Glemham

The latest from the great works underway at Vanity Square - aka the Village junction. The photo shows a rubbish site at the junction with a discarded bench which is reputed to have been recently outside the bookshop, and both brand new and expensive. Southwark has money to burn it seems. Will we ever find out the true costs involved in this vanity project which is supported only a minority of local residents?

It’s not really about creating yet another public space. It’s the obsession of Dulwich Village ward councillors and the pro cycling-anti-car-at-all-costs lobby. Driven, as others have pointed out, by the expensive failure of the remodelled junction. The Council and TfL were lobbied at the time by a group who crowd-funded to instruct an independent planner for an alternative model. This would have used mini roundabouts rather than traffic lights, slowing the traffic down whilst keeping it moving. Not surprisingly it was dismissed as having no merit. The re-modelled junction was, as predicted, a failure, but Southwark couldn’t lose face, nor afford to start again. Along comes Covid and the restrictions ordered by a right wing Government were, ironically, the saving grace for a left of centre Council - if it can’t be changed then it can be closed! No tedious consultation with residents needed and problem solved. Some local residents luxuriating in a few now quiet roads and uncaring about the displacement of heavy traffic to other residential roads took it upon themselves to decide that the small space at the closed junction should become a public ‘square’. Once again no wider consultation but a fait accompli aided and abetted by the Ward councillors. It only needed the trustees of the Dulwich Society to ‘indicate’ that the members (who were never consulted) would not oppose the scheme for it to become a reality. Somehow, somewhere the money has been found for this vanity project.

According to an article in Southwark News in 2017 the lease will be up next year, 2025. Meanwhile the leaseholder, Stonegate Pubs is looking at re-finanacing a debt of £2.3 billion in July of this year. The Dulwich Estate which owns the building is very secretive about any plans whilst pocketing an alleged £100,000 every year from Stonegate (which is owned by a hedge fund registered in the Cayman Islands). The building is on the Dulwich Wood Conservation Area. Southwark Council are responsible for protecting the site and have powers to make owners renovate dilapidated property. So since The Grove closed 10 or so years ago and started to slide into the disgraceful sight it is now, neither the Estate nor Southwark seem to have been able /willing to effect any change.

Got it in one First Mate!

The answer to this question Rockets is literally “blowing in the wind”. You could go to the Dulwich Society website where you’ll find the former and present constitutions, minutes of all recent executive and sub-committee meetings and SGM and AGM minutes. I particularly recommend the SGM of 2021 - the first ever in the Society’s recent history, and held on Zoom with some 150 members participating. There were only two motions both pertinent to posts on this thread. If you look very carefully, as some members of the DS have done, buried in this plethora of documents you will find that around the time of Covid and the closure of the Dulwich Village and the introduction of LTNs, the Travel and Environment sub-committee gained a new Chair and lots of new members. The local DV Ward Councillors became regular attendees at this but not any of the other sub-committees. Indeed it seems to have been a time of some upheaval in the DS as the long-standing Chair of the Society retired in 2021 to be replaced unopposed by the current Chair. At some point during this time it seems Southwark Council gained the impression that the DS and its members supported the closure of the junction and introduction of LTNs in their present form. Hence the SGMs of 2021 and May 2024.

