Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Dear Ed. I think that this property was probably 'Charlton House'. It was the larger of the properties purchased with the land. It was a leasehold which was one of the last leases to expire. I think it was pulled down in the 1930's but would have to search land records to determine absolutely.


This link may be useful to you and you could also contact 'FOPYP' 'Friends of Peckhan Rye Park' on the same link.


http://www.foprp.org.uk/#/becoming-a-park/4543697137


Regards.

John


I think you're probably well-ahead of me, but have you seen the LONDON SOUTH OF THE THAMES by Sir Walter Besant? [http://www.archive.org/stream/surveyoflondon09besauoft/surveyoflondon09besauoft_djvu.txt]. This dates from 1912 and includes the following passage on Peckham Rye and the houses.


==========

Homestall Farm is surrounded by the Rye Park, and though still tenanted and used as a farm the ground belongs to the London County Council. This property and the houses standing to the west cost ?51,000, and their leases still have a few years to run. In making this property into a park, which was opened to the public in 1894, stabling, cottages, and an old pottery were removed, and the grounds laid out with tennis-courts, a cricket-ground, and a playground for children. The farm-house on this property is over two hundred years old, and with its weather-boarded sides and quaint windows looks very picturesque in comparison with the new keeper's lodge alongside.

==========


The other reference I can see refers to Charlton House being pulled down in the 1920s but is unsourced:

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/461/a_to_z_of_parks/662/peckham_rye_park_and_common/1



Mike

The Early History page on the Friends of Peckham Rye Park web-site is "interesting". For the rest, remember the topography of the park as you read.


www.archive.org has scans of a large number of useful books for East Dulwich History. However, all pre-1914 books with material about East Dulwich need to be treated with caution. This includes the 1912 VCH which some people treat as authoritative.


The Besant is an elegant and attractive book, but the information provided needs examination.


Before 1905 the London County Council Parks Department (probaby directed by Sexby himself) had developed a "rural walk" between the Homestall Farm buildings. This is said to have been popular.


In 1908 the Parks Department invited tenders to tarmac the site of the former Homestall Farm buildings.


And the legal disputes continued...


The park opened in 1894. By 1895 Camberwell Council had launched legal action against the LCC alleging that the park had encroached upon Camberwell property.


John K



bthrough thehTh

I can't see a photo of the fountain mentioned on the FORPR web-site on the site so I've attached a copy here. It's taken from Sexby's "Municiplal Parks [...]" 1905 edition. The same photo appears in the 1898 edition but not so well reproduced. This gives a terminus ante quem.


English Heritage have recently released two high resolution photos of the farm house and the interior of the barn taken on 11 July 1908. EH state the buildings were demolished in August 1908.


John K

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...