learned a number of things that I previously had no idea about. For instance, a number of the suicides attempts I had exposure to were as a result of a temporary frame of mind, and not surprisingly alcohol and drugs are quite often involved. Were it not for intervention, these could well have ended fatally. Generally speaking, if its 3 in the morning, you've been drinking, and you think it is a good idea to take your own life, it is invariably a state of mind that will pass. I've had the somewhat salutary experience of seeing people who were literally pulled back from the brink, having attempted to take their own lives in these circumstance, out having a coffee with their mates as little as 6 weeks later. There will always be those I think who are deadly earnest about taking their own lives and will find a way, but I really didn't appreciate how many people are temporarily tipped into thinking it is a good idea. My feeling is being able to share and discuss insight and experience like this might just help someone who is feeling utterly distressed, gain some perspective. The Samaritan guidelines are great, equally I have spoken to healthcare professionals (one of whom helped frame the guidelines) who specialise in this painful area, who believe the way forward is to promote greater open discussion of it.

To Steveo 'They may not have had much to do with the three pubs being shut but I think it's beholden on us to at least let the Governors know that someone cares while they make up their minds whether they are conservators or a rapacious property company' To me the answer is obvious - rapacious property company. Furthermore I think there is a masterplan behind it - to turn Dulwich into a place where the chains will pay over the odds rents for a presence. The evidence of their recent non renewal of leaseholders in Dulwich Village points to this. The Flower Shop have been given their marching orders after 2 generations, and that includes, I'm told, them getting evicted out of the upstairs flat. The Estate always falls back on 'an obligation to maximise returns' argument - the reality is that there is a lot of leeway, as institutional landlords, as to how they behave. Rumour I'ver heard, whether true or not, is they are trying to bang through an underground car park on the SG Smith development site, so the planning is sitting nicely for them to open a small Waitrose where the SG Smith showroom is now. Rapacious property developers I can handle, the one that proper turns my stomach is their holier than thou hypocrisy around conservation.

LadyNorwood on getting released from enfranchisement I've not heard of it, and at face value, it is likely to be as hard as not paying a TV licence or Poll Tax on grounds of principle. If you are on their original estate, it feels to me there is very little you can do about it. It might be worth checking on historic maps where your property is, and where the boundary lies. However I'm thinking there might be legal grounds to challenge Dulwich Estate's levy in general. They were given the powers to impose it, on the grounds that when leaseholders were able to buy their freeholds in the 70's, Dulwich Estate had a right to protect the value of their 'investment' - i.e. the 1500 or acres of Dulwich they control. They say they use the cash to conserve the area and run their management scheme that prevents us building sheds without the site inspection ( additional fees apply), and hanging out washing. However if there is a case that they are failing in that regard - such as riding roughshod over heritage issues if it doesn't suit their financial agenda - there might be a case for challenging it. There is more than a sniff of gravy train in the whole Dulwich Estate charitable set up. Income of ?9 million, and well over ?1 million of that in wages. There can't be that much to do - not sure this is what Edward Alleyn had in mind when he left his cash to educate '12 Poor Scholars'.

As a cyclist I find most drivers are pretty OK. This has changed a lot down the years from my cycle dispatch days back in 1542, when literally I'd have cars try and ram me off the road, because they thought I shouldn't be there. There is now just a minority of drivers - and in my experience 4 x 4 drivers aren't any worse than anyone else - who just don't seem to get that a bike is a road vehicle, same as car, and not some weird form of moving pedestrian. Like all big social changes in London, I think it is simply a matter of time before that minority largely disappears.

In fairness to Southwark, the development isn't through the planning process yet. The consultation window opened a week or so ago, is open for another couple of weeks, and then they make their decision. During the next couple of weeks, anyone can comment on the plans. http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=9556375 Hopefully Southwark will succeed in putting some balance into their proposal that respects the site's heritage and the character of this part of Dulwich, something which in my view the Dulwich Estate has miserably failed to do. However, the momentum is currently with Dulwich Estate/ SG Smith. They've chucked a huge amount of cash at massaging the proposal through. This includes employing spin merchants ( officially 'planning consultants') Dalton Warner Davis who are presumably behind such comic gems as interpreting a room full of people giving them a hard time about the existing proposal, as being 'broadly in favour'. The planning system is weighted in favour of the developer - if Southwark reject the plan as it stands, and Dulwich Estate/ SG Smith appeal, Southwark Council will have to pick up the costs if their appeal succeeds.

In reply to Zebedee Tring's post They are getting the dwellings in by building right into every corner of the site, and creating mainly 3 storeys with a massive basement as well. Essentially it is a high density urban development in the middle of a conservation area famed for its greenness and openness, which runs completely contrary to the Dulwich Estate's stated aims for the area. In the build up there has been all kinds of tosh coming out from the Estate/ their planning consultants/ architects about how it fits harmoniously into both the surrounding streets and their history, when in fact most of the houses facing it are 2 storey, as were the houses on the site before the garage was built.

