Dulwich Estate - fit to run conservation?

[Charles Notice]

DulvilleRes Wrote:

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

> '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.

What is the name of this wonderful organisation. The charity you worked for

[DaveR]

"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."

FWIW I agree with you, but that's different from saying they "have been misinformed or badly advised as to their purpose as a charity".

[DulvilleRes]

Genius research Dadadada.

The Estate put out a leaflet a year or so ago when they were under pressure about their treatment of commercial leaseholders, saying that they had no choice but to behave in the rapacious way they do. It seems that actually they have a lot of choice.

[DulvilleRes]

'Employing 25 people to run a 240mm property estate for 0.4% per annum doesn't sound particularly egregious...

What do you think is a fair cost (given the required expertise and maintenance)?

Depends on how you look at the figures. The vast bulk of that ?250million is managed investments, which the Estate pays outside professionals to do. In terms of actual income - cash coming into the Estate - they are paying themselves over ?1 million to manage ?10 million - so 10% + per annum. Also the physical maintenance of Dulwich is actually raised separately by the Scheme of Management levy on anyone who lives in their jurisdiction. Plenty of charities with greater conviction rely to a large degree on volunteers to get their work done - maybe the senior managers of the Estate should consider putting a few stints in for free.

[njc97]

Interesting to read what local residents are subsidising:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9383212/the-hidden-price-of-more-overseas-students-at-british-public-schools/

[DulvilleRes]

Those of you that followed this thread from last year might remember that the Dulwich Estate is planning on blitzing or moving a number of heritage assets on the SG Smith garage site in the heart of Dulwich Village, so they can build a dense collection of incongruous multi million pound houses to sell.

One of those heritage assets is the Village Stocks monument on Calton Avenue, next to the bookshop. The good news is that this monument just gained the protection of a grade II listing from English Heritage, meaning that it will have to stay exactly where it is, rather than get moved to an exposed and inauthentic site, which is what the Dulwich Estate and their architects Panther Hudspith were proposing. The bad news is that the overall ill conceived development is still steam rollering its way through the planning process, and the charming 1930's Petrol Station - a rare surviving example - looks like it won't survive.

I find it astonishing that local residents have to protect Dulwich against the actions of the very people who are tasked to conserve it - for English Heritage to have to step in and protect a heritage asset from the Dulwich Estate is a damming indictment on the Estate's fitness to protect the area.

Also I find The Dulwich Society's role in all this puzzling - why in this instance aren't they protecting Dulwich's heritage? They are allegedly a local interest/ lobby group with a conservation brief. On the SG Smith development, they have been noticeably toothless. Their relationship with the Estate all looks a little too cosy.

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.

[nxjen]

Is there a document or legal agreement that lays down that Dulwich Estate has a remit to conserve Dulwich and if so, who is the remit from? I would have thought and I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong that they were in a position to call the shots regarding conservation within the area as long as it complies with the Dulwich Supplementary Planning Document drawn up by Southwark Council.

[DulvilleRes]

My understanding is that they have been granted the responsibility to look after conservation in Dulwich by act of Parliament. It stems from the point in the 1970's when they were forced by legislation changes to offer homeowners freeholds as opposed to leases, so they made the argument that they needed control of the area's conservation to protect the value of their investments in the area as a charity. It might well be one for the Charities Commission, but any legal insight into these intricacies would be much appreciated.

Most of us who live in their jurisdiction have long been aware of how they selectively enforce the conservation brief - no cash machine in the village, special permission required to stick a shed up, architects visit for any alterations in case it alters Dulwich's 'special character', but when it comes to lining their own pockets, they are quite happy to attempt to ride roughshod over the conservation standards of the land. The fact that their plans have been partially blocked by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on conservation grounds really is crossing some kind of Rubicon in terms of their credibility.

The current plans for the SG Smith site are all about maximising return, and nothing to do with the real historic footprint of the site. Prior to the existing garage and workshop getting built after the war, there were some country cottages style two story houses on the site, all set in generous gardens, mirroring some of the surviving houses over the road. The Estate have of course chosen to gloss over this in their often inaccurate and misleading planning application. Redeveloping the site potentially offers the opportunity to restore some of that special green character. Instead The Estate are going for a monolithic block of multi million pound houses with virtually no gardens, and a massive underground basement car park. if it goes the way of much of the rest of the London luxury market, it is more than likely that many of these will be simply investment properties, not homes.

[Qwe]

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.

[first mate]

In my view, Southwark Planning are not fit for purpose.

I wholeheartedly agree, both planners and councillors appear to be the developers' creatures and terrified to take a proper stand against developments that have nothing to offer local communities and do everything to help line the pockets of developers and investment buyers.

[DulvilleRes]

Thanks very much for the advice and clarification on the Estate's role and remit. So, they basically just do what the like, nothing unexpected there then! We'll find out soon enough what Southwark's take on this development is - it looks like going to planning sub committee in a month or so. Over 80 people wrote in to the Council to formally object, so there is widespread opposition to the development. As soon as I hear a committee date and location, I'll post it, so that if anyone wants to come in person, to see democracy in action or otherwise, they can!

