Qwe

It might be possible that something could be done by the Charity Commission under the Charities Act, without the need for a Private Bill. I certainly think it would be worth seeking the support of Helen Hayes. It would also be worth trying to obtain a copy of the original charity commission report, which I'm investigating. All the papers from the 1857 Act should also be available from the archives. The argument is simple: in 1857 the new scheme unreasonably removed a very significant portion of the beneficiaries of Alleyn's scheme, as it was written. Over time that 'injustice' has grown because of population growth.

Using the info from John K I have found a transcript of the 1857 Act online for anyone who is interested. https://archive.org/stream/cu31924098820685#page/n539/mode/2up This Act killed the original charter and statutes and set up the basis for the current operation. It was a Private Bill initiated by the Charity Commissioners. It had to be a Private Bill because they completely rewrote Alleyn's original scheme. I think there was a legal doctrine called cy-pr?s which generally prevented diverging from the original terms - so the power of Parliament was required to re-write the Scheme. Prior to 1857 the original statute was being used to provide some education for people living in Dulwich. In 1841 the Grammar School was opened (presumably the building on Gallery Road). The 1857 Act killed this completely and gave authority for it to be closed. I think this Act also led to the closure of an infants school. It appears there were two factions around the time of the 1857 Act - one faction wanted schools for poor scholars and the scheme to be used in that way, another faction wanted a great school to rival the like of Eton and Winchester. From the terms of the Act it seem clear which faction got their way. I suspect most of this was prompted by the rapidly increasing wealth of the Dulwich Estate due to the arrival of the railways and from prior enclosing of common land. As population grew the original scheme would have been very valuable to people living in the area covered. It is easy to see that today most of the funds of the Dulwich Estate would have been used for non-selective education of the inhabitants. Alleyn's original scheme did not provide for scholarships for pupils from outside the area, whom he called "foreigners". It would appear that the 1857 Act would need to be amended by another Private Bill to reclaim more of the Estate funds for the general inhabitants.

It does appear that the Spectator reference is correct. The Reports of the Commissioners appointed in pursuance of Acts of Parliament .... Charities and Education (circa 1830) confirms that statute 70 orders that the inhabitants in Dulwich should be educated for 6 pence a quarter and a pound of candles at Michaelmas. I suspect that if I wandered up to Dulwich College and asked them to educate my child for 6 pence per quarter indexed linked (i.e. ?2.40 per quarter in today's money) and a pound of candles I would be shown the door. The question in my mind is how the implementation of this statute has evolved. Did the 1857 Act alter this? I'm going to get hold of a copy of the 1857 Act and see if this clarifies the issue.

From the 1872 archive of the Spectator: The fact is, as appears from Alleyn's statutes, that his bene- volence towards the four parishes above mentioned, in respect of education, was limited to providing for three " poore schollers " from each, who were (and are) boarded and clothed, as well as educated. The inhabitants of the manor of Dulwich were to "have their men-children freely taught in the school of the said College, only giving two shillings for every child's admittance, and sixpence a quarter to the schoolmaster towards brooms and rods, and every year at Michaelmas a pound of good candles for the use of the school."All other than the Dulwich boys and the twelve foundationers are with Alleyn " forreyners," and are to pay such sums as the master and warden shall appoint --- It wasn't just the 12 scholars according to this account. All residents of Dulwich were to have their children freely educated (obviously girls as well as boys would now be included) If you just considered the 12 scholars - at current rates of say 15K per annum, it would amount to 180K to meet the original terms for the poor scholars. The Estate disburses 5 million per annum. What happened to the free education for the locals? Each child at a state school has about 8K spent on them per annum, so 5 million could benefit hundreds of local children in state non-selective schools. There are other options, e.g. extra support for maths and English to get the pass rate higher or grants to local schools for SEN. The Act in 1857 altered the scheme and I don't see why it should not be examined again 150 years later. There have been huge social changes, and it is unlikely these could have been forseen in 1857. The Estate is much wealthier than could have been envisaged in 1857.

The subtext is, possibly, that they will seek a Judicial Review of the decision if their concerns are not addressed.

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.

Construction noise, traffic, disruption, danger, etc, are not relevant to the planning decision; these type of issues are not material considerations from a planning point of view - objections of this sort should be ignored by the planners. These objections may, however, raise the background noise level and may increase the chance that someone looks for another reason to reject. Any development in a conservation area must conserve or enhance the conservation area - this development does neither, in my opinion. The original layout would enhance the conservation area, and it is possible that the committee, who make the decision, may agree. This is a positive message: development in keeping would be supported by local residents and there would be no reduction in the number of new units. There may be an angle under the Southwark Core Strategy 13 Environment. The basement is a totally unnecessary development and sets an undesirable precedent for other local developments. This would impact the ability of Southwark to meet their commitment to ensure that new build 'minimise' energy used in the development. The basement is a vanity addition to project, designed to increase profits for the developers, and results in additional, avoidable, cost to the environment - which would appear contrary to the adopted Southwark Core Strategy.

