PUBLIC MEETING - MINUTES
29th September 2009
St.Barnabas Church Hall, Dulwich Village
The meeting was organised, introduced and chaired by Ian McInnes, Chairman of the Dulwich Society.
He began by introducing the representatives of the Dulwich Estate:
Angela Brownbill - Chairman of the Trustees
John Major - Chief Executive
Nina Rees - Scheme of Management Administrator
John Senter - Consultant Architecture to the Dulwich Estates
Each of the representatives of the DE was asked to give a short explanation of their role before answering questions. Questions had been requested before the meeting and the chairman confirmed that he had received over 120. The Dulwich Estate team had had previous notification of the questions which he had grouped together so as to focus on the subjects which seemed to concern residents most. The team would answer the questions under the group headings and also take relevant questions from the floor.
Angela Brownbill explained the origin of the Charity with a brief history, the method of appointing trustees and something of how the Charity is obliged to function. She confirmed that, as a Charity, the Trustees’ duty was to its Beneficiaries. Residents’ often held a misconception that the Estate was there for the good of Dulwich due to the Charity’s Scheme of Management.
John Major explained that the Scheme of Management came about in 1967 as a result of the Leasehold reform Act. Prior to this the DE held the freehold of most of the properties on the Estate. In order to keep some control over development with a view to maintaining the value of its own properties, the lease covenants were carried over to the freeholders who required a licence for alterations to property and to the felling of trees.
Nina Rees said her role was to organise the applications for alterations and tree works, investigate complaints from neighbours and generally keep an eye on the state of property on the Estate.
John Senter explained his role as Consultant Architect to the Dulwich Estates and also the role of Tony George who advises on trees on the Estate.
DE: Surprised that there was a PR problem with the Scheme of Management. Not keen to spend money unneccessarily on employing someone to do this. Hope to encourage those living on Estate to approach them with problems. This is the first time they have been asked to attend meeting. Will try to respond more quickly to letters but really unaware there was a problem. Nina Rees said she is available everyday from 10.00am to 12.00pm - hours restricted because otherwise other work doesn’t get done. Much of the info required is on the website.
FLOOR: Not so much about the SoM more about Estate’s policies generally. More openness required – DE should be required to publish minutes. Why no reply to letters and general concern about lack of contact between residents and DE. Why not information about Trustee and other meetings available for residents? Considered that SoM demand for annual charges should be more informative?
DE: Have residents read their recent letter sent with the Scheme of Management Charge? Is this not an improvement? DE noted that there was still too much legalise perhaps in the ‘formal’ Scheme Charge circular, but this was necessary to satisfy the SoM rules. Have to distinguish between the Charity and the Scheme of Management which is a non-charitable activity. Minutes of meetings of the Scheme of Management not published because of confidentiality. However, applicants given extracts from the minutes covering their particular application. DE is not subject to Information of Freedom Act. Under the terms of the Scheme, the Advisory Committee, the DS meets with the DE 3 times a year. DS Chairman would welcome questions from members of the DS and residents to put to the DE at the formal meetings
2.0 - Trustees & Beneficiaries
DE: Charity is governed by the Charity Commission Scheme. Details of Trustees available from the DE website and the Charity Commission’s website. Until recently 9 out of 14 trustees live in Dulwich and therefore feel resident ‘tax payers’ are well represented. 2 Trustees appointed by each of the Dulwich schools, one by the Archbishop of Canterbury, one from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and 3 co-opted. All trustees are volunteers. Not feasible to have separate local representation.
DE: Trustees have no control over distribution of income or how this is spent and therefore have no influence over the Dulwich Schools Beneficiaries generating (nor other local schools) traffic.
FLOOR: Some aspects of the Foundation could/should certainly be reviewed with a view to getting a change. Some may benefit locals and other the DE.
FlOOR: Difficult to object to unfavourable planning decision by the SoM. What do the Trustees look for when so-opting a new member.
DE: Appeals under the Scheme of Management against the Managers’ decision: See paragraph 17 of the Scheme for appeals procedure. When co-opting look for skills not already covered by other trustees. Some co-opted trustees do sit on Scheme of Management Committee
3.0 - Shops in the Village:
Do the Dulwich Estate governors agree that that one of their (non-statutory) general charitable duties is to “have regard for the needs to maintain a reasonable diversity of retail outlets in Dulwich Village”?
DE: rumours of high rent rises unfounded. Lease rents are finally agreed after negotiation. Try to get a good mix of retailers but can only grant leases to those who apply. Until recently, no empty shops in Dulwich Village. OXFAM rumour is correct – they were the only contender for the lease for the former Gill Holland, 33 Dulwich Village.
FLOOR: General dissatisfaction about type of shops. Objection from current shopowners about rent rises.Clarification needed from both sides. DE’s assertion that rents in East Dulwich are lower than Dulwich was challenged.