A friend who is another long-standing member of the Dulwich Society and was present at the meetings on May 20th has sent me the following letter, and I reproduce it here with their permission: Maybe there is another side to this tirade which I guess was from either a Trustee or one of the plants in the first couple of rows? I had a good view from where I was sitting at the side. I am one of the people who signed up to oppose the new Dulwich Society rules, having read the letter by the signatories which was shared with me. I have known about the differences in opinion as I have a couple of friends who warned me about this schism. I actively joined with my support because all I wanted, and what they clearly wanted, was to leave those rules as they were, to make the society more accessible if there is an issue. It was not some kind of attempted coup. I have met several people who did not attend the AGM who asked me if I had been knocked up, as they had been. The long, long letter by the Chair ordering us how to think and how to vote! No wonder there was a huge turn out. And the point is this: the misrepresentation of what the original signatories was asking for, was carried on right through to the meeting. "I found it extraordinary that this grouping in Dulwich Society pushing for change....." - no, keeping it all accessible and as it was, not changed! How can there be any democracy if the Chair chooses who to speak, and made just one mistake by calling someone who accused him and the Trustees of taking a bullying stance. Oh, and by the way, speaking for 25 minutes in opposition to the Motions before they were presented and also with Trustees answering each Motion in addition to his unchallenged rant. Having received the very long letter from the Chair, I and many of the people who chose to support the signatories were astounded. By the orders from the Chair, repeated bold orders on how to vote, and a misrepresentation of the facts. Not only that, on the night of the AGM, to be given voting slips with an instruction on how to vote! I will put one thing right. I informally joined up in time to hear about the meeting invite for the signatories with the Trustees and a neutral chair. This only gave two days notice to everyone and of course this was completely unacceptable. Quite a few signatories (and me) were present at a Dulwich Arts Society lecture, and those who were not members did not want to attend Bell House as they simply could not speak for others. At the same time it seems the Chair attended Bell House with others to try and make the group against his ideas look as if they were somewhat cowardly. What rubbish. By the way, I am informed that the Pub upstairs meeting room was booked for FREE. The SGM costs were therefore non existent. The Chair has painted this group as trying to destroy the Society and threaten to resign along with all his Trustees (some looked a bit surprised at that) if he did not get his way. In fact a couple looked extremely uncomfortable. You cannot get away from the main fact that in the Constitution which was in place at the time, the Chair failed to call and hold an SGM in the correct period of 28 days., This meeting he offered was his way of looking as if he was open to talks but I and my new 'friends' could only see someone manipulating the membership. I am a member of One Dulwich but I am sure they were not behind any of this, and although they may have agreed with the anti-sentiments, I do not think they manipulated the group. I would ask add for allowing - against what the Chair said at the beginning - a rant from the balcony against one of the Proposers by a disappointed and vengeful ex-Tory, for more than three minutes, the meeting descended into a very uncomfortable rant against democracy. One of the Trustees answering a Motion completely lost it. All this from a sedate small amenity society in a defined geographical area. There were no anti-LTN feelings behind this group; we all simply wanted democracy to remain. To be asked our feelings about policies which the Society put forward as ours, to have the ease of calling an SGM with 30 members instead of searching for 120, to be included in discussions instead of not even being able to read Minutes showing what the committees are developing. It was very telling that the end of the post on EDG I am answering, it drew the readers to exactly transport issues and “online trolling”. Manipulation of events. Enough said.

Whilst we wait for DulvilleRes to answer some of the points raised above. Here is a letter from a long-standing member of the Dulwich Society sent to members of the Executive Committee: I attended the AGM and SGM on Monday expecting to gain some understanding of the issues regarding the proposed new rules of the charity as the information in the letter giving notice of the meetings was very confusing. From the beginning of the meeting it was clear that this was not an environment for informed decision making. A Chair is there to facilitate, not dominate, and should not use his position as an opportunity to impose his own views. In addition, holding the two meetings together, which the members had wished to avoid, resulted in rushing things through, constant checking of watches and reminders that we had to be out of the building by 10. The long inappropriate speech at the beginning left inadequate time for the discussion which was necessary in order to make informed decisions. There were deliberate attempts to promote guilt in the members for wasting money which could be better spent elsewhere, quoting £2000+ as the cost of providing the meeting. The instruction from the Chair on how we must vote, and the threat that all trustees would resign and the Society would cease to exist at 9.45 pm if we did not comply, was outrageous. I cannot imagine that any decision obtained in this way can possibly be acceptable in law. Correspondence relating to the SGM request shows that the Members acted in accordance with all the rules and the correct time frame, giving a very clear account of their reasons for requesting such a meeting. Yet the Chair repeated that no notice was given of the SGM request, and 'Nobody bothered to turn up to the meeting' arranged by the trustees on April 14th, when in fact members had notified him that no one would be attending. Unfortunately the rather peevish inaccurate version has now been posted on East Dulwich Forum. I am a very long time member of Dulwich society, and am shocked at the way in which this has unfolded with such lack of regard for the members and such an undemocratic approach. Working in the best interest of the Charity includes respecting its members, and listening to any concern which they may raise, it is not just about saving money.

As GE has been called doesn’t all government business such as this consultation fall?

At the Council meeting yesterday Councillor McAsh agreed to a request from a deputation of concerned Dulwich residents to extend the final date for the consultation to Sunday 28 January. I wasn’t at the meeting but it is available on YouTube if you search Southwark Cabinet meeting January 17 2024. It’s about 20 mins in.

At the Council meeting yesterday Councillor McAsh agreed to a request from a deputation of concerned Dulwich residents to extend the final date for the consultation to Sunday 28 January.

Why has Southwark designated the space outside St Christopher’s Hospice main charity shop in Lordship Lane as a Lime bike park? This shop depends on donations that often have to be delivered by car. Parking in nearby roads can be difficult. Surely along the length of Lordship Lane there are more appropriate sites for the bikes which some businesses might welcome. It seems really mean and thoughtless to restrict the delivery space outside the Hospice shop. Does anyone know how much Southwark Council is being paid to have Lime bikes in the Borough?

