Dulwich Estate - fit to run conservation?

[Tessmo]

These are the staff members of the Dulwich Estate, including the CEO John Major: http://www.dulwichestate.co.uk/about/staff. But the Estate is governed by its trustees who can be found here: http://www.dulwichestate.co.uk/about/the-trustees. I'm a bit puzzled because the website says there are 13 of them, and I keep counting 14...

Here's the executive committee of the Dulwich Society: http://www.dulwichsociety.com/executive-contacts

You will see that the local independent schools have strong representation on both.

[DulvilleRes]

Loz wrote

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

This isn't true. There is strong evidence that the plaque is exactly where it should be.

1. The book, London Old and New volume 6, author Edward Walford, published in 1878, certainly seems to bear out its current location - To quote from the book

'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.'"

Furthermore, the 1838 tithe map, which is viewable in the John Harvard History library, shows the site of the structure most likely to be the Georgian lock up to be exactly in its current location. So the current on site description that accompanies the plaque which says it was affixed to a building 'on or near' its current site 's the accurate one. Given that this was the description that Dulwich Estate and presumably Dulwich Society wrote when the stone plaque was erected on it's current site, I'd be interested to know what new history has come to light in recent years to cause them to change their minds.

[fazer71]

Great if the stocks can be used to change the design .. but in reality this garbage will be built regardsless of the location of the plaque.

The problem is the design totally awful simplistic drab brick finish complete CR"P.

Go look at the two new houses on Court Lane if any proof were needed that this style of development simply doesn't work next to Victorian and Edwardian houses.

Utter garbage totally out of keeping looks dated even by toddler doodle standards.

These people need to go to spec savers ... as their average age is probably 80 it's hardly surprising they have agreed to this Shi?t! Bunch of complete morons.

[AndySkip]

Unfortunately the Dulwich Estate are there to make money first and foremost:

http://www.dulwichestate.co.uk/about/objectives

[mikeb]

Those very awkward looking houses on Court Lane just sort of appeared without my noticing the planning process or even building preparation - was the design debated extensively in planning committee? (or elsewhere eg EDF?)

[Loz]

DulvilleRes Wrote:

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

> Loz wrote

>

> ... that is almost certainly currently sited in

> the wrong place anyway.

>

> This isn't true. There is strong evidence that the

> plaque is exactly where it should be.

According to the Dulwich Society the plaque was moved to the current location in 1968. And is almost certainly currently in the wrong position.

http://www.dulwichsociety.com/2015-summer/1190-english-heritage-grade-2-listings-village-lock-up-stone-and-st-barnabas-parish-hall

[MarkT]

TFL website shows Public Transport Accessibility Level for Dulwich Village to be 2 on a scale of 6. Accordingly, the maximum density for developments shown on Table 3.2 of the London Plan is 250 habitable rooms per hectare. The proposed development is considerably denser than that.

London Plan Policy 3.4 Optimising Housing Potential:

?Taking into account local context and character, the design principles in Chapter 7 and public transport capacity, development should optimise housing output for different types of location within the relevant density range shown in Table 3.2. Development proposals which compromise this policy should be resisted.?

MarkT

[Qwe]

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.

[fazer71]

1 petrol station and 7 houses

[Tessmo]

334 supporters now for Andrew Skipwith's petition https://www.change.org/p/the-dulwich-estate-sg-smith-child-safety-before-profit?source_location=update_footer&algorithm=promoted.

The comments indicate a plea from local people to scale down inappropriate development.

What's important now is for everyone to respond to Southwark Council's re-consultation. Details on the petition website.

[richard tudor]

Would people accept a development along the the lines of The Dog Kennel Hill estate. All social housing.

Would indicate a willingness to embrace social housing problems

[DulvilleRes]

Loz wrote:

According to the Dulwich Society the plaque was moved to the current location in 1968. And is almost certainly currently in the wrong position.

Right or wrong position - and lets see what English Heritage make of it - it is a shame the Dulwich Society couldn't have devoted their energy to getting the stone plaque listed in the first place to protect it, rather than put their energy into seemingly attempting to shore up the Dulwich Estate's position and their credibility after the event. It was members of the public, not the Dulwich Society, who got both the stocks and the Village Hall listed. The whole situation says a lot to me about the true nature of the Dulwich Society, and where their core interests lie.

The Dulwich Society's actions as regards the SG Smith site over the last few months have been puzzling, to say the least. They have happily waved through the Dulwich Estate's proposals with only a couple of minor comments, despite widespread local unease at the design, it's incongruous density and its impact on the area. They've not been over keen to meet local residents who want to discuss their concerns. They are happy for a rare surviving example of a 1930's Petrol station on the site, with it's Arts and Craft's influenced design, get demolished without so much as a debate or murmur. They seem equally happy for the once in several generations opportunity to return residential development on this site to something approaching it's original historic footprint, and in keeping with the listed/ listable properties that surround it, pass by. And they're happy for the stone plaque - a lovely and nationally near unique bit of living history - to get shoved into the garden wall of a Barratt's style house, so the Dulwich Estate can make a few more quid out of selling the site it is currently on as a walled off private garden. As they say in journalism, follow the cash, and everything falls into place.