In answer to the question from macutd about what is happening to the workshop and everyone working there The plan is to take the servicing operation elsewhere in South London, but the Audi showroom remains. My understanding is that people working in that part of the operation will be redeployed. The workshop facing Calton Avenue and Gilkes Crescent will be demolished to free up the plot, along with the 1930's service station opposite the Village Hall. Quite a lot has been made by Dulwich Estate/ SG Smith about how this will relieve on street parking in Dulwich Village, Calton Avenue and Gilkes Crescent, as currently SG Smith treat the roads around them as an extension of their business. However, seeing as SG Smith are still seemingly in official denial that they park on the street, (Mr Smith himself allegedly denied to a residents face that any cars were ever parked on the road - a brilliant comedy moment) I think that the situation won't change massively. There are likely to be deliveries of new cars, and the possibility of people dropping cars off for service to be taken elsewhere in any event.

The current plan for the stocks seems to be to move them from their current site to over the road to somewhere unspecified around the old graveyard. It is hard to fully ascertain where their final destination will be, as Dulwich Estate appear selective about who they ever engage in any kind of conservation discussion with. The Estate party line seems to be that the stocks, once moved, will be closer to their original site. This is a somewhat puzzling assertion, in that the plaque that accompanies the current site states that the stocks are sited 'on or near' their original position, and after a bit of digging around I found this reference to them in a guide published in 1878, which backs up their current position - opposite the burial ground. '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.' London Old and New volume 6, author Edward Walford. But when you can get an extra couple of bedrooms into a multi million pound house, why let a bit of heritage get in the way? The current development plan is to cram as much multi storey housing onto the site as they can, corner to corner, presumably to maximise return on investment. The stocks site is falling victim to the plan pushing into one of these corners. As a piece of design, this runs contrary to the open, low rise character of both the housing that was originally on the site before the garage, and the open and green character of this bit of Dulwich in general.

Here is a link to what can be done to unloved 1930's Petrol Station http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2318845/Pumped-character-Listed-art-deco-garage-restored-converted-flats-falling-disrepair.html ?.. and an English Heritage one to this area of motoring heritage in general https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/iha-buildings-infrastructure-motor-car/buildings-infrastructure-motor-car-iha.pdf. The Dulwich garage which is threatened with demolition is influenced by the Arts and Crafts Village Hall over the road, so, whilst it isn't strictly comparable to the Art Deco garage in the link above, it has a unique style all of its own. I personally really like it. Even if it's inherent architectural qualities don't float your boat, historically it speaks of a time when cars were small enough to fit under it's front porch. Once it is gone, it is gone, and with it goes a bit of suburban transport history. For me the main point is the Dulwich Estate and their architects Panther Hudspith have chosen to ignore the fact there might be any conservation debate at all, when clearly, given the spirited debate on this thread, this isn't the case. The petrol station barely registers in their current exhaustive planning application, which given the Estate's broader role, strikes me as either incompetent or disingenuous. It also smacks of a high handed autocratic style I'm becoming used to - we'll take your cash every year to preserve Dulwich as we see fit, but when it comes to our own business interests, we'll do what we want.

I'm all for contemporary, but this is average/ below. All due respect, but 'Quite like' isn't a good enough response for the buildings to evoke in my book. Why isn't it brilliant? If Dulwich Estate make all this pious fuss about maintaining standards in their jurisdiction ( I heard that they wouldn't even allow an external cash machine) they have to do better than this. The 1930's petrol station has been completely neglected, and its original function ignored, so its basically a crap office now. This is not surprising, as SG Smith have been trying to pull it down for years, so they can park more Audis. However in essence, it is a lovely building that perfectly compliments the village hall over the road. Check out online some examples of rare survivors of petrol stations from this era that have been properly done up with a bit of creative flair and imagination. The building could be adapted for all kinds of uses, including being part of a bigger residential building. This is one of the uses that former stations have been put to, just retaining the facade/ frontage. Or dare I say it could be adapted for something that might benefit the community, but seeing as that would cost the estate ?5 million plus in lost property sales revenue, pigs will obviously fly.

It really is a rotten plan. I find it surprising that reputable architects such as Panther Hudspith get involved in such a project. Having come to know the Dulwich Estate over the years, I'm less surprised at their part, and I think their involvement in this really does force the question - how can they rule on such far reaching conservation issues, when they are substantial financial beneficiaries from them? Its a bit like a judge ruling on a court case where he or she is a major share holder. I'm personally open minded to redevelopment on the site, but not this cynical exercise in screwing as much cash out of the site for as little legacy investment as possible. They could simply make the site 12 ft smaller in one corner, and leave the fabulous stocks monument where it should be. I think they should find a way of incorporating the 1930's Petrol Station into the site plan - despite its neglect and adaptations, its an intrinsically great structure from a bygone eras of motoring, and fits in perfectly with it's quiet corner opposite the Arts and Crafts Village Hall. It is getting flattened for something that looks like Barratts. Nothing wrong with Barratts, but not worth destroying heritage for. My understanding is that a number of residents associations are active in the planning process - I'll dig out some contacts and get them over to you

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.

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!

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.

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?