Refused: Proposed Development on Duncombe Hill Green [2020]

Continuing the discussion from Proposed Development on Duncombe Hill Green [2018-2019]:

image745×444 138 KB

Update: Lawyer Matt Lewin will represent the opposition to this development at the meeting on Jan 23rd

A revised application has been put forward and it’s going to the planning committee next Thursday 23rd. I’ve pasted the letter I got below

Dear Commenter,
Construction of a part three/part four storey building on land at the corner of Duncombe Hill and Brockley Rise SE23, to provide 6 two bedroom and 1 one bedroom self-contained flats, together with landscaping, cycle storage and bin stores (Please note revised plans and additional documents have been received).
I am writing to invite you to the Planning Committee on Thursday 23 January 2020 at 7.30 pm in the Civic Suite at Lewisham Town Hall Catford Road, London SE6 4RU.
You can inspect Committee agendas on Lewisham’s web pages at the following address: http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/mgCalendarMonthView.aspx?GL=1&bcr=1.
Hard copies of the committee agendas can also be inspected on the Committee date at the venue before the meeting begins.
A representative of the objectors will be able to speak to the Committee for 5 minutes giving reasons for objecting. Please phone me at least 48 hours before the meeting if you wish to speak at the meeting.
Please arrive for the meeting at 7.15 pm so that I can take details to arrange the business for the meeting. The order of business will not necessarily be taken from the order in the agenda but will reflect the extent of public interest and other Council priorities. Please note that these meetings frequently continue until 10 pm and it is not possible to predict at which time this proposal will be considered.
I would be grateful if you could see me when you arrive for the Committee meeting.

Planning committee agenda for the meeting on 23rd January: http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=184&MId=5618

…and specifically on Duncombe Hill Green: http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/documents/s71164/Land%20on%20the%20Corner%20of%20Duncombe%20Hill%20Brockley%20Rise%20London.pdf

It’s a meeting about DC/19/111251 (note that the Lewisham planning portal is currently down for maintenance). This application has been outstanding for a while, and was discussed at length last year on this forum

And the planning meeting agenda notes:

It’s highly likely this meeting will simply cement the refusal.

How beautiful this Green looks everyday. I like many are dam thankful for such a delightful area. Please kindly look elsewhere especially houses or areas that are not being used or need doing up. I like many don’t want to not see the green disappear for a buck. That patch of green is what makes Honor Oak Park. This history the memories they mean a lot especially to people who have lived here for 40years well regardless of how long. Can us local who care so deeply about this green beautiful patch have the power and rights to stop such actions being taken so the individuals don’t pocket something that will not shine like this natural beauty?? Council please don’t act so quickly to get millionaires to throw money around like it’s nothing. And take it to help you pocket a profit…Money just can’t buy class!!

Also there are trees there should you really be encouraging them to be cut down. After all they help give us life one being oxygen. Our environment is already being attacked and we should be showing better respect to that!!

The briefing doc makes it pretty clear on the last page the direction they want to go too:

Of course, there’s nothing to stop the developer changing the plans and trying again if this is refused, though some of the above points would be a severe hindernace at least.

Is anyone putting themselves forward as a representative of the objectors?
If not, then I can and will put forward my findings that the whole site is still subject to a non terminated,1968 Agreement held between London Borough of Lewisham and the previous incarnation of JC Decaux and requires that the whole of this triangular land by Duncombe Hill/Brockley Rise is maintained as open, green space by London Borough of Lewisham and accessible at all times as “public gardens”.
If anyone else wants to be the representative at this meeting, then I will provide the details revealled by my Freedom of Information application from September 2019 and already posted on a parallel thread, if required.
Let’s get a plan folks - I am putting myself forward to speak as a representative of objectors at the meeting on 23rd January 2020.

I’ve been monitoring the Planning application for this site very closely. The plans were lodged in March 2019 and have not been issued with a decision to date. Quite extraordinary when planning applications are usually decided after 6 weeks [or near].
As we are all aware - the TPO and hoardings issues were both decided and the site has been re-opened to public view, but not a decided issue on the main substance - i.e. on the planning application to build.
My legal training is of use in this matter to ensure that this planning application is refused. I have a copy of a non terminated legal agreement dated 1968 provided to me by Lewisham Council following my Freedom of Information request in August 2019.
Lewisham Council agreed to maintain the whole of the triangular site [which was owned by the privately owned advertising firm now known as JC Decaux who then sold part of the triangle to another privately owned developer company by way of public auction in 2018] subject to allowing the whole site to be kept as “public gardens”.
This legal agreement was not terminated prior to the Sale of Part of the site in 2018.
Therefore, the public can continue to use all of the Duncombe Hill site with Lewisham Council continuing to maintain the whole site until a legal termination/amendment of the 1968 Agreement occurs.
In my view, this is the most comprehensive, legal method to present at the planning meeting on 23rd January 2020 in order to ensure that there will be no building development on any part of this open green space.
If I speak at this meeting, I will also put forward the obvious fact that between Blythe Hill Fields and Honor Oak/Forest Hill then this triangular fragment is the only available green, open and public space. If any part is lost to development, then the loss cannot be compensated elsewhere.

