At the Annual View in October, the occasion when the Trustees of the Dulwich Estate invite their beneficiaries to inspect the Estate and receive the details of the accounts for the preceding year, the three Dulwich Foundation schools received good news. The total income raised by the Estate for its beneficiaries in 2005-6 amounted to £5.488 million (compared with £4.979 million in the previous year). An equal amount is distributed to the three Dulwich schools, with adjustments made according to the number of pupils. The 2006 distribution was as follows: (2005 figures in brackets) Dulwich College received £1.883 million [£1.679], Alleyn's School received £1.403 million [£1.246] and James Allen's Girls' School £1.27 million [£1.138]. Since 2001, the amount distributed each year has doubled.
In addition a capital sum of £20 million was distributed amongst the Foundation schools ,which also includes St Olaves' and St Saviour's Grammar School Foundation and the Central Foundation Schools of London. The schools outside of Dulwich receive a share 3.248% and 10.923% respectively of both the annual and the surplus income. The three Dulwich schools jointly receive 85.829%. Thus each of the Dulwich schools received an additional sum from the Estate of approximately £5.73 million in this periodic allocation of accrued capital.
In addition, between 1995-2000, a capital sum of over £37 million was released from the Estate to the various schools. Both these windfalls are exempt from taxation and are required by the Charity Commission to be invested. The interest from these funds may be applied by the schools to fund scholarships or used to borrow against for capital projects.
This latest windfall is timely because attention is at present being focussed on the independent schools' sector and how they can demonstrate they can serve the public good sufficiently to be entitled to charity status.
All three Dulwich schools, in various degrees, make their facilities available to the public and state schools and some help with literacy and other programmes. However their main defence of their charity status, which brings the schools exemption from taxation, is the large number of scholarships each offers. While it is usual to offer a third remission on fees, in cases of need, half or even full scholarships are awarded. The schools are now in the happy position to be able to increase their numbers of scholarships still further. However, the funding of scholarships is very expensive. A capital sum of £1 million might be required to offer an annual full scholarship to run for the full six years of tuition and still maintain the value of the capital. Of course this means that six pupils will benefit at any one time from the award of an annual scholarship because each award will last for the six years of education from 11-17.
The Dulwich Estate may therefore be seen to be ably fulfilling the intention of its Founder, Edward Alleyn, in providing the funds to enable the child of poorer parents to take advantage of a good education as a preparation for university.
Not many people realise that the south-eastern extremity of Dulwich extends into Lewisham. The old manor boundary, and still the boundary of the Dulwich Estate, is Eliot Bank, south of Sydenham Rise and opposite Horniman's Museum. The Horniman Play Park which was leased to Lewisham Council in 1955 contains a series of regular earthworks parallel to Sydenham Hill. These earthworks rise in height to about a metre and comprise a number of roughly parallel ridges. In addition, there is a further ridge which is asymmetrical to the others as well as a perfectly circular earthwork with an inner circular mound.
These features have long interested members of the Society's Local History Group and it has been decided to carry out a preliminary investigation using the services of a commercial archaeology company. A search of maps and archives shows that this area of the Play Park has always been an open field, although there were two cottages in the corner of the park near the junction with London Road and Sydenham Rise, and a further house at the top of the site on the Sydenham Rise side. Searches were also made in the archives of the Dulwich Estate to see if there was any use made of this land by the military during World Wars 1 and 11 such as searchlight, barrage balloon or training facilities. None were found.
Permission has now been granted by both the leaseholder - Lewisham Council and its Parks Department, and the freeholder - The Dulwich Estate for the Dulwich Society to carry out an excavation. The Society has agreed to make £1000 available for exploratory excavation. In the event of anything significant being identified an approach may then be made to the Museum of London, which is associated with the Horniman Museum for further investigation.
The Local History Group is aware of the tradition that the field was once the site of a plague pit.
Dulwich's main industry is education. As a consequence, journeys to and from its numerous schools impact upon on local streets and the environment. The Dulwich Society takes a close interest in this, both because of our objective in fostering the amenities of Dulwich, and also because many of our members' households include pupils or teachers.
