BETFRED LOSE PLANNING APPEAL

Although the planning inspector has reached his decision by a somewhat circuitous route the end result is welcome news in Deptford.

Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 20 July 2011
by David Smith BA(Hons) DMS MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 16 August 2011

Appeal Ref: APP/C5690/A/11/2151228 93-95 Deptford High Street, London, SE8 4AZ
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the development of land without complying with conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted.
• The appeal is made by Done Brothers (Cash Betting) Ltd against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Lewisham.
• The application Ref DE/156/93/TP, dated 17 January 2011, was refused by notice dated 30 March 2011.
• The application sought planning permission for use of the ground floor and basement as a building society branch premises without complying with a condition attached to planning permission Ref DE/156/93/TP, dated 16 September 1974.
• The condition in dispute is No (2) which states that: “The premises may be used only for a building society and for no other purposes (including any other purposes within Class II of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1972).”
• The reason given for the condition is: “In order to ensure that any other office use would be appropriate in this shopping frontage”.

Decision
1. The appeal is allowed in part and planning permission is granted for use of the
ground floor and basement for financial and professional services (Use Class A2) at 93-95 Deptford High Street, London, SE8 4AZ in accordance with the application Ref DE/156/93/TP, dated 17 January 2011, without compliance with condition (2) previously imposed on planning permission Ref DE/156/93/TP, dated 16 September 1974 and subject to the following conditions:
1) The premises shall be used for any purpose within Class A2 of the
Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) other than as a betting office.
2) A shopfront window display shall be provided at all times.

Preliminary Matters
2. As set out above the proposal relates to non-compliance with a condition that
limits use of part of the appeal property to a building society. Permission is sought for any use within Class A2 of the Use Classes Order but the premises are intended to be occupied as a licensed betting office trading as BetFred. I shall therefore concentrate on the proposed end user. The application also refers to external alterations but planning permission for these works was subsequently given separately and the appeal does not concern them.

3. The last occupier of the unit was Halifax which, according to the appellant, has been a bank since 1997. There is also confirmation that occupation by the Leeds Building Society initially and then by Halifax took place for at least 23 years. It is therefore argued that Condition (2) has been breached for in excess of 10 years and that use for other purposes within Class A2 is therefore lawful having regard to section 171B of the Act. This is not a matter to be determined as part of this appeal. Moreover, in order to give it significant importance a definitive Lawful Development Certificate should be in place. As there is not only limited weight can be attached to this possibility.

Main Issues
4. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the vitality and viability of
Deptford District Centre and whether it would give rise to anti-social behaviour, crime or disturbance to local residents and users of the town centre.

Reasons
Vitality and viability
5. Policy CS6 of the recently adopted Core Strategy sets out the retail hierarchy across the Borough and the Council’s general expectations and intentions including the designation of primary areas within the District Town Centres. The appeal relates to a unit within the pedestrianised section of Deptford High Street which is within the Core Shopping Area of the District Centre. Here Policy STC4 of the Lewisham Unitary Development Plan seeks to strongly resist any changes of use involving the loss at ground floor level of Class A1 shops.

6. However, as the use of Nos 93-95 as a building society is already permitted
there would be no breach of Policy STC4. Moreover, over 70% of the units in the centre would remain in retail use if the condition was removed and the premises do not form part of a row of 3 non-retail uses together. According to criterion (a) these are both indicators of an over-concentration of non-retail uses to be taken into account when considering exceptions to the general thrust of the policy. On this basis, there would not be an undue proliferation of office uses generally.

7. The premises have not been vacant for long and the Council is critical of the
absence of marketing evidence to show that its preferred retail use should be discounted. However, this does not form part of any of the relevant policy tests and the reality is that a non-retail use was accepted in 1974. Therefore this does not form a reasonable basis for resisting the proposal.

8. There are 5 other betting offices within the Core Shopping Area and 2 more in
the High Street but outside the Core. This seems excessive to many but the proposal would result in less than 6% of the total of 108 units within the Core Area being in that use. In any event, the Use Classes Order does not limit the particular nature of uses within Class A2. ODPM Circular 03/2005 Changes of Use of Buildings and Land confirms that this class is designed to allow flexibility. Furthermore, there are no local policies that seek to distinguish between betting offices and other kinds of Class A2 use.

9. Some representations bemoan the loss of the former building society/bank use
and say that the proposal would lead to a less diverse mix of uses as a result. That may be so but as previously explained the planning system does not operate to regulate the number of any particular type of financial and professional service. Rather, as Circular 03/2005 puts it, there should generally be “free interchange” within a wide range of such uses.