DE: Cannot chose who applies for leases. Obliged to accept market rents. Lessees have rights to ‘assign’ lease and the DE cannot reasonably refuse consent. Difficult to balance usefulness with maximum benefit. DE obliged to seek market level rents. Cannot subsidise specific businesses or individuals.
FLOOR: Thought that this was not the case and that there were legal precedents for landlords to decide what shops they had and achieve a balance of uses – assignments could be objected to. Feeling that DE’s interpretation of their shop policy was too narrow and effectively took no account of any benefit to residents.
4.0 - Development:
DE: Schemes for Old Dairy site have fallen through because developer pulled out due to the economic downturn. SG Smith – licence granted but client then changed scope of works. Work should start very shortly.
FLOOR: Why was the DE so slow to get things done – dairy site empty for 10 years. DE responded final lease ran out only 2 years ago. General feeling that things just happened too slowly.
5.0 - Herne Hill Cycle track:
DE: Long difficult problem. Was leased by Southwark for 42 years who have left site and buildings in poor condition – discussion over dilapidations have stalled. Leases granted to British Cycling, DE’s aim is to secure the long term future of the site. Ideally wants a building which will provide facilities for cyclists plus other sport/leisure facilities. Difficult to find development partner in the current market. On advice from traffic consultant, DE informed that two access are required, not the one as at present, in order to get a planning consent for any new building. Southwark still lease a small piece of land required for a second access and are not prepared to release it at a reasonable price. Tried to use dilapidations claim as a lever but no effect as different departments of the Council deal with each aspect. Southwark Council’s Building at Risk Officer had made an application to English Heritage to have grandstand listed which will further delay things and could prevent any development. Site is designated Metropolitan Open Land – very little can be built on it.
FLOOR: VCdL did not require another access, considered this a red herring. Why not consider giving longer lease so that investment worthwhile. VCdL have good proposals. Preliminary suggestions had been sent to DE but no reply, why? Have they been considered? DE should try harder to reach a solution so that the facility can be improved and enjoyed.
DE: Did not consider the initial scheme from VCdL a formal proposal – three options suggested. Unaware that VCdL has obtained any planning advice for proposals and hence cannot say second access will not be required.
6.0 - Scheme of Management Policy & Guidelines:
DE: Fees are a contribution towards the costs of consultants . No charge is made for tree licences. The cost of running scheme is recovered from residents through the Scheme Charge but the Estate makes no profit. Trees and solar panels – have tried to follow other similar management schemes. They are detailed in the design guides available on the Estate website.
7.0 - Scheme of Management Enforcement
· What does the Estate do to enforce covenants on house and garden maintenance? Why has the Estate Management allowed the Grade II listed wall in Red Post Hill to remain in a state of disrepair for almost six tears? Does the Management have any intention of taking any action to restore the wall?· The Estate granted a retrospective licence to London South Bank University for a new fence around their playing fields on the condition it was painted green. 15 months later nothing has been done. What is the Estate doing about it?
DE: Not all building works inspected on completion but John Senter may inspect some applications during construction. SOM not always informed when works are finished. Can insist on things being put right but too expensive to take legal action in every case. Where money is due to the Scheme, the Estate sometimes puts a legal charge on property which would affect future sale. Breaches are often remedied at prior to a sale of a property.
DE: Wall on Redpost Hill very long and complicated saga. DE not prepared to spend £100k to repair when they will not be able to get money back. Southwark Council have finally accepted their legal responsibility – progress has been slow b ut SC takin g owner to court at the moment. Have said that once they have the money work can start.
DE: London South Bank University have finally agreed to paint fence dark green next spring. Estate did not grant a licence for the fence.
FLOOR: again general concern about how long it takes to get things done.
8.0 - Relationships with Southwark Council:
DE: Southwark is not always clear on which land is their’s and which the Estate’s. Don’t have meetings with Southwark Council. Only occasion that SC defer to the DE is for dropped curbs. SC won’t agree without DE consent.
FLOOR: Suggest better liaison and meetings from time to time with SC.
9.0 - General Maintenance:
DE: Only responsible for some of the post and chains, SC for the rest. Difficulty getting Southwark to maintain post and chains and certain grass areas on the Estate. Constantly asking. DE would be happy to take responsibility for the maintenance of the areas but SC unwilling to agree to pay for this.
DE: Graffitti on fence in Lowcross Wood Lane – privately owned fence, not DE responsibility.
FLOOR: suggest better liaison with SC
Post War Estates:
DE: applies the Scheme of Management equally to all properties within the Estate - tries to maintain properties in original condition. For post war properties specific policies, Guidelines on window replacement etc.
FLOOR: Some resident association were experiencing difficulty getting the DE to maintain their environments. Others spoke in defence of the DE and said their estates were well maintained. General concensus that DE needed to be more proactive over maintenance contractors and monitoring standards.
DE: Residents associations are valued and are effective means of dealing with the wishes of a majority of residents. Maintenance and gardening is agreed with RAs. DE currently in the process of negotiating new gardening contracts for the Estate. Complaints procedure on website: write to John Major and then if no response, to Angela Brownbill.