The Society has therefore collaborated with schools in northern Dulwich in their efforts to encourage walking and cycling to school, instead of pupils being ferried by car. Two initiatives have developed from this collaboration.
Firstly: changes to road layouts to make it safer for pupils walking to school. With money from Transport for London and work by Southwark Council, the following changes have been made:
Secondly: promotional activities to persuade pupils to change their travel patterns. The activities have included:
These activities have resulted in a shift of travel patterns, away from cars and towards walking and cycling, with consequent benefits to the local environment and to pupils' health.
To celebrate this success the Dulwich Society agreed to donate to a charity of the schools' choice £1 for every pupil who walked or cycled to school for the whole of Good Going Week in September. 376 pupils from Alleyns, JAGS and JAPS did this and the Society has sent £376 to a charity called Whizz Kidz, which provides mobility aids for children who are unable to walk or cycle.
The Society has been pleased to join this successful initiative and looks forward to joining any comparable scheme which other Dulwich schools may take.
Traffic and Transport Committee
The Executive Committee of the Dulwich Society has been much concerned recently by the threat to the peace and quiet of residential areas in Dulwich posed by the possibility that the night economy could spread to our neighbourhoods, particularly to areas such as Herne Hill and Dulwich Village. Under the Licensing Act 2003, licensed premises are able to apply to the local council for a licence for the sale of alcohol and the provision of public entertainment, such as music and dancing, for 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The Society has drawn up guidelines on its recommended response to applications for extended hours and these were published in the Society's Summer Newsletter, and were also sent to Southwark Council. In addition, we have raised a number of objections to specific applications. This article looks at a recent case where the Society joined with local residents in opposing an application, with some success, and it points out some pitfalls that may allow unwelcome applications to slip through.
On 6 June 2006, the owners of the Half Moon Pub in Half Moon Lane, Herne Hill, applied to vary their premises licence to extend the hours for drinking and provision of music and dancing for an additional hour on Fridays and Saturdays to 2 am (with a further 30 minutes drinking-up time) and for an addition 2 hours on Sundays, i.e. to 12.30 am on the Monday (again with a further 30 minutes drinking-up time). No change was sought for the 1 am limit (1.30 am closing time) on other days. In addition they applied for removal of the current licence condition prohibiting new admissions and readmissions after 12 midnight and for variation of the maximum accommodation limit on the premises at any time from 300 to 400 people.
Brief details of the application were given in a small notice in the windows at the front of the premises and were published in certain local newspapers and on Southwark Council's website. There was no other publicity and there is no requirement for it under the current legislation. 28 days were allowed for objections - or "representations" as they are now called. 20 representations were received from local residents and organisations representing them, including the Dulwich Society and the Stradella and Springfield Residents' Association. Many more objections would have been made if there had been better publicity, as is shown by the fact that over 120 signatures were obtained on a petition objecting to the application that was circulated in the neighbourhood for a few days just before the hearing, which was in the middle of the holiday period.
Under the new law, it is essential that objections be made by interested persons within the 28 days time limit as, in the absence of any representations, there will be no hearing before the Council's Licensing Sub-Committee and Council officials will be obliged to accept the application in full. To be valid, any objections must be on the grounds of one of the four licensing objectives set out in the Licensing Act 2003, namely:
Any representations that do not relate to one or more of these objectives, or which are considered to be frivolous or vexatious, will be ignored.
The hearing of the Half Moon's application was at Southwark Town Hall on 7 August, a date when many of the objectors and other concerned people were away on holiday. Four of the objectors did however present their objections verbally to the Licensing Sub-Committee and were each allowed 15 minutes to do so, which is the same time as was allowed to the applicants. The Sub-Committee however rejected the petition on the grounds that it was out of time and refused to hear any references to it. The applicants stated that there was a tradition of live music performance at the Half Moon which they were seeking to revive after some years of decline. The objectors stressed that they were not opposed to live music as such and accepted that the pub was generally well managed and seemed to make an effort to control sound escaping from the entertainment room at the rear of the premises, but that they had strong objections to the likely nuisance to local residents caused by large numbers of customers leaving the premises in the early hours of the morning to collect their cars parked in nearby residential streets as there was little parking available outside the pub and inadequate late public transport. Evidence was given of disturbances by loud voices, slammed car doors and revving engines that already occurs. The objections were particularly strong to the proposed extension of closing time until 1 am on Monday mornings as this was a school and working day when children and their parents needed a full nights sleep.
