Dulwich residents who have been following the continuing skirmishes between the Estates Governors and local residents/amenity societies, may well be asking themselves: "What became of the Co-Ordinating Committee which it was agreed at the public meeting on February 29th should be set up by the Dulwich Society, the Dulwich Residents' Association, and the Dulwich Village Preservation Society?"  Well, despite the absence of reports so far in these pages, I am able to tell you that the Co-Ordinating Committee was established as proposed at the public meeting, has met regularly since its inaugural meeting on May 9th (four times to date), and may (from my admittedly biassed viewpoint, as a member of it) be said to have done a considerable amount of useful work.  At the time of writing, in mid-November, this work has yet to be translated into identifiable achievement, but nevertheless I feel that the title given to this article - 'A Progress Report' - is not unjustified.

 

Each of the three amenity societies were invited to nominate two individuals to serve on the Co-Ordinating Committee.  From the outset, the two representatives of the D.V.P.S have been their President, Professor Peter Whiteman, Q.C., and Chairman, Paul Harman.  The D.R.A. have been represented by their Chairman, John Chilcott, and latterly also by their Vice-Chairman, John Aldwinckle.  Our Chairman, Captain Denys Wyatt, felt that it would be more appropriate for him and our Vice-Chairman, Peter Lawson, to maintain their positions on the Advisory Committee, but for two other persons to be appointed to the Co-Ordinating Committee.  As Chairman of our Planning Sub-Committee, Reg Collins was the natural choice for the first place; at the suggestion of our late Treasurer Jim Davis, I was nominated for the second, and am grateful for the privilege of being allowed to serve on what I think has turned out to be a more significant body than any of us first thought it would be.

 

As an ad hoc Committee, with no formal constitution or, on the face of it, any power to make decisions binding on its three constituent member organisations, the new Committee initially

had to tread somewhat warily.  Meetings were arranged on neutral territory (the Old Grammar School, to which these days the word 'neutral' is about the kindest adjective one can apply).  The Chair for each meeting was to be taken in rotation (each Chairman to arrange a minutes Scretary for that meeting), and since it was important that we should not antagonise any of our respective member organisations and at the same time be seen to present a united front, the Committee's resolutions should, if possible, be unanimous.

 

Having established these basic ground-rules, I think we were all pleasantly surprised by the common ground which, as soon became apparent, existed between the three societies.  There has, I think, been a regrettable tendency to exaggerate our differences in some quarters.  It cannot be denied that differences exist - each of the three societies displays a different emphasis of interests within its membership - but we all share the objective of preserving what is best in Dulwich for the benefit of all its residents, and in pursuing this there should be no place for petty jealousies or jockeying for position.  This was amply illustrated at our first meeting (chaired by Reg Collins), when the most pressing item on the agenda was the application by the D.V.P.S. for admission to membership of the Advisory Committee, which had previously been rejected by the Estates Governors.  The Co-Ordinating Commit-tee resolved ­unanimously­ that since the D.V.P.S. fulfilled reasonable requirements as to strength and breadth (geographically) of membership, its application should be supported.  This was reported to the Estates Governors, and was followed by correspondence between Reg Collins and the Chairman of the Estates Governors, Marshall Field, over the proposed size of the Advisory Committee, assuming the D.V.P.S. wereadmitted to membership of it.  The Co-Ordinating Committee's view was that the amenity societies should be allocated six members, two from each organisation.  When the Board of Estates Governors met on August 6th, it agreed to the admission of the D.V.P.S. but, for reasons which remain unclear (but which may have had something to do with available manpower among the Governors), it resolved that the representation of the amenity societies should continue to be limited to four.  This meant that there had to be one representative from each of the three societies, but that the fourth place should be 'nominated' (in the sense of 'proposed, for approval by the Estates Governors') by the Co-Ordinating Committee.

 

Apart from the interesting inference that the Estates Governors evidently recognised the Co-Ordinating Committee as a body of some authority, this decision had unfortunate results.  The uncharitable might see it as a deliberate attempt by the Estates Governors to sow discord among the amenity societies, and whilst it did not have this effect it certainly required the Co-Ordinating Committee to devote a considerable amount of time and effort in seeking to clarify what had been allowed unnecessarily to become an uncertain situation.  The flurry of correspondence, particularly towards the end of October, with copies going to all interested parties, must have led Dulwich's postal workers to wish they had stayed out on strike!