10. The appellant maintains that a betting office could generate more custom than
a Class A1 use and refers to appeal decisions from Long Eaton, Paignton and Bridgwater. However, no direct evidence in this regard has been placed before me and therefore this point has little weight. It is also claimed that the proposal would increase diversity in line with Policy EC4.1 of Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth but that is patently not the case. Nevertheless, there is also nothing to indicate that other types of Class A2 use would be significantly different to the permitted building society in terms of customer attractiveness and contribution to the economic well-being of the District Centre.

11. The key divide in terms of development plan policy is between retail and non- retail uses. The proposal would not lead to the loss of a retail use and so would not conflict with the Unitary Development Plan or Core Strategy in that respect. Furthermore, by that yardstick there would be no harm to the vitality and viability of Deptford District Centre.

Anti-social behaviour, crime or disturbance
12. PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development refers to the creation of safe
communities as a key principle. Safe environments where crime and disorder or fear of crime does not undermine quality of life or community cohesion are also a key design objective. In a more general way criterion (d) of Policy STC4 of the Unitary Development Plan indicates that non-retail development within Core Areas should not harm the amenity of adjoining properties.

13. There is a strong body of evidence from local residents and shopkeepers that the existing betting offices in the Core Area give rise to anti-social behaviour, crime and disturbance. Representations refer to feelings of being intimidated and threatened by groups of people ‘hanging around’ outside other betting offices. There is a persistent thread of concerns about associated drinking, drug taking and begging as well as reports of verbal abuse, fighting and shouting. As far as many of those living and working locally are concerned there is a clear link between these happenings and the existing betting offices.

14. The appellant company regards the views of third parties as subjective and
prejudiced. It may be that some have other objections to betting offices which are not planning matters but this does not mean that their observations, based on experience of the area on a daily basis, should readily be put aside. It is true the information provided is anecdotal rather than “formal” with exact details of dates and incidents. However, the frequency of the views expressed paint a clear picture of the nature of the problems experienced with betting offices in Deptford High Street.

15. The evidence of the Police is also instructive. Both the Sergeant for the New
Cross Safer Neighbourhood Team and the Licensing Officer oppose the proposal. The position ‘on the ground’ is confirmed by the Police in terms of complaints about existing premises and of harassment, alarm and distress caused to the public by beggars, drinkers and drug users. The Sergeant believes that another such venue would add to crime in the area.

16. The Licensing Officer has provided statistics of reported crime for betting
offices across the Borough and in Deptford High Street. There were 18 offences locally between March 2010 and March 2011. Of these, 12 involved criminal damage, theft or public order offences but details are scanty. Indeed, as the appellant company points out, these figures have little meaning because they provide no comparison with individual retail uses in the High Street or other betting offices elsewhere or the High Street in general. It could be, for example, that they were linked to a single operator. A higher proportion of offences could also be explained by the requirement to report them all.

17. In addition, over the same period a total 102 calls were made to the existing 7
betting offices in the High Street which did not result in a recordable offence. Again the purpose of these calls is not apparent and there is no comparative data to assess whether this is a high or a low figure. A resident states that according to Police statistics crime is twice as high at the southern end of the High Street, where there are 5 betting offices, than at the northern end where there are 2. However, a range of other factors may affect the situation.

18. A Premises License under the Gambling Act of 2005 was issued in February
2011. This includes a number of conditions including the installation and maintenance of a fully operational CCTV system and the display of notices stating that drugs and drunkenness will not be tolerated on the premises. It has to be assumed that these will be adhered to. This provides a degree of confidence about the manner in which the establishment would be run although it cannot, of course, guarantee behaviours outside it.

19. In addition, the letter of 14 February 2011 to those who made representations comments that public nuisance is not a matter that can be taken into account. Furthermore, that the observations made by the Police about the link between the number of betting offices in the High Street and public nuisance was not a “relevant representation”. Licensing is a separate matter but, in any event, this correspondence suggests that it should not be treated as determinative.

20. Drawing things together the evidence shows that betting offices in the area are
associated with crime but whether this is abnormally serious has not been established. More persuasive are the accounts of people familiar with the area about disorder associated with existing premises. In general terms there is no reason to suppose that those visiting betting offices would be more likely to commit a crime or to behave in an anti-social manner than anyone else. However, for whatever reason, the evidence that premises in Deptford High Street act as a ‘magnet’ for miscreants is compelling.