Complain to the local councillors for Dulwich Village ward: [email protected] [email protected] Attach images of the differing signs. The time is definitely 3 to 4.30pm.

I’ve just had a chat with the postman delivering a tracked parcel from M&S which I ordered only a couple of days ago. I asked about an undelivered parcel that was sent to me on October 28 and was told that as it wasn’t a tracked item it wouldn’t be given priority, and is almost certainly in a large pile of similar items. He had a lot to say about his working conditions and his belief that private companies will soon take over delivering letters. He advised me to post extra early for Christmas!

Ironically it seems to be postcode related as in SE22 I too had my almost-2-weeks-late copy of Private Eye delivered yesterday. My son living just a 15 minute walk away in SE21 had his latest one delivered this morning. I pay for both subscriptions but am thinking of cancelling mine as I have had to buy the last two editions locally. I was wondering if Royal Mail could be sued for withholding my property without a legitimate excuse!

Dulwich does have history in being hostile to ex Tory PMs. When Margaret Thatcher, as a local VIP resident, switched on the Christmas lights in the Village, eggs were thrown at her. She didn’t last long in the ghetto, sorry gated community, on the South Circular and was soon living in the safety of Belgravia. She was also reputed to dislike the drive through Brixton on her way to Westminster. Can’t imagine why…..

All day yesterday and again this morning there are two sprinklers watering the Alleyn’s playing field which is visible only to residents of Dovercourt and Woodwarde Roads. The result is a green oasis surrounded by parched gardens. This playing field doesn’t get much use, but the school is a business so no doubt is allowed to waste water in this way. At the weekend homes in and around Burbage Road in Dulwich Village were without water due to a major leak, but Thames Water hasn’t introduced a hosepipe ban. It is known to be the worst of the water companies, paying their senior management grotesquely high salaries and bonuses whilst having the worst record for leakage. As we’re all beginning to realise that water is the most precious commodity would renationalising it really be worse than what we have now?

I am surprised that Southwark Council hasn’t taken this opportunity to raise more funds. Surely if people can be fined for driving through cameras at the wrong time, netting £6 million in one year, fining Lime every day their scooters and bikes are left strewn along the pavement can be another revenue stream. Goose Green councillors use this forum, could one of them respond?

You need to look at the instructions for recycling on the individual bags/wrappings. These usually say ?not to be recycled at home but recycled with bags at larger supermarkets?.

I am in touch with a BBC evening news producer for London. He wants to film a piece on Royal Mail delays for tomorrow and would like to talk to people directly impacted by the delays. Please DM me and will put you in touch.

The current CEO of Royal Mail is Simon Johnson in post since last January. He is paid ?525,000 a year plus bonuses and is promised a 13.6% pension. Customer Services for ?your? Royal Mail are here: wwww.complaintsdepartment.co.uk/royal-mail

Here's a link to an excellent account of the Grove Tavern Saga which in 2022 will ?celebrate? its 10th anniversary. This Saga has it all: a brewery owned by a hedge fund, incompetent landlords, a toothless local authority, and an amenity society so enamoured of Dulwich's past that it has seemingly little interest in its future. Meanwhile the Grove DIY skateboarders put them all to shame. https://www.dulwichsociety.com/journal-archive/130-spring-2020/1872-the-grove-tavern-saga-by-mike-foster

Completely agree. The Council was warned that the changes wouldn?t work and offered an alternative scheme drawn up by an independent planner financed by ?4,000 crowdfunded from local residents. As now they weren?t interested.

Completely agree. The Council was warned that the changes wouldn?t work and offered an alternative scheme drawn up by an independent planner financed by ?4,000 crowdfunded from local residents. As now they weren?t interested.

Very happy to recommend Aston who is an excellent handyman. He was punctual, efficient, did a great job for a reasonable price and left the room looking immaculate!

scrawford Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It?s ridiculous to conflate any increase or > decrease in cycling with the Dulwich Village or > Melbourne Grove LTN. As a cyclist I will use > normal roads, cycle highways, or cycle lanes. The > issue is the increase or decrease in car traffic > on surrounding streets. As a cyclist the LTNs have > made other roads much more dangerous for me, as > stopped traffic is much more dangerous and also > polluting to cycle through than free flowing > traffic. Thank you scrawford for making this point, as a cyclist, which cuts through all the hot air on this thread and, for me, sums up the opposition to LTNs.