 

To explain the problem as briefly as possible, the Advisory Committee is the body set up under the Scheme of Management established by virtue of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. The 'Managers' (i.e. the Estates Governors) 'form' the Committee, to meet not less than twice a year, which shall consist of equal numbers of representatives of the Managers and repre-sentatives of such local residents' and amenity societies as are approved by the Managers, the number of places allocated to each such society being decided by the Managers.  There must be a minimum of four-a-side (if one has to think in terms of sides), but the maximum is limited only, in theory, by the number of Estates Governors (usually twenty-five).  Once an amenity or residents' society has been 'approved', and allocated its number of places, it is for that society to 'nominate' the individual(s) who will represent it.  'Nominate' must in this sense mean simply 'name', rather than 'submit for approval', so that the Estates Governors have no power to veto nominated representatives, or state which members of any particular society it 'recognises' as such representatives (without the Chairman, or other proper officer of the society, confirming that such representatives have been properly nominated), still less delegate such non-existent power to the Co-Ordinating Committee.  Because of these procedural difficulties, the formal Advisory Committee meeting scheduled for October 4th had to be replaced by an ad hoc meeting (to which two representatives of each of the three societies were invited, to discuss the constitution of the Advisory Committee itself), and at the time of writing I have learned that the same fate has befallen the meeting scheduled for November 15th, as to which more later.  Not until after the Board of Estates Governors meets on December 10th and ratifies, as it is now hoped and expected that it will, an increase in the size of the Advisory Committee to six-a-side, and/or lays down some permanent formula for allocating places on it, can the Advisory Committee formally meet again.

 

The Advisory Committee is, at present, a 'consultative' committee.  The Managers are obliged to supply representative members of it with notice of all applications made or notices served under the relevant sections of the Scheme of Management, principally the so-called 'licence applications' relating to properties subject to the Scheme (usually enfranchised freeholds), and to 'have regard' to any representations made to them by members of the Advisory Committee on these "or otherwise concerning the amenities of the Estate".  The Estates Governors are under no obligation to act on these representations.  Actual decisions on licensing applications are taken by the Trees and Surveys (Estate) Committee, which is a sub-committee of the Board of Estates Governors to which the Board has delegated its powers in this respect.

 

Without going into too detailed an explanation (although the subject really requires it to be fully understood), the Estates Governors' duties, on the one hand as trustees (for the benefi-ciaries of Alleyn's foundation), and on the other as Managers (to preserve the amenities of the Estate for the common benefit) place them in a position of potentially conflicting inter-ests.  It has to be admitted that there are differing views as to the extent of this conflict and the seriousness of its effects, and whether, assuming these effects are serious, the problem should be solved radically or by a process of amelioration, and the subject has been a matter for hot debate on the Co-Ordinating Committee.  Suffice it to say that at our meeting on October 17th the Committee passed a resolution, by a majority of 5-to-1 (reservations having been expressed by the D.R.A.), that from January 1989 the Advisory Committee should assume the decision-making functions of the Estates Governors' own Trees and Surveys (Estate) Committee, insofar as those functions relate to licence applications under the Scheme of Management, and a related resolution (passed unanimously) that meetings of the Advisory Committee, and its agendas and decisions, should be made public.  These resolu-tions, and another one (again passed unanimously) designed to assist the Estates Governors in improving the efficiency of the Estates Office, are tabled for discussion at the ad hoc 'Advisory Committee' meeting scheduled for November 15th, the results of which will perhaps (deadlines permitting) be reported elsewhere in these pages.

 

One has heard reports that some of the Estates Governors regard these resolutions, quite wrongly in my view, as a vote of no confidence in the Board, and designed to provide a check on its powers.  On the contrary, I would hope they would be regarded as a means of re-establishing and strengthening confidence in the Estates Governors, but at the same time ensuring that local residents have, and are seen to have, a say in preserving the amenities of the Estate for the common benefit.

 

Lest you should think that the Co-Ordinating Committee has been confining itself to this one topic, namely the composition and powers of the Advisory Committee, I can assure you that it has been actively considering other matters.  Problems specifically concerning lease-holders have been raised, at the instigation of the D.R.A., and although it now seems gen-erally accepted that the Advisory Committee should be concerned with all residents, regardless of legal status, and should not permit special pleading or representation by any one category, whether leaseholders or freeholders, the suggestion has been made (and is again a matter tabled for further discussion on November 15th) that a separate Committee, similar if not identical in composition to the Advisory Committee, should be set up to deal with exclusively leasehold questions.  The Co-Ordinating Committee's remit from the public meeting held on February 29th also included exploring the possibility of setting up a 'Dul-wich Assembly' of Residents and Tenants Associations, and a possible constitution for such an Assembly (principally designed as a forum for exchange of information and views between the smaller residents associations, but with possibly wider powers and objectives in mind) is on the agenda for our next meeting, scheduled for December 5th 1988.  Perhaps (and this is purely a personal view) such a Dulwich Assembly might ultimately become the principal vehicle for expressing opinions by residents on all local matters, whether involving leaseholders, licence applications, or amenities generally.  Each of the organisations which affiliated to such an Assembly would continue to preserve its autonomy, and pursue its own special interests.  Certainly such a body would both carry more weight with the Estates Governors and simplify their dealings with local organisations which at present have to be carried out, at the very least, in triplicate.  The Estates Governors have quite enough to cope with at the moment; we should do what we can to enable them to deal with administering the Dulwich Estate more efficiently, if not more democratically.

Patrick Darby

(File created 21 September 1998, and re-formatted 10 July 2024, but this paper must have been written in November 1989.)