[richard tudor]

It appears all your posts relate to this subject. Out of interest have you just bought a property close to this building project.

I don't think I have read such rubbish about a stone Plaque.

[fazer71]

richard tudor Wrote:

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

>

> I don't think I have read such rubbish about a

> stone Plaque.

It's not really about the stone Plaque !

It's about the Cr&P Barrats style design being dumped in the middle of Victorian and Edwardian quality.

It's about an organisation which is unfit for purpose and about a bunch of old grunters who need to go to spec savers or better still retire along with their 70's ideas of "modern"...

Ie about a miscarriage of architecture and abuse of power ... !

The Plaque is a red herring ...

[Qwe]

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!

[edhistory]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/1405

[DulvilleRes]

Qwe and Edhistory

This is genius research! My kids love the idea of the stocks - they've always asked me about them on the way to school. It would be great to get some replicas up, and what better pretext than maintaining Dulwich's Village status? I think that if the Estate were so inclined, they could really help create a community feature, which I think would also help local businesses. It would be yet another part of the landscape for people coming from other parts of London on a sunny weekend.

[Qwe]

It does appear that there has been at least one other restoration project:

http://southgategreen.org.uk/environment/the-stocks/

[richard tudor]

DulvilleRes Wrote:

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

> Qwe and Edhistory

>

> This is genius research! My kids love the idea of

> the stocks - they've always asked me about them on

> the way to school. It would be great to get some

> replicas up, and what better pretext than

> maintaining Dulwich's Village status? I think that

> if the Estate were so inclined, they could really

> help create a community feature, which I think

> would also help local businesses. It would be yet

> another part of the landscape for people coming

> from other parts of London on a sunny weekend.

Are you trying to consolidate the value of your property. Let Southwark buy the whole development area and provide Social Housing.

I do wish people would be more honest.

[fazer71]

richard tudor Wrote:

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

> Are you trying to consolidate the value of your

> property. Let Southwark buy the whole development

> area and provide Social Housing.

>

> I do wish people would be more honest.

HERE HERE we need more people like this in the Dulwich VILLAGE, poor "starving" social housing lot "see attached ;)".

The only problem is getting the existing champagne socialists living in their multi million village homes "Think Tessa Jowell" to agree to it .. lol

[Otta]

As if Social Housing would EVER be allowed in the Village.

You've heard of "poor doors" on some modern housing developments? Well I imagine anyone living in social housing would be forced to enter the village via underground tunnels so as not to offend the residents.

[fazer71]

Otta Wrote:

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

> As if Social Housing would EVER be allowed in the

> Village.

>

> You've heard of "poor doors" on some modern

> housing developments? Well I imagine anyone living

> in social housing would be forced to enter the

> village via underground tunnels so as not to

> offend the residents.

???

I believe most of Decker Rd remains as social type housing right in he heart of the village.

:)

I wonder is it still fact that most social housing isn't a "need" to many existing occupants IE many earn enough to move into the regular rental market and give up space for those who do NEED social housing.

But then the State and our TAX money is needed to support the UK housing market and keep rents high together with restricting planning and development where there is space and need. Vs' this development which is shoehorned onto a small site, for the benefit of the Dulwich estate to contribute to the millionaires who send their children to Alleynes etc

BONKERS world ...

And Cr?P architecture ,, reign supreme..

[Otta]

I wasn't actually being serious. Yes there is social housing, or certainly housing which was social, and is now worth a fortune to those that bought it for pennies.

[Bicknell]

The land is owned by Dulwich Estate and leased from the Estate by the garage. They are working together to get planning permission from Southwark for a development that will make them both millions. So it's not up to the council, or local residents, what kind of housing gets built. That's my understanding of it anyway.

[fazer71]

Bicknell Wrote:

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

> The land is owned by Dulwich Estate and leased

> from the Estate by the garage. They are working

> together to get planning permission from Southwark

> for a development that will make them both

> millions. So it's not up to the council, or local

> residents, what kind of housing gets built. That's

> my understanding of it anyway.

It's down to Southwark Conservation Planning Department and The Old Grunters at the Dulwich Estate so as it's a DE application they are hardly likely to vote against their own plans.

What amazes me it the UTTER SH?TE they allow

see the two prison camp style lookout boxes on Court Lane although they don't look as nice a proper pill boxes see attachments which actually have more quality about them that the ones the Dulwich Estate likes. .

Shocking !!! But true ...

At least the Germans rendered theirs the Dulwich Estate just allow cheap brick finish and to add some variation they are different brick colours.

Laughable fools spoiling the Village thinking it's "moderrrrrn" .. :(