Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I've just signed this.


This story makes my blood boil. The Dulwich estate has two primary functions:


(1) to educate "12 poor scholars?


(2) to conserve and protect the heritage of this area


If you want background on how well they?re doing on (1) read this previous thread

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1396133,page=1


I guess this news on rent increases confirms how much they really care about (2)

rupert james Wrote:

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

> Since when has commercial shops, rents , toy shop

> been part of the heritage of the area.



^^^ THIS!!!


Not that I think DE are acting in a reasonable manneer, but a toy shop that's been there a few years is not the heritage of an area.

DadOf4 Wrote:

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

> I've just signed this.

>

> This story makes my blood boil. The Dulwich estate

> has two primary functions:

>

> (1) to educate "12 poor scholars?

>

> (2) to conserve and protect the heritage of this

> area


Actually, if you go to the Charities Commission and search for Dulwich Estates, you will see that DE has ONE function which it must, by law, fulfil:


"To manage the endowment assets of the charity in the long term interests of all the beneficiaries of the charity. This is measured by the increase in the annual income distribution to the beneficiaries and the maintenance of the value of net assets."


The beneficiaries of the charity are:



The Chapel in the heart of Dulwich Village

- Christ?s Chapel of God?s Gift at Dulwich Charity


Almshouses adjacent to the Chapel

- The Dulwich Almshouse Charity


Schools in Dulwich:

- Alleyn?s School

- Dulwich College

- James Allen?s Girls? School


School Foundations:

- Central Foundation Schools of London

- St Olave?s & St Saviour?s Schools Foundation

Weirdly, the foundation is St Olave?s & St Saviour?s but the school is St Saviour?s and St Olave?s.


Obviously, Olave and Saviour had a bitter feud about who got first billing and this was the solution. These saintly types let their halos slip every now and again.

Sue Wrote:

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

> Loz Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Weirdly, the foundation is St Olave?s & St

> > Saviour?s but the school is St Olave?s & St

> > Saviour?s.

>

> Shome mishtake here, shurely


Oops! Yes. Now fixed.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Yep, the Dulwich Estate's only aim is to maximise

> income in order to subsidise a number of elite

> schools. Charity eh?


Christ?s Chapel and the Dulwich Almshouse Charity aren't schools. Central Foundation School and St Saviour?s & St Olave?s Schools aren't, AFAIK, elite.

Another junk thread like "Save Southwark Woods".


Let's evict the old folk from the alms houses.


And stop visiting the art gallery.


Let's boycott everything else the Charity does - the things not mentioned by Loz.


Should be in the Lounge as it has nothing to do with East Dulwich.


John K

Loz Wrote:

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

> rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Yep, the Dulwich Estate's only aim is to

> maximise

> > income in order to subsidise a number of elite

> > schools. Charity eh?

>

> Christ?s Chapel and the Dulwich Almshouse Charity

> aren't schools. Central Foundation School and St

> Saviour?s & St Olave?s Schools aren't, AFAIK,

> elite.


Add in the word 'primarily' if you want.

edhistory Wrote:

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

> Another junk thread like "Save Southwark Woods".

>

> Let's evict the old folk from the alms houses.

>

> And stop visiting the art gallery.

>

> Let's boycott everything else the Charity does -

> the things not mentioned by Loz.

>

> Should be in the Lounge as it has nothing to do

> with East Dulwich.

>

> John K



Oh- the "they do loads of good" argument


of the ?9.66M that they made in revnue in 2015 (mainly from local rents) , ?8.2M (86%) of it was given to the 3 very wealthy private schools.

The scraps were divvied up between the almshouses, chapel and 2 state schools (note: not the picture gallery)


I agree that ED is not "in the Dulwich estate" - but if anybody here usees any sports facilities or shops on their patch - you're indirectly funding these schools.


I find that hard to swallow

DadOf4 Wrote:

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


> I agree that ED is not "in the Dulwich estate" - but if anybody here usees any sports facilities or

> shops on their patch - you're indirectly funding these schools.

>

> I find that hard to swallow


Well, stop doing it then.

The only case that could be made about the rental increase (to the Charities Commission) is that the rents are being increased to a level where traders are being excluded (with no substitutes appearing) such that the underlying value of the estate is being jeopardised (through empty properties etc.) such that the Estate's primary focus (to raise monies for its objects) was being impeded. This is, in effect, a charge of poor management. The Estate has no general duty of care to the neighbourhood (other than standard H&S issues) save where its management is seen to be reducing its capacity to provide long terms incomes for its objectives. Clearly a blighted Dulwich and East Dulwich would do that. So if you can show that its actions are blighting the neighbourhood sufficiently to impact underlying property values - even in a time of generally rising values a slow(er) local rise could evidence that - then a case could be made to the Commission.


Other than that, just because you don't approve of their 'charitable' aims (which are legal) or like what they are doing to your favoured traders, this isn't sufficient to leverage any changes to their trajectory.

> The Estate has no general duty of care to the neighbourhood


No, but it does have discretionary powers written into its current Charities Commission document, to maintain and improve the amenities of its lands so as to preserve and enhance its revenues.


John K

Dulwich estates are landlords who provide the facities for business to operate from.


If people are not prepared to pay for these facilities what is the problem?


Move else where, seems simple enough.


If properties are let for what the estate asks this only confirms the commercial value.


Is people are so worried form a co-op and rent the shops for the going rate and put what ever business they want in.


I doubt if their pocket will match their mouth.

Edward Alleyn origially created a charitable foundation and gave to it his property to support the education of the poor.


AS the schools which are the beneficiaries of his foundation no longer support education of the poor and are only for wealthy families, I hope the man is not turning in his grave. His original intention was clear.


The charity has become a business to support the wealthy.

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

    • The river Peck is partly underground if you live near the park and on its route
    • I have spent many years pondering the state of dampness in my basement and had composed a long and rather boring reponse. Have reduced it to bullet points: The cause of damp on the common wall with my neighbour was found to be caused by a slow leak their side which they were unaware of. Leak was repaired and dampness subsided. An experienced drainage man told me there are no underground rivers in East Dulwich My damp patches come and go and are more prevalent in summer when the humidity is high and barely there during the winter. I was considering getting a dehumidifier until I read they can suck the water out of walls/floor and make the problem worse.  
    • Thank you all for your input- we had the children with their mother for a few days. individually the children went out - one  to the theatre and Camden Market and Horniman's. The other to the transport museum and Leicester Square (could not get in to the Lego place so went into M & M place) also Dulwich Park with his Aunty and cousin. My daughter is a special needs teacher in Sussex and even though schools have closed, she had  to work 2 days (INSET Days)  one day she had a 3 hour zoom call with her colleagues as could not find a child minder, so worked from home, the next day the 9 year old spent the day with friends so she could go to work. At least with us she could get some respite from child care. After much negotiation, their father in Liverpool  has managed to get some leave from his new job for 2 weeks. My daughter will drive them to Oxford where Dad will pick up. This gives my daughter a few days  without children to catch up with various friends in the Midland's and Yorkshire. I will search the science school link as above as there maybe something in the October or February Half Terms which we could enrol the 9 year old in. We try to support our 3 daughters with child care but most of the grandchildren are grown up which leaves us with 9,11 and 15 year olds. We have not been asked to look after the 6 year and 3 year old great grandchildren - !!! We are firm believers that grandparents should be active in their grandchildren's lives and offer support where they can. I looked after my eldest granddaughter when she was a baby and toddler one day a week so my daughter could work. My granddaughter is now 26 and we are very close as she is the only one living in London. The others are scattered around Kent, Sussex and Essex.  
    • I do know the care home julia tant was moved to
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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