Now [in 1984] two years into their second century, the Estates Governors may well be asking themselves how their role in Dulwich affairs is likely to change over the next hundred years.  The flow of enfranchisements under the Leasehold Reform Act over the last ten years or so, likely to continue for some time yet, should give those concerned for the future development of Dulwich similar pause for thought.  A little historical perspective may assist.

 

The primary function of the Estates Governors, as was that of Dulwich College when (prior to 1882) the College was responsible for managing the Dulwich estate, has always been that of trustees for the various charitable objects started by Edward Alleyn.  These objects, and the proportions in which they benefit, have been altered and added to since 1619, but the important point to appreciate is that they do not include, and never have included, the people of Dulwich as such.  True, the Dulwich estate has, by and large, been managed wisely and well - property values testify to that.  Indeed property values are the crux of the matter, for, as trustees, the Governors' duty has been to maintain the value of  their assets so as to maximise income,  and it is therefore natural that they should have taken what steps they  could, by controlling development, to maintain the character of the area.

 

In  neighbouring parts of London, urban decay bears witness to badly-planned cheap housing, put up by speculative builders who were let in by land-owners eager for quick profits, without too much regard for the long term.  In Dulwich, development has been more judicious.   As E. T. Hall,  then Chairman of the Estates Governors, wrote in 1909, in a letter to the 'Daily Mail':

"The  Governors of the estate are laying it out on a definite 'town  planning' scheme ....  They offer [land] on terms  that are  lower than the ground rents of adjacent  private  owners (where  houses  are  allowed to be packed as close  as  possible) .....  But, as trustees having a public responsibility, (1) they will not allow overcrowding; and (2) they insist that the houses be built on hygienic principles.  It should be added that the Govern-ors do not contemplate allowing more than 320 acres of their uncovered land to be built  on; the remainder it is proposed to keep open - part as beautiful woodland, and  part .... as  lungs and playing fields for the inhabitants....."

 

In  pursuing this policy (arguably as much from good business sense as from any motive of "public responsibility"), the Estates Governors were simply continuing a tradition carried on  since Edward Alleyn's death in 1626, but which had been fraught with difficulty from the start.  Alleyn had ordained that College lands should be leased out for terms not exceeding 21 years at the best rent without a 'fine' (the capital payment normally paid on the grant of a lease).  Leases of this sort were quite common for agricultural land, and Dulwich was, of course, primarily an agricultural community until the early 19th century.  The great disadvantage of this system, however, was that a tenant who knew he would be out at the end of 21 years had no incentive to make improvements to his property, in particular to the buildings on it, since any benefit would accrue to the College on the expiry of his lease.

 

The College, aware of this problem, adopted two main devices to by-pass this restriction in its Statutes, and to encourage new or improved buildings. The first was to reach a tacit under-standing with the tenants that if they substantially improved their premises their leases would be renewed for a further 21 years at the same  rent, and again at the end of that lease, making leases effectively 63 years.  Some of the early College leases contain an express clause to this effect, called a 'recommendam', but when it was pointed out that the College was acting illegally the clause was omitted, although the practice continued.  Not until 1793 was it again put into writing, when, no doubt in response to pressure from tenants and "bearing in mind that ..... there is considerable opportunity for development, particularly  between Camberwell  and Dulwich" the College Audit Meeting resolved that "any person hereafter building a house on the  estate, under a contract with the College, shall hold the same for three terms of 21 years, without increase of rent".  The second device was to order the grant of a new lease, but to make it conditional upon the tenant spending, say, £1,000 on rebuilding or improvements, either before the lease was executed or within one or two years of its commencement.

 

The effect, in particular of the 1793 Audit resolution, was a flurry of activity on the part of the tenants in rebuilding, improving, or making additions to their premises.  For instance, in 1794 Mr Fleetwood Bury spent about £3,500, an enormous sum in those days, on 'Howletts Mead', and 'Corner House' (opposite the Mill Pond,  demolished in the 1920's).  The tenants' position was further strengthened by a special Act of Parliament in 1808, which permitted 84-year building leases (later extended to 99 years).   Subsequently, the abolition of the ban on a capital payment when a lease was granted meant that the College was now administering not only the Dulwich estate, but also a substantial equity fund which had to be invested for the benefit of Alleyn's foundation.

 

The enfranchisements under the 1967 Act have taken this shift of emphasis a stage further, but with a radical difference.  In former times the College, and later the Estates Governors, always knew that, whether leases were granted for 21, 63, 84 or 99 years, the land would eventually revert to them.  They therefore had a direct financial interest, as trustees for the Foundation, in ensuring that the value of the estate was  maintained.  Now that that con-straint has largely gone (although it is unlikely to disappear entirely), the logical con-sequence is that in future the Estates Governors are likely to be under pressure to agree tosales from purely financial considerations, regardless of  their effect on the character of the area.  Indeed, it could be argued that, as trustees, they have a legal duty to be motivated solely by profit.

 

There is the 'Scheme of Management', of course, but one should appreciate that although the Estates Governors are entitled to sell freeholds subject to the terms of the Scheme, they are not obliged to do so in cases (e.g. commercial properties or vacant building plots) where the Leasehold Reform Act does not apply.  It seems reasonable to suppose that builders, or local authorities, would be willing to pay more for land freed from the provisions of the 'Scheme' than they would for land which was made subject to it.  In such cases, residents of Dulwich concerned for the preservation of the character and amenities of the area would have to rely on the local authority exercising wisely its powers under the Town and Country Planning Acts, and although one can only be encouraged by Southwark Council's present attitude, there are reminders both within Dulwich (land acquired  by compulsory purchase), and on its borders, of what can happen when a local authority adopts a less enlightened approach.

 

If the character of Dulwich is to be preserved, and if it is accepted that the Estates Governors' interest in such matters is bound to decrease as time goes on and their role becomes simply that of administrators of an investment fund, is it perhaps time for the Governors, and the rest of us, to consider how best this may be achieved?   Under the Leasehold Reform Act,  the machinery exists for the Estates Governors to agree to the assignment of their rights and powers contained in the Scheme of Management to some other body or bodies, in certain circumstances, with the approval of the High Court.   Perhaps the Dulwich Society, or the Dulwich Residents' Association, would be the appropriate body, or smaller residents' associ-ations could be given responsibility for their own estates.  What is certain is that if the nettle has to be grasped, now is the time to do it.

 

(Written in 1984.  It was intended for publication in ‘The Dulwich Society Newsletter’, but the Society’s Chairman, Capt. Denys Wyatt, for reasons not disclosed, vetoed it.  Re-formatted on 9 July 2024.)