21. Just because there may be problems in connection with other betting offices does not necessarily mean that these would be repeated in conjunction with Nos 93-95. The appellant company suggests that this could lead to a greater dispersal. However, this is a large unit and presumably it would not open unless the operator was satisfied that it would generate sufficient custom to make it profitable. If the appeal were dismissed then the current state of affairs would remain but, to my mind, an additional premises would simply add to problems and should not be supported.

22. Consequently the proposal would be likely to increase anti-social behaviour and
disturbance although the implications for crime are less certain. The appellant company is critical of the Council for referring to the potential for harm to be caused in this respect rather than expressing certainty. It seems to me that it is not possible to be categorical but that the weight of well-informed evidence suggests that this outcome is likely to materialise. Put another way, it would be foolish to ignore the convincing accounts given or to assume that they would not be repeated in association with the proposed betting office.

23. As a consequence the proposal would make the High Street a less safe place
for residents and other users of the town centre. In this way there would be a broad conflict with the intentions of criterion (d) of Policy STC4 of the Unitary Development Plan and also with the aims of PPS1. The same would not necessarily be true of every betting office but it is the conclusion in this case based on the evidence about existing operations in Deptford High Street. In making this finding limited weight has been given to the Portobello Road appeal decision quoted since full details have not been provided.

Conclusions
24. The proposal would not harm the vitality and viability of Deptford District
Centre since it would not lead to the loss of a retail unit and would comply with relevant development plan policies in this respect. However, it would be likely to give rise to anti-social behaviour and disturbance to local residents and users of the town centre. There is also a risk of an increase in crime. As a result use of the High Street would become less safe and pleasant.

25. PPS4 confirms the overarching objective of sustainable economic growth and
that such applications should be treated favourably. This theme is reiterated in the Ministerial Statement on ‘Planning for Growth’ of March 2011 as significant weight is attached to the need to secure economic growth and employment and also in the draft National Planning Policy Framework. The proposed betting office would occupy an empty unit and create jobs. However, there is no indication that this is the only viable use of the premises or of the employment that would be generated. Since the main aims of PPS4 also encompass safe environments these factors do not outweigh the harm identified.

26. The application sought to vary Condition (2) to enable all Class A2 uses to
occupy the unit. Apart from betting offices there is no evidence that the limitation to a building society only should continue. Hence the condition in its current form is no longer necessary or reasonable and should be replaced. Paragraph 87 of the Annex to Circular 11/95 The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions indicates that conditions should not be imposed which restrict future changes of use which the Use Classes Order would otherwise allow save in exceptional circumstances. In this case I am satisfied that excluding a betting office is justified because the tests set out in the last sentence are met.

27. The appeal should therefore be allowed so that the range of acceptable
activities within Class A2 can be broadened in line with Government economic objectives. However, a condition should be imposed which precludes use as a betting office. The original permission contained a condition regarding a shop window which should be re-worded and re-imposed. As a fresh permission is issued to stand alongside the original it also makes sense to adjust the description of development to suit. So although a betting office use would be unacceptable the appeal should be allowed for the reasons given.

David Smith
INSPECTOR

George Wheelhouse 1772-1864

George Wheelhouse was born in Scarborough on 22 Aug 1772 the fourth and youngest recorded child of John Wheelhouse and Ann Graham who had married in the town on 15 Nov 1764. George was baptised in Scarborough on 4 Nov 1772.

Little is known of his first forty years, but by 1814 he was a distiller in Deptford, appearing in a list of creditors of bankrupt marine stores dealer Thomas Fleming that appeared in the London Gazette on 18 June 1814. Fleming's business had been in Broomfield Place (now Evelyn Street) but he had been committed to the Fleet prison.

In 1851, at the age of 78, he was described as a Distiller on the census residing at Deptford Bridge. George had never married and his household consisted merely of James Leask described as a Distiller's Clerk and house servant Maria Wells.

By the 1861 census he was described as a retired distiller, although he still lived at Deptford Bridge. His household now comprised of cook Mary Ann Platt and Housemaid Fanny Ellis. Next door neighbour William Holland was now the Distiller.

On 12 August 1863 the 90 year old George made a new will, but with no close family he made numerous charitable bequests. However, on the same day as he made the will he also made a codicil leaving four figure sums to each of his named executors and granting them discretion over what do with the residue of the estate.