Please post up any recent response correspondence received from local Crofton Park councillors.

Yes it’s been slow. I guess the enforcement action on the fence and subsequent appeal took some time, though one would think they would/should run parallel. The planning committee brief does detail all of that history though.

The committee briefing covers this in paragraphs 5 to 7. In short they believe the agreement to have been terminated prior to the sale of the land:

The brief also looks at the London Squares policy and designation, and shows the actual site considered for development is not covered, summarising in paragraph 10:

While finding a prior legal basis to prevent development on the site would have been nice, it’s not all doom and gloom, and they list plenty of reasons to refuse planning - and recommend to refuse it too, as per my previous post on this topic.

Apparently someone on the private Facebook group said they’ll put forward Matt Lewin, but there’s no public record of this, and I’m still inexplicably blocked from the private Facebook group so I can’t confirm unfortunately.

This is a copy of my Freedom of Information request to Lewisham Council dated 9th July 2019 and posted on a related thread here.
My request for Freedom of Information from LBL

1. I request copies of any relevant contractual agreements entered into between LBL and the private company owners of the entire site made prior to the ‘Sale of Part’ of the ‘Green’ in 2018 relating to the terms by which LBL agreed to maintain the ‘Green’ at public expense.
2. I request copies of any known, relevant documentation of any Land Registry restriction placed on the Title Deeds of the privately owned Duncombe Hill ‘Green’ plot and resulting from the contractual consequences of LBL agreeing to maintain the ‘Green’.

I only received a copy of the 1968 Tenancy Agreement and nothing else. Therefore, the Planning reference to a termination of part of the Agreement is fresh to me and unexpected. I note that whilst a copy of the Tenancy Agreement has been appended to the Report that there is no appended copy of the termination agreement and this is key to the argument.

Paragraph 7 of the 1968 Tenancy Agreement clearly requires that termination is not possible without the consent of the other party. In which case, Lewisham Council would have had to agree to permitting the loss of green space previously kept open as “public gardens”.

My FOI request clearly requested disclosure of any known contractual agreement entered into prior to the Sale of Part between Lewisham Council and any private company owners.
I haven’t received a copy of the alleged termination relating to the applicants land and no copy is appended to the planning committee brief.

Therefore, I believe that I will attend and speak against this application as something is clearly amiss.

What do you folks think on the logic in the above?

I’ve participated in this process before. Objectors are given only five minutes to make their case. That is not five minutes each, but five minutes total. It is the responsibility of the objectors to coordinate among themselves how this will be done.

If you plan to participate yourself it would probably be in yours and everyone’s benefit that you coordinate in advance with Matt Letwin which the Save Duncombe Hill Green group have chosen to speak on their behalf.

Good advice Starman, but not possible.
I joined the Save the Duncombe Hill Green FB group and was immediately banned after 1 post!
I’ll leave it to Matt Letwin to engage through this site. Otherwise, I will attend as an individual objector.

Is this for sure re Matt? I can’t see it listed on the group FB page?

The person that made the post on the Facebook group is quite prolific at blocking people on social media, and she may have blocked you from her posts, but not yet from the group as a whole.

Ok yes that appears to be the reason.

No doubt the developer will be pleased to hear it.

Well, I suggest to others here, who are still on the Duncombe FB site, to simply direct them to these posts and to communicate/copy their intentions.for others to comment.

…or for someone here to copy/paste the intentions from Duncombe FB posts!

The last time someone copied a post from the Facebook group our mod team got a copyright legal take-down threat from the lady in question!

I don’t think you need to worry.

At this point, all the objections have been collated and considered by the planning committee, and their write up makes it quite clear that their intention is to refuse the permission.

If you have the time, read their report, its deals with all the points very clearly.

It’s nice that Matt Letwin, who lives very locally to the area is accepted to speak, and kind of him to give his time, but it seems almost unnecessary at this point as there’s already been fantastic input and interest from the community.

