Dulwich Estate - fit to run conservation?

[Bicknell]

So planning permission has been granted. But that doesn't mean it's all over. The Dulwich Estate doesn't have to build it like the plans. They could put forward something better and get that approved instead. How about a good old-fashioned march with banners to get them to change their minds?

[DulvilleRes]

Bicknell Wrote:

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

> So planning permission has been granted. But that

> doesn't mean it's all over. The Dulwich Estate

> doesn't have to build it like the plans. They

> could put forward something better and get that

> approved instead. How about a good old-fashioned

> march with banners to get them to change their

> minds?

Great suggestion, and as far as everyone I've spoken to concerned with this saga, this is far from over.

There is widespread discomfort at how this has been handled, both in the microcosm of the planning committee itself, and in the broader picture of the year to get to this point. The only thing the Estate will understand is if their 'charity' model comes under pressure and scrutiny. They very rarely break cover to actually answer local concerns, but interestingly were forced to around the time of the last demonstration outside SG Smiths. They are very used to their back room model of operating, and really don't like a light been shone on their activities.

[Bicknell]

So when should it be? After summer holidays when everyone's back. Private schools start 3 September. How about 8am Friday 4 September? The Estate office is on Gallery Road. We could march from S. G. Smith all the way through the village up to the Estate office with children from local schools, buggies, banners saying 'People Before Profit'? Local papers, TV, etc.

[DulvilleRes]

The planning timeline works very well for the Dulwich Estate - surprise, surprise - they sign the contracts on 3rd September, so I expect the hoardings will go up round the site on the 4th. SG Smith effectively moved out of the garage workshop 6 weeks ago, which I took as a clear indication they were confident of getting the result they wanted.

Lets get a demo together, and work out details between all the interested parties. PM me, or a couple of the active residents associations can be contracted on [email protected]

[Charles Notice]

If the plans have been submitted and approved in the correct manner and deemed to be acceptable by all parties why would they want to submit other plans because some people do not approve.

The plans would have been costed for the approved scheme so will dissenters indemnify the developers for loss of profit and redesign of all building plans.

[Qwe]

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.

[Penguin68]

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 think you'll find that you would need a Private Bill (a bill which refers only to a specific set of activities or location(s), and does not have national significance) rather than a Private Members Bill (which, other than being sponsored by an individual member is otherwise, in intent and coverage, no different from a bill put forward as part of government legislation. The 1857 Act referred to would have been initiated as a Private Bill.

[DulvilleRes]

Qwe Wrote:

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

> 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.

This is a brilliant suggestion. Edward Alleyn left his cash for the 'education of 12 poor scholars', which the current regime of the Dulwich Estate has masterfully translated into a well oiled machine giving cash to local private schools, and creating a virtually self contained and largely unaccountable mini industry within our community while doing so. Someone said on this thread that a lot of charities are more akin to businesses than actual charities, and this one in my view takes the biscuit. It would be great to see if there was any legal grounds to challenge their interpretation of their brief.

[Qwe]

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.

[Bicknell]

@Qwe @Penguin68 @DulvilleRes So do we have a good lawyer locally who can get this started?

[DulvilleRes]

Great research Qwe = getting the 1857 Act revisited so that a broader range of local children will benefit, as per Alleyn's original intention, is the way to go.

[Penguin68]

For those interested - this links http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/bills/private/ to more about Private Bills - however it would normally be the Dulwich Estate which would sponsor/ initiate this. I cannot imagine there is normally a route for someone else to do so, unless there is clear (there actually isn't here) maladministration. It is worth noting that the various Education Acts offering free education to all children has obviated the need or requirement for the Estate itself to offer free education to local children.

[sb]

.

[Penguin68]

I have slightly re-thought my earlier post - as there is an existing Act (the 1857 Act) it would be possible for an MP to propose an amendment to that Act as a further Private Bill; our local MP might ask her party (which does have the right to debating time) to propose debate on such an issue. Although (considering the time is limited) I cannot imagine that her party would give up that time to such a trivial (in the grand scheme of things) cause. However she could at least be consulted as to how such an amendment could be tabled. But I suspect the Charity Commissioners would also have to be party to this.

[Qwe]

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.

[Otta]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/luxury-homes/11746408/These-are-the-foreigners-ruining-our-country.html

[Otta]

Southwark planning / housing go woth the developers. Who's have thought it?

[Tessmo]

Just to say thank you @penguin68 @qwe @sb. Let's move this forward.

[edhistory]

Qwe Wrote:

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

>

> I'm going to get hold of a copy of the 1857 Act

> and see if this clarifies the issue.

Copies rarely come up for sale.

Ther is one here:

http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=13014637987&searchurl=sortby%3D1%26tn%3Ddulwich+college

John K

[DadOf4]

much better thinking on this post over the last few days.

The interesting story here isn't about the redevelopment of a small plot in SE London, its about an organisation that is acting in breach of its initial charter and how locals are campaigning to have their archaic powers removed.

Thats just the sort of pressure needed.

[Qwe]

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.

[DulvilleRes]

Agree with broadening out the debate around why we're all contributing like feudal serfs to this archaic charity, which is essentially a self perpetuating privilege machine.

I would favour exploring whether we could get a Parliamentary debate to revisit the 1857 Act - after all, times have changed, and what is happening now is a long way from what Alleyn originally wanted. I'd also favour a campaign to withhold their levy - cash is the only thing that they listen to. Looking at the various people associated with their operation, there are a good many lawyers/ judges (some with interesting provenance), so I suspect it wouldn't be easy. However, they really don't like being in the spotlight, and have had a very easy ride from local people over the last few years.

[Bicknell]

So do we start by talking to Helen Hayes?

[simonethebeaver]

I'd contact the person in charge of Private Bills for advice. 020 7219 3250. Private legislation is very complicated, expensive and prolonged. Very rarely carried out these days outside the transport sector.

[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.