THE WILL
This is the last will and testament of me, Geo. Wheelhouse, of Deptford-bridge, in the county of Kent. I direct my just debts, and funeral and testamentary expenses to be paid. I give, devise and bequeath all and every my property, estate and effects to my trustees and executors hereinafter named, upon trust to get in and convert such parts thereof as are not money into money, and I direct that their receipts shall be good discharges for the same, and thereout I give the following sums: To the British and Foreign Bible Society, £1000; to the Westminster Hospital, Middlesex Hospital, Charing Cross hospital, Royal Free Hospital, North London Hospital, St Mary's Hospital, Metropolitan Free Hospital, Seamen's Hospital Society, Royal Hospital for Incurables, Royal Infirmary for Children and Women [and three other charitable institutions. £500 each]: to the Great Northern Hospital [and four other charitable institutions. £300. each]. I give to the Royal National Life-boat Institution the sum of £250, for a life-boat for Bridlington, near Scarborough. I give to the Scarborough Dispensary £200, to be expended in annual sums of £10 each year until exhausted. I give to the poor of the parish of Deptford, to be expended in annual sums of £30 each year until exhausted, for bread and coals at Christmas, the sum of £500. I give the sum of £2500 to be expended by my trustees in erecting forty-three dwellings for the poor of Scarborough, and in paying the sum of £1 10,s. aunuully at Christmas to the. occupiers of such dwellings. I give the residue of my property (after payment of the foregoing amounts) upon trust for my executors, to hold the same for such uses and purposes as I may by codicil or deed direct or appoint, and in default thereof then for the same to be expended and appropriated within three years after my decease, in such way and manner and for such purposes as they, or the majority of them, may in their judgment or discretion agree upon. I devise all my estates vested in me as trustee or mortgagee to my executors, upon the trusts affecting the same. I appoint Alfred Rhodes Bristow (tho solicitor of the Admiralty), John Flesher, of, &c, Wm. Hodgson, of, &c, Wm. Roundtree, of, &c. aud Edward Welsh, of, &c, executors and trustees of this my will Witness my hand this 12th Aug. 1863.

THE CODICIL
This is a codicil to the will of me, George Wheelhouse. I give to each of the three first-named executors of my will, viz. Alfred Rhodes Bristow, John Flesher and William Hodgson, the sum of £5000 apiece; to my executor Edward Welsh the sum of £2000; and to my executor William Roundtree the sum of £1000, which said five several legacies I (five as tokens of my esteem; and I direct them severally to be retained by my said executors for their respective absolute benefit, free of legacy duty over and above and in addition to any sum or sums they, or any of them, may owe to me or my estate (and which sums I give and forgive to them accordingly), and I also give such live legacies, irrespective of any interest they my said executors may ultimately take in the residue of my estate. I give to Mr. Gay Shute, my surgeon. £600: I give to my friend Mrs. Verney (wife of Mr. George Verney), Mrs. Noble (wife of Mr. Samuel Noble), Mr. Simpson, of New-cross, Mr. Thompson, of Deptford, the sum of £500 apiece; I give to my friend Mr. George Hooper Hartnoll the sum of £600.; I give to Alfred Isaac Bristow (the. son of my executor) the sum of £500; I give to the charity of Christ's Hospital (otherwise called the "Blue-coat Schoolat Newgate-street, in the city of London. £500; I give to the Rev. Mr. Money, of Deptford, the sum of £100; I give to Mrs. Welsh (the wife of my executor) the sum of £200: I also give and devise all my freehold estate at or near Deptford-bridge, in part whereof I reside, to my executor Alfred Rhodes Bristow. for his absolute use; and so far and as to such freehold estate at Deptford-bridge only I alter and revoke my will, and in all other reapects I ratify and confirm my said will, and declare this a codicil part thereof. Dated this 12th day of Aug. 1863.


George Wheelhouse died on 28 Apr 1864 at his home at Deptford Bridge. On 5 July his five executors met and with the exception of the Revd Flesher voted to divide the residue of the estate amonst themselves.

Presumeably prompted by the Revd Flesher, George's only surviving cousin Elizabeth Buckle, nee Wheelhouse, and her husband Ambose commenced proceedings in the High Court of Chancery. The matter came before vice-chancellor Sir William Page Wood on Saturday 5 Nov 1864. Sir William was unimprssed by the executors behaviour pointing out that if George had intended that the executors should take the residue personally he could have simply declared that at once; George clearly contemplated some other act to be done. The vice-chancellor found for the Buckles and ordered the appointment of a receiver to administer the estate.

LEGACY
If George had made two or three large bequests then his name would probably be better remembered, but he spread his money around.