It does appear that there has been at least one other restoration project: http://southgategreen.org.uk/environment/the-stocks/

Just for entertainment ... A little bit of research on stocks appears to indicate that Dulwich Village may only be called a village if it had (and indeed has) as set of functioning stocks. Without a set of stocks the 'village' is considered a mere hamlet (so, in appears, in theory, Dulwich Village should really be Dulwich Hamlet without the stocks) A law was passed in 1405 compelling every village to install and maintain stocks - this law has never been repealed (pillories were outlawed, but not stocks). In turns out that St Peter's village near Broadstairs have recently reinstated their stocks. The Dulwich Society's evidence that the cage may have been embedded in a wall does not, in my opinion, prove that the stocks were not opposite the burial ground, located near to a footpath to Camberwell, as per the comments in books of the period. Perhaps it is time for the Dulwich Estate to comply with the 1405 Act of Parliament and put the stocks back complete with the motto stone!

The old maps show how the area was laid out previously: http://maps.southwark.gov.uk/connect/southwark.jsp?mapcfg=Historical_Selection&x=533072&y=174220&z=11 You can also select 1936 to 1952 and see the original petrol station. In my opinion this layout (or similar) is more in keeping with the style of the surrounding roads and would be preferable to the current design.

1) The Southwark Core Strategy Policy 13 states they will achieve high environmental standards by "Designing all developments so that they require as little energy as possible to BUILD and use". I'm not sure how excavating a multi unit basement meets this policy. It has been suggested 2000 lorries will be required to remove the spoil. There is no real justification for this (except additional profit to the developer); three story houses are more than adequate in my opinion. Perhaps this development does not meet the objective of requiring "as little energy as possible to build". There are clearly alternative designs that would adequately house families without the environmental impact of the basement excavation. 2) In my opinion the Dulwich Society appear to keep very quiet about developments proposed by the Dulwich Estate, even in the face of strong local opposition. I suspect they are concerned about losing what little influence they may have. A mass resignation of membership might focus their minds on becoming more accountable to the views of members.

It is not quite as bad as that. The Dulwich Estate need planning consent for their own development just like anyone else - apart from permitted development. The problem is there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The houses on the Dulwich Estate need permission from the Local Planning Authority as well as the Dulwich Estate. It is true they cannot unreasonably withhold permission - but this has a strict legal definition (they have to make a decision that NO reasonable person could make!) so in practice it would be very difficult to overturn a refusal by the Dulwich Estate. So they are, in practice, a law unto themselves as far as controlling development of property subject to the Scheme of Management. However, they do seem to be fairly willing to approve development. To get rid of the Scheme of Management would probably require an Act of Parliament. There is provision for 100 residents to make an application to the High Court to amend the Scheme - but I suspect any such application would be resisted and would fail. Unfortunately the objections to the development at the bottom of Court Lane did not succeed - this is another example of the failure of Southwark to preserve or enhance the conservation area.

If it is recommended for approval - which is likely - there is a slim chance you can get the committee to reject it. The number of objectors in itself will not have much impact. The committee are unlikely to overturn a recommendation to approve without good planning grounds. You could try going through the planning policy documents published by Southwark - Dulwich planning guidance, documents on Southwark policy on converting commercial to residential and anything other policy documents Southwark planning have published. In particular look at Para 128 of the National Policy Planning Framework (and the containing section) - a quick glance at this shows the issue of the stocks may not have been addressed in the application documentation and application process. If you can find a policy that the proposal does not comply with then use the 3 mins in the meeting to repeatedly make the point the proposal does not comply with policy. Do not point out mistakes before the meeting - rely on the the 3mins to try and get it rejected.

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'm not a lawyer, but I know a bit about the legal position. It is a myth that the Dulwich Estate have a remit to conserve Dulwich - there is no such legal remit. The confusion arises from the existence of the Scheme of Management. This came into being in the 70's with the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. Section 19 of this Act allowed large land owners to set up Schemes of Management. The purpose of these Scheme was to retain control of the enfranchised properties to protect the value of the LANDLORD's remaining interests (ie properties). The legal remit of the Dulwich Estate is to maximise income for the beneficiaries i.e. the private schools. The Scheme of Management does not apply to properties owned by the Dulwich Estate - the only restriction is the planning process. The planning process is, of course, subject to the actions of planning consultants which eventually means that something goes through. In my view, Southwark Planning are not fit for purpose.