The Sub-Committee's decision was given after a two hour adjournment to consider the case. Their ruling was that sale of alcohol and provision of music and dance could continue until 2 am on Fridays and Saturdays, with a 2.30 am closing time, but that there should be no change to the current 10.30 pm (11 pm closing time) hours on Sundays. They also decided that the condition on no new admissions after midnight should remain but readmissions would be permitted after that time (mainly to accommodate smokers when the smoking ban comes in next year) but had to be controlled by a scanning or stamping system to be administered by the door supervisor. In addition conditions were imposed that there was to be no outside drinking after 11 pm and any music played after 1 am had to be played through a sound limiter to be set in conjunction with the Council's noise team.
On the whole, local residents were relieved by this outcome. The applicants had 21 days to appeal but there has been no sign that the have done so.
The new law allows application to be made to the Council to vary, or even suspend or revoke, a licence if the premises cause unacceptable public nuisance or there is persistent breach of the licence conditions. For any such application to be successful it would be necessary to produce convincing evidence. People who suffer disturbance from licensed premises should therefore keep a diary recording details and dates and times of incidents and should also on appropriate occasions call out the Council's noise unit to take sound readings which could be used in evidence. Their telephone number is 7525 5777 (24 hours).
The lack of adequate publicity for applications for late hours drinking, etc. remains an issue. The Society has made representations to Southwark Council on this in the mid-term consultation they have been conducting on the working of their current licensing policy. In particular we have suggested that the Council should give amenity groups such as ours and tenants and residents associations' information on applications in their area that are received so that they can alert their members. In addition we have asked for more detail of applications to be given on the Council's webpage. This can be accessed on www.southwark.gov.uk /business centre/licensing/current applications. This gives a link to "licensing register", which allows you to search for either Applications or Licences granted. Under the list of criteria given for the search you need only insert the postcode or the ward and brief details will be shown for the applicable premises in the postcode or ward in question. Full details of applications made are set out in the Operating Schedule attached to applications. It is currently the practice of the Southwark (and also Lambeth) to charge £10.50 for a photocopy of this document. In our comments in the Southwark consultation we have urged that there should be no charge for this document.
The Group has had a good year. Our programme started in April with a most entertaining lecture by Tom Hart Dyke in which he described his orchid hunt in Central America, where he was ambushed by guerrillas and held prisoner for nine months. During his captivity he came up with the idea that led to the creation of 'The World Garden' at his home - Lullingstone Castle in Kent. We hope to visit this garden at a later date.
During the summer we made a series of visits to some of Dulwich's more interesting smaller gardens. These visits are extremely popular with our members and raise quite worthwhile sums for charity. We are extremely grateful to the garden owners for their hospitality and for all the hard work they put in to prepare their gardens for our visit. One particularly interesting visit was to the James Allen's Girls' School Grade II listed Botany garden. This has recently been restored by David Strong, a member of the school's ground staff. We were particularly lucky to be given a short lecture by Dr Dawn Saunders, who is writing a thesis on the work of Dr Lilian Clarke, the botany mistress who started and developed the garden a century ago.
Another highlight was in June when 50 of us visited the Colchester area and explored the 'Beth Chatto Gardens' and 'Oliver's'. It was a great day out. During July we held a competition to find the best pink flower - this was won by Sylvia Daniel with an Old English Rose.
To end the season, the owners of six gardens at the Village end of Burbage Road opened their gardens at the same time. Thanks very much to their hard work the event was a great success, attracting nearly 80 visitors and raising £200 for St Christopher's Hospice. Our final event was a visit to the Royal Horticultural Society's gardens at Wisley.