[Qwe]

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.

[fazer71]

From what I discovered through my solicitor when looking to buy a house on the Dulwich Estate.

Dulwich Estate has total control over any / all developments though they can't unreasonable withhold any reasonable application.

But where it comes to their own developments, if they wanted they could technically built a skyscraper a la Shard without asking anyone for permission they have total planning rights on their own land. In practice they would be unlikely to do that as they might get away with it once it is likely parliament would step in and change the rights they have if they did so.

Southwark conservation / planning are just a formality though the Estates applications tend to be designed to meet Southwark planning guidelines as they don?t want to unnecessarily push their luck.

My solicitor believed.

Dulwich Estate is a law unto itself.

The buck stops only with an act of parliament.

Best to expect failure you will then not to be disappointed when they build a load of ugly housing.

See the two Joke Houses on Court Lane !

[DulvilleRes]

Thanks very much Qwe and fazer71 for the further advice, which I will be following.

The Gilkes Residents Association has done a great job in going through the application, and pointing out the huge inaccuracies and misleading sections, but new ones keep rattling out. For me the pearler in the Estate's planning application was brazenly referring to ugly structures/ buildings on the site as a conservation justification for redeveloping it, that actually no longer exist! They were pulled down years ago. Either the Estate are staggeringly incompetent, which is worrying given their stewardship of local flooding risks involved in the construction of the huge new basement, or they are just liars. I know which my money is on.

fazer - every time I pass those new buildings on Court Lane, my heart sinks. It looks like its 1943, and Hitler is building some new defences along the Atlantic Wall.

[Qwe]

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.

[holymoly]

There is a thread recently started in The Lounge about a Southwark Planning Notice to move the newly Grade 2 listed plaque from the Dulwich Stocks and embed it in a house wall in one of the new SGS Smith houses to be developed there.

The listing was given because the inscription itself, and its great state of preservation, are unusual. It was rediscovered in the 1970s and is a great piece of local history for Dulwich. The Dulwich Estate seems to be indifferent or at least no sign of action. Not sure about the Dulwich Society.

Notice attached and you have until 17th June to respond:

Reference 15/AP/1772

Application Received Fri 08 May 2015

Address THE WORKSHOP SITE, LAND BOUNDED BY GILKES PLACE, GILKES CRESCENT AND CALTON AVENUE TO THE REAR OF 25 DULWICH VILLAGE, LONDON, SE21 7BW

Proposal Relocation of the Grade II listed stone plaque to be mounted in the garden wall of the 3-bed dwelling proposed as part of planning application ref:14/AP/3104.

Status Registered as valid application

To respond - follow this link

[planbuild.southwark.gov.uk:8190]

[Tessmo]

There's a new petition that's been set up by a local parent at Dulwich Hamlet Junior School. There are 272 signatures so far:

https://www.change.org/p/the-dulwich-estate-sg-smith-child-safety-before-profit

[DulvilleRes]

Dulwich Estate are actually the developers who are proposing removing this unique bit of listed history - one of only 3 similar inscriptions in the entire country - and putting it in the wall of a Barratts style house. This is from the same people you have to get permission to stick a shed up, in case it clashes with their alleged conservation brief. But when it comes to lining their own pockets, very different rules apply, and they are quite happy to build all over a community resource. It would be laughable if it wasn't so shocking.

Dulwich Society are doing nothing - in fact I heard allegedly they are behind the scenes challenging English Heritage's reading of the history on this one. They are also questioning the notion that there is widespread local opposition to the SG Smith development, despite the evidence of over 80 letters of objection to the Council, and nearing 300 signatures on the petition above. A cynical eye might say that the networks who run Dulwich are all very cosy with each other on this one.

[Tessmo]

Our new local MP Helen Hayes is aware of the S. G. Smith development - it's on her website. Perhaps concerns about new development clashing with conservation, and whether this particular development is appropriate in terms of scale and safety, should be sent to her at: [email protected]

[edhistory]

DulvilleRes Wrote:

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

> this unique bit of listed history

Is this the un-weathered lump of stone that was "discovered" in 1922?

[Tessmo]

Qwe Wrote:

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

> 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.

I think the issue of the stocks is only part of the picture. (No one is against developing the site. The issue is how it's done.) But as the comment from @Qwe above shows, details like this may be helpful in showing that a decision to approve the proposal as it stands may be going against current planning policy.

The new consultation on the whole proposal is open from 14 to 27 June. Go to http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk and search for application 14/AP/3104. You can either email Dipesh Patel, the planning officer at [email protected] and cc [email protected] or you can post a comment online.

[Tessmo]

Up to 300 supporters now on this petition:

https://www.change.org/p/the-dulwich-estate-sg-smith-child-safety-before-profit

[Loz]

edhistory Wrote:

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

> DulvilleRes Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > this unique bit of listed history

>

> Is this the un-weathered lump of stone that was

> "discovered" in 1922?

... that is almost certainly currently sited in the wrong place anyway.

[Qwe]

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.

[sb]

.