It would appear that the only institution that still bears George's name is the Wheelhouse Square Flats charity in his native Scarborough. The accounts lodged with the Charity Commission state that it was formed as The Almshouse Charity of George Wheelhouse, comprised in a declaration of trust dated 6 January, 1865. The Royal National Lifeboat Institution received government stock with a nominal value of £200 (which may have been worth the £250 stated in the will) but this seems to have gone into the Institution's central funds (in January 1865 a new £390 life boat at Bridlington was bought out of money raised by the Manchester RNLI branch).

William Holland who took over the distillery in the 1850s and other Holland family members formed Holland & Co, and at some point an inscription was made in the distillery's stonework stating "Established 1779. Holland and Co's Distillery and Bonded Store." The 1779 is possible, as a distillery, but not Holland's, as the previous use of the site as a sugar refinery may have ended in the mid 1770s when the owner James Salway went bankrupt. However other sources including archaeological excavations carried out in 2007 suggest that the distillery is early 19th Century, which means that distilling on the Deptford Bridge site could have been started by George. Holland & Co sold out to Seager Evans in 1922 and gin production continued. Seager Evans were taken over in 1956 and the distillery was closed. The names Holland and Seager will be remembered in the current development, but George Wheelhouse sadly will not be.

Marine Tower

Following the Marine Tower double fire fatality at the beginning of February, the London Fire Brigade have issued an enforcement notice against Lewisham Homes detailing various failings.

The notice issued pursuant to Article 30 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 deatails the following failings:

• Failure to review the fire risk assessment. (Article 9)
  
• Failure in the effective management of the preventive and protective measures.(Article 11)
• Failure to provide and/or maintain adequate and clearly indicated emergency routes and exits that lead to a place of safety. (Article 14)
• Failure to establish an appropriate emergency plan. (Article 15)
• Failure to ensure that the premises and any facilities, equipment and devices are maintained in an efficient state, in effective working order and in good repair. (Article 17)

This is hardly the first time that Lewisham Homes have been the subject of such an order. In November last year a similar notice was issued in regard to Pitman House, Tanners Hill, Deptford.

Why do the London Fire Brigade appear to wait until after major incidents before checking fire safety in Lewisham tower blocks?

The Sad Death of Edward Pluck

The inquest into the death of Edward Pluck took place in the Brown Bear Public House in Deptford High Street on Monday 29th May 1893. Pluck had committed suicide after being sacked from his job as a bricklayer in the Royal Victoria Victualling Yard, supposedly because he had reached the age of 65. Subsequent to the inquest, questions were asked in Parliament, but the government, as governments do, absolved itself of all responsibility.

Edward Pluck was born on the Isle of Sheppy, Kent in early 1828, the son of bricklayer William Pluck and Sarah Ann Wilmott who had married in 1815. Edward followed his father into bricklaying and married a Welsh girl Sarah Pearce in late 1848. Edward and Sarah lived in Sheppey and had at least 10 children that Edward was always able to provide for.

In 1885 the family moved to Deptford when Edward got a job working for a contractor in the victualling yard. Edward and his colleagues were paid less than those working directly for the Admiralty and were not paid for public holidays. In early 1893 Edward was persuaded to sign a petition to the Admiralty seeking better pay and conditions. Edward and at least two other workers were subsequently sacked on the pretext of their age.

On the evening of Saturday 27th May Edward left his home at 48 Gosterwood Street telling his wife that he was going to see their daughter in Deptford High Street. Charles Ashby, a police pensioner, who shared the house in Gosterwood Street saw Edward near the Mansion House Public House (on the corner of Evelyn Street and Rolt Street) walking towards the High Street.

At 4.00am the following morning Police Constable Sidney Stanniforth was patrolling the Surrey Canal when he saw a body a few yards from Knacker's Bridge. He pulled the body from the water but it was cold and dead.

At the inquest Sarah identified her husband's body and their son Robert gave evidence that his father had been depressed since losing his job and had seemed rather strange before going out on the Saturday evening. Charles Ashby and PC Stanniforth gave their evidence and then the inquest heard from Edward's foreman at the yard.

George Alfred Harvey told the inquest that he had known Edward for 'some years' and had been his foreman for seven. He explained that he was employed in the Victualling Yard by Mr Holloway. He told of the petition that had been sent to the Admirality asking for more money and payment for public holidays. He then claimed that their was a clause in Holloway's contract with the Admiralty that precluded the employment of anyone over 65 years old. He went on to say that an assistant civil engineer had come round and inspected the men and considered the deceased and several others too old and they had been discharged. He (Harvey) would have liked to have kept Edward Pluck on for another two years, but he had no alternative.