From the report:

Well done to everyone that came together and contributed to the effort. Hopefully it will be straight through on the 23rd.

Well said @ForestHull

While hopefully the decision is a done deal, I have seen adjustments made based on the input of the two parties. I’d lay a bet the developer will use their time well. So as a final piece of advice, get to the session early. The planning officer should help you find other objectors and take the few minutes available to strategize.

Good luck.

I’ve contacted Lewisham planning and have registered my intention to object to the proposal as Chair of the Ravensbourne Park Gardens park user group. I’ve also written to planning by end of day Friday, 17th January 2020 to request evidence of the 1968 Tenancy being unilaterally terminated by JC Decaux prior to the sale of its section of the ‘Green’ by public auction in 2018.
To back this up further, I have also made a Freedom of Information application on the same day to request the same.
Just to recap that the planning Appendix to the agenda issued in advance of Planning Committee B’s meeting on 23rd January 2020 does not provide evidence of termination and only shows a copy of the Tenancy itself. This corresponds to the same copy of the Tenancy I received following my FOI application for all relevant contractual information from July 2019. My FOI application did not flush out any termination of contract correspondence.
At the same time in 2019, my correspondence with Vince Buchanan [Lewisham Greenscene Officer] and Damien Egan’s office provided me with responses that avoided answering specific questions to pre and post auction contracts for Lewisham to maintain the ‘Green’.
No mention from either that the Tenancy was terminated.
Therefore, the only reference to the 1968 Tenancy being terminated is now found (for the first time) in the Planning agenda notes for the meeting scheduled for 23rd January 2020 but without evidence shown in the Appendix.
Whilst I appreciate the fact that the current planning will be refused, it still will not prevent further applications and will not resolve how the site can be accessed by the public or maintained for the future.
I suspect, until proved otherwise, that the 1968 Tenancy was not terminated prior to the auction sale in 2018 and that JC Decaux could have assigned the land in breach of this ongoing contract. If I’m correct, then the Tenancy is still is legal effect and should still be laid out as “public gardens” maintained by the London Borough of Lewisham and not built on. This will resolve all the issues raised in the above.

The question is this - Does anyone have any understanding in relation to the termination of the 1968 Tenancy issued to London Borough of Lewisham by JC Decaux prior to the auction sale to the current developer company in 2018?

If someone could copy/paste this question to the FB site of Save Duncombe Hill Green and any other forums, then you have my permission to do so. This is key to saving this open green space.
Thank you.

This email to me from Vince Buchanan was his only response [he didn’t respond to my follow on emails so I made a FOI application which only disclosed the 1968 Tenancy] and you will note that he failed to outline that the original 1968 Tenancy was terminated. He only states that Glendale did not have a contract to maintain the new owner’s land following its enclosure.

Buchanan, Vincent Vincent.Buchanan@lewisham.gov.uk

Fri 05/07/2019 10:52

• You;
• Maynard, Peter;
• Hollands, Pat



Dear Austen,

Thank you for your email in relation to Planning application DC/19/111251.

I am having some difficulty understanding exactly what you are requesting. However, I can confirm that there is no agreement to continue with the maintenance of the area recently enclosed by the owner of the land at Duncombe Hill .

Only sections of the site that remain the responsibility of the London Borough of Lewisham are maintained via our contract with Glendale Grounds Management.

I hope my interpretation of your request is correct. If you believe that I have misunderstood your request please let me know and once your request has been clarified I will, if possible provide you with additional information.

Kind regards
Vince

It sounds as if the occupier/owner of the dining room on the ground floor of No. 5 Duncombe Hill would have a rights of like compensation claim against the developer. Experts told me this is usually 1/3 of the increase in value of the property that reduces the light. Since it is currently an open site I would suggest that the legal claim would be for 1/3 of the sale price of all the properties!

Hello everyone. It’s Matt Lewin.

Thanks to all on the thread for the campaigning and helpful suggestions. I’ve registered to speak at the meeting on Thursday. I live directly opposite the site and I work as a barrister practising in planning law, so would hope I am well qualified to do so.

In response to Austen’s suggestion of using the 1968 tenancy agreement as a basis for objecting - unfortunately it’s not a planning issue, so is not something the Committee could rely on in refusing planning permission.

It seems to me that the agreement has been terminated and, in any case, the land was sold 18 months ago. Planning regulates the use of land, not who owns it.

I agree with the comment above that with a very strong recommendation for refusal, there’s not much more to add to the officer’s report. Nonetheless I think it’s important to show the developer that he has a fight on his hands!

