I suspect that was just the temporary 'covering up builders crap' garden- most new builds have one of those for a bit...
I have only seen my parents' build close up, but doesn't the build process bugger the local ecosystem? They had to put padded fences round trees to protect them from diggers etc, but they also had a much bigger site- this one I guess just storing building materials would squash quite a lotIt's not really "temporary" if it destroys a load of ecosystem that's had decades to form though.
I have only seen my parents' build close up, but doesn't the build process bugger the local ecosystem? They had to put padded fences round trees to protect them from diggers etc, but they also had a much bigger site- this one I guess just storing building materials would squash quite a lot
Maybe we can all chuck handfuls of seeds over as we pass by.
^this.The trees and other larger part of the ecosystem are not necessarily the most significant parts of the story. The mycelium layer in the soil, the seeds that lie dormant, the bluebell bulbs, the pupae and egg sacs and beetles in the the leaf litter: all that will have disappeared when they shovelled out the top soil to lay that turf. And the turf itself will have come from some turf farm, and so be lacking in species variety; or if it was stripped from some other environment, may bring in seeds etc. that are not local.
Compacting the soil during the build will have a detrimental effect, but if the fungi and earthworms were still there, the soil would recover if left alone for a year. From what I could see, the far end of the garden - where the children were playing in the dingly dell and picking bluebells - was pretty much intact for the whole build, and then they went and tidied it up with that turf. Turf like that is a monculture, and comparatively dead in ecological terms. Hopefully, some of what remains on the park side of the fence will recolonise the garden in time. Maybe we can all chuck handfuls of seeds over as we pass by.
I met some park committee members busily furtling around the boundary of the house whilst I was somewhat desperately trying to use some of the fitness trail equipment. They said they were establishing a planting plan. Think it was native hedging as they have done elsewhere around the park. That's probably the best solution for reestablishing habitat. I don't remember what was there being particulalry established when I viewed the place.The trees and other larger part of the ecosystem are not necessarily the most significant parts of the story. The mycelium layer in the soil, the seeds that lie dormant, the bluebell bulbs, the pupae and egg sacs and beetles in the the leaf litter: all that will have disappeared when they shovelled out the top soil to lay that turf. And the turf itself will have come from some turf farm, and so be lacking in species variety; or if it was stripped from some other environment, may bring in seeds etc. that are not local.
Compacting the soil during the build will have a detrimental effect, but if the fungi and earthworms were still there, the soil would recover if left alone for a year. From what I could see, the far end of the garden - where the children were playing in the dingly dell and picking bluebells - was pretty much intact for the whole build, and then they went and tidied it up with that turf. Turf like that is a monculture, and comparatively dead in ecological terms. Hopefully, some of what remains on the park side of the fence will recolonise the garden in time. Maybe we can all chuck handfuls of seeds over as we pass by.
Plot should have been returned to OUR park. It juts out into it.
It was the plot the vicarage sat on. Replaced with a 50s brick rectangle for reasons unknown...
So CofE land?
I guess when the land was granted to London by Brockwell Hall owner, his forebears had already gifted away the rectory site.
I think lang rabbie may know some of the history to this?
The property remained in the hand of the Diocese of Southwark until the recent sale. I don't think there was any right of first refusal given as this would have been communicated to prospective purchasers.I suspect I may have misled people in a post of almost a decade ago, as I thought the gardens of the ofher houses on Effra Rd only got incorporated into the park post-war, but in fact, the vicarage site has been an anomaly since the Brockwell Park extension was opened in 1902
However, I do definitely recall a plan being presented by Friends of Brockwell Park somewhere around the millennium (before the vicarage was sold off by CoE ) to incorporate the vicarage site into the Park.
I recall with less certainty (anecdote from someone in a pub) that Lambeth was given first refusal on the former vicarage site - can't now remember if this was when CoE sold up or a subsequent sale) at a price that would now seem ridiculously cheap but turned it down.
I
The property remained in the hand of the Diocese of Southwark until the recent sale. I don't think there was any right of first refusal given as this would have been communicated to prospective purchasers.
Not sure. Article you linked to seems to suggest 1991? They sold off a past vicarage to St Matthews in 2000 although held on to part of the land and applied to build a new one on it. This was turned down due to Rush Common legislation. The vicarage had moved a couple of doors up in the 70s or 80s. It is still there and occupies the best part of two regency houses knocked together.I think the "right of first refusal" was no more than a discussion at around the merger of St Jude's parish with St Matthew's in 2002? It certainly wouldn't have resulted in any covenants etc. This also roughly coincided with the last time that the diocese were looking at juggling their holdings of residential accommodation - they had a spate of selling off old vicarages and trying to fit new ones into other church owned premises about ten years ago.
So when exactly did it cease to be used for housing clergy?
Oh. That's been for sale for months. Was 1.5 million, then reduced to £1.35 and seems to be under offer.The Slip House I think, original subject of this thread.
That's the main house though - I think snowy_again was talking about the independent flat on the ground floor.Oh. That's been for sale for months. Was 1.5 million, then reduced to £1.35 and seems to be under offer.
ETA: obviously not £1.35
Eh? Ground floor is architect studio. Sale is of the whole building (according to the plans).That's the main house though - I think snowy_again was talking about the independent flat on the ground floor.
Ah ok. The ground floor was designed so it could be used as an independent flat instead of architect studio, thoughT that was the "granny flat" being referred to but yes it seems the sale is for the whole building.Eh? Ground floor is architect studio. Sale is of the whole building (according to the plans).
When I visited it was set up as an architects studio for about six people - how very versatile!Ah ok. The ground floor was designed so it could be used as an independent flat instead of architect studio, though that was the "granny flat" being referred to but yes it seems the sale is for the whole building.
That's the main house though - I think snowy_again was talking about the independent flat on the ground floor.
That's the one I was saying I could not see a board on this afternoonNope it's me being 40% correct again - I mean the Dulwich Road Vicarage, not the SW2 Brixton one.
Nope it's me being 40% correct again - I mean the Dulwich Road Vicarage, not the SW2 Brixton one.