The jurors were outraged one calling the sacking cruel, a second commenting "There is no chance for a man with gray hair." and a third sarcastically adding "We'll have to dye it."

Coroner Edward Carttar said "I cannot understand such a regulation being made. If there was to be such a rule, it should apply to the top as well as the bottom of the tree. It did not apply to Cabinet Ministers and Bishops, who were considered competent to continue their engagements until they were over eighty or ninety years of age, and received their salaries. Some men at fifty-five years of age were not so competent as others at seventy-five. In this case the contractor appears to have had no option in the matter under the terms of the contract."

The jury returned a verdict that the deceased committed suicide by drowning in the Grand Surrey Canal, at the time labouring under mental derangement through being turned out of his employment, as over sixty-five years of age, under the terms of a Government contract.

The inquest was reported in the local papers and there the matter might have rested if it had not come to the attention of Kier Hardie MP. Hardie had been elected the previous year and was already adept at using parliamentary procedures to highlight matters of social concern. On Tuesday 13th June he raised the matter in the House of Commons first asking an Admiralty minister about the sacking of men who had signed the petition and Pluck's subsequent suicide. The minister confirmed that three of the men had been sacked, but that he had "...no official information as to any other dealings of the contractor with his workmen, and the Admiralty has no power over them and no responsibility for them." Hardie then asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what provision the Government intended for their workmen, like Pluck, who were dismissed on grounds of age. The Chancellor replied that Pluck was employed by a contractor, but that the Government knew of no such condition. Hardie then asked the Admiralty minister again, and by this time the minister had ascertained that there was no such clause in Holloway's contract with the Admiralty. Not content with having asked three questions on the matter Hardie then sought an adjournment debate on the issue, which after some procedural discussion , was declined.

As a result of Hardie's interventions the matter was subsequently reported in the national press.

Days of Wine and Roses

This afternoon there was a short ceremony at Brockley and Ladywell Cemetery to mark the restoration of Ernest Christopher Dowson's grave on the 143rd anniversary of his birth. The original memorial has been restored as fully as possible and a new stone at the foot of the grave quotes two verses of his poetry. The restoration was paid for by public subscription after a facebook page was set up in his memory. Attendees were an ecletic mix of local authors, poets and local historians.

Dowson was an industrious translator, novelist and poet; mainly remembered for his poetry that has given us such phrases as "days of wine and roses" and "gone with the wind".

He was born in Lee, where his mother's family came from, and his father had a ship repair yard in Limehouse. The family fortunes declined in the 1890s. Ernest's father Alfred died from an overdose in 1894, the same year that Ernest contracted tuberculosis. Ernest's mother committed suicide early the following year. Ernest's only sibling Rowland Corbet Dowson emigrated to Canada a few weeks after their mother's death.

By the beginning of 1900 Ernest was in a bad way when a friend, Robert Sherard, found him wandering apparently penniless in the Euston Road and took him home to 26 Sandhurst Gardens, Catford where he died of tuberculosis and general neglect about six weeks later on 23 February 1900.

Despite his apparent poverty, in May the following year his estate was valued at £1,119 18s 7d, he did not leave a will and Rowland inherited. Rowland had moved to the United States in 1898 and married in about 1906. In 1910 he was working as a tiler and living with his wife Florence in a boarding house in Seattle, Washington. He died on 20 September 1913 and is buried in Mount Hope Cemetery, San Diego, California.

Twinkle Park Event

As part of Greenwich Council's Parksfest 2010 Twinkle Park presents Musical Notes this Saturday 17th July, 1 - 5pm.

Music from jazz quartet Paul Zec & Friends, Deptford Divas and Venavi Drummers and a drumming workshop from the latter.

Petanque, pond dipping and also creative fun with Artyparty Arts.

At 5.00pm it will only be a short stroll to the Dog and Bell in Prince Street.

Twinkle Park is in Borthwick Street on the corner of Watergate Street:

View this map on Multimap.com
Bird's Eye view on Multimap.com
Get directions on Multimap.com

McMillan Herb Garden

As part of the St Nicholas Community Festival on Saturday 12 June, the McMillan Herb Garden present three hours of postry and music featuring Paul the Poet, Leanne, Provoceteers, Bloco Maluco, Goy, Sons of Phycho Yogi and Ruthi Tooti.

The garden is here opposite St Nicholas Church.

View map of SE8 3HA on Multimap.com
Bird's Eye view of SE8 3HA
Get directions to or from SE8 3HA