Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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.

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.

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.

How indeed .


I've been wondering a great deal lately about how one ,as a bystander ( oh ,sorry presumably that should be stakeholder ) and not the applicant , can query any decision taken by Southwark planning department .

Or even something basic like a quoted measurement .

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.

  • 3 weeks later...

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'.

  • 3 weeks later...

The new build houses at the bottom of Court Lane near the Village are a planning disgrace!


The Dulwich Estate doesn't allow velux windows to the front of houses, yet they allow these monstrosities to be built and overshadow the adjoining Edwardian houses.


Dulwich Estate are an absolute Joke :(

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.

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.

I have had the unfortunate pleasure of living under the management of this shower of idiots for the past 40 years, they are a law unto themselves, I remember back in the 70's when the toll gate raised it's charges from a reasonable ?0.0s 6d to an outrageous 50p, the estate promised that once the revenue reached a million they would invest it in reconstructing collage road, what they actually did was to tarmac over the shingle surface with the minimal amount of groundworks leaving it as bumpy and dangerous as it ever was!

I used to live in one of their tower blocks on Farquhar rd, 60% of residents applied for double glazing and were refused on the grounds that they would not be befitting to the area leaving everybody with ill fitting crittall windows.

I now live on Fountain drive the top end extension of collage rd we too are denied double glazing, I am entitled to a 50% discount on the gate but choose to drive around the long way rather than add to the coffers to these arseholes

Elephant Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I have to agree with the comments that DulvilleRes

> makes. It seems that we must question who Dulwich

> Estate serves and who will be the financial

> beneficiaries of this development apart from SG

> Smith, Dulwich College, JAGS?

>

> Given the adverse publicity that is currently

> surrounding southwark council, lend lease the

> developers, and the redevelopment of the elephant

> and castle with far fewer affordable properties

> being built in that location than was proposed, I

> fear that the planning process may be a forgone

> conclusion?

>

> If I can support in any way happy to do so.

>

> http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/sep/17/trut

> h-property-developers-builders-exploit-planning-ci

> ties

>

> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/davehillblog/2

> 013/feb/13/elephant-and-castle-southwark-council-r

> egeneration-rights-and-wrongs


The objective they have sort of makes it obvious that they

serve their beneficiaries along with preservation of assets

and thats it.

'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.

Or rather, they think they are deploying that expertise to different ends than they (the posters) would choose. Undoubtedly the Estate has made mistakes, and has proven itself a difficult 'landlord' in terms of the way it has stopped some developments, or even minor changes - but equally, and arguably, it has helped preserve some of the local charms within Dulwich. As well as directly supporting (to an extent) a few schools in the public sector, it should be remembered that the private schools it supports also (and additionally) support public sector education. Maybe not enough, but certainly some.


Inevitably the Estate (as opposed to the schools it supports) is more focussed on managing that estate to preserve and enhance value so that it can use that money for the charitable ends it was set up to address, rather than on itself directly impacting education (save through its schools).


It is entirely possible to challenge and argue individual actions of the Estate (particularly its current development plans) but overall, in the last few centuries, it has been a general force for good.

"The real problem with DE is that they have been misinformed or badly advised as to their purpose as a charity."


I'm afraid the real problem is that many posters (unsurprisingly) don't understand how charity law in the UK operates, and how different the legal status and obligations of a charitable trust can be from what a layperson thinks of as a 'proper charity'. This has been discussed in some detail on other threads concerning the Dulwich Estate. Details regarding the Estate's charitable objects and beneficiaries can be found here:


http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityWithPartB.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=312751&SubsidiaryNumber=0

and that's the same Charity Commission whose guidance clearly states:


"Consider whether it would be in the interests of the charity to adopt an ethical approach. They might want to avoid investments that conflict in a practical way with the aims of the charity or that might alienate donors or beneficiaries, or they might want to make investments that reflect its values and ethos."


and


"Trustees of any charity can decide to invest ethically, even if the investment might provide a lower rate of return than an alternative investment. Ethical investment means investing in a way that reflects a charity?s values and ethos and does not run counter to its aims. However, a charity?s trustees must be able to justify why it is in the charity?s best interests to invest in this way. The law permits the following reasons:

? a particular investment conflicts with the aims of the charity; or

? the charity might lose supporters or beneficiaries if it does not invest ethically; or

? there is no significant financial detriment."


...is it?


It doesn't have to develop on school playing fields, even if it can and it would be in its beneficiaries' best financial interests to do so. What do the DE's current intentions say about its values and ethos.


Alleyns, Dulwich College and JAGS have representatives as trustees. What does it say about their values and ethos and their attitude towards state schools?

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

    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
    • You can get a card at the till, though, to get the discount. You don't have to carry it with you (or load it onto your phone), you can just get a different card each time. Not sure what happens if they notice 🤣
    • Yes..that may be the case but membership STARTING at £115 a month is still unafforable for many. Council gyms also have a large range of equipment and I had a  PT at Dulwich leisure centre when I was in Full Time employment who was incredible and even kept in contact during lockdown giving me a program I could do at home and checking in weekly at no charge or personal gain for herself. I dont doubt that Fit For may be a good gym (Its been in situ long enough so must be doing something right) However the cost of membership means it is affordable for the few not the many. If I could afford that kind of fee I would rather get a train to Canary Wharf and go to Virgin active where theres a pool and incredible classes and facilities 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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