I look forward to seeing some of you at the Town Hall this week.

Look out for some news on an application to register the land as a village green in the next week or two.

Matt

Best of luck at the meeting @matt_l, and thanks for posting on SE23.life. It’s good to have updates shared here where everyone on the internet can see them.

A very good point, and thank you for taking this on! This particular developer does seem to be quite beligerant, so everything helps.

So to clarify my view, given the choice of you speaking or not speaking - yes please, give it your all!

Even with the Case Officer’s recommendation to refuse, it’s still the Committee’s decision. So nothing’s won till it’s won. And I’ve been caught out at Committee hearings when revised plans got submitted on the day of the hearing and on which objectors had had no chance to comment. (And don’t get me started on “Conditions”. They don’t get enforced.)

Following refusal the developer then has 6 months in which to appeal.

At appeal the Planning Inspector only considers those grounds for refusal that were actually given in the Council’s decision letter. So it’s important to make sure that all grounds for refusal get mentioned in the letter. I’ve been involved in a case where a Committee has refused an application following a discussion where they had many concerns but because only one thing was mentioned in planning dept’s actual decision letter the inspector only considered that one matter and upheld the appeal (ie over turned the committee’s decision and granted permission).

Let it go Chris, bigger things to discuss on this thread than taking shots at the Facebook group.

I completely agree and hope lots of people turn up to see the decision.

It’s hard to see it not refused though - there are some very specific and non-subjective reasons for refusal listed here by the case officer. For example, six of the seven properties are undersized against recommended areas for internal and external amenity. For example, 5 trees subject to TPOs would have to be removed, and a sixth impacted.

For the committee to ignore this would be to go against the very policies they are employed to uphold.

Imagine the planning permission were granted - some very serious questions about the integrity of the committee would surely have to be answered.

In this case I think major changes would have to be made in order to address the complaints, including new architectural drawings. It would seem inconceivable to me that objectors or the planning committee could usefully review and then go on to approve them in a short timeframe - given its taken them something like 10 months to get this far.

I’m definitely not one to count chickens before they are hatched, and I know strange things can and do happen. But this case, at least, looks pretty well buttoned up to me.

Anyway, let’s all show our support on the 23rd.

Yes let’s not forget how committed the council appeared to be to saving the Bell Green Gasholders (with massive local support, the local listing, and the various councillors standing behind the campaign). Things can change very quickly.

Well done @matt_l for stepping up to the plate and giving this campaign the benefit of your expertise in standing to speak in objection to this hideous proposal.
Of course a strong recommendation for refusal doesn’t guarantee the same outcome, nor will a vote being carried to refuse prevent this developer from taking their madcap idea to Appeal, but a strong, well-put-together statement stressing and demonstrating all the ways this is at odds with Planning Policy will ring true in the ears of the Inspector and, hopefully, make it too compelling not to concur in his or her decision; and I have every confidence that you’ll do exactly what’s required in that sense. So good luck and thank you.

Matt,

If the 1968 Tenancy is not a planning matter, then why has the planning agenda specifically referred to it and uploaded a copy in the Appendix? The tenancy governs the use of the land as “public gardens” and would clearly be considered in relation to a change of use to develop the site.
From your post, it appears that you have not had sight of any evidence to demonstrate the termination of the Tenancy [no one has to my knowledge] and until shown, then a non-terminated and valid tenancy would appear to most obvious course of action to automatically request a refusal of the planning application based on use of the land.
The tenancy requires JC Decaux ‘not to assign’ their land without either mutual consent or 12 month termination notice. Any breach could be pursued 6 years following, so the sale at auction 18 months ago in within this period for Lewisham Council to pursue, if required, to restore the “public gardens” requirement.
Anyway, I should hear back from Planning this week in relation to providing evidence to support termination notice and I shall post up the response.

I’m neither a lawyer nor a *planner, but surely the 1968 tenancy is merely contractual between 2 parties, and therefore outside of the planning remit, so any skullduggery to sweep it under the carpet is presumably either a criminal or civil matter?

(* I did, however, have a huge run-in with the Head of Development Control in Bromley about a new house that I wanted to build, on what he insisted wasn’t a plot, and my application went to committee with a very strong recommendation for refusal, supported by a very vocal and influential local residents’ association, and I won the day with no professional help. I have also beaten the local planners twice since then - so I have a proven limited understanding of the subject).

Any legally binding contract related to the ongoing use of Duncombe Hill ‘Green’ is a clear planning matter. I have had no definitive disclosure from Lewisham Council to suggest that the 1968 Tenancy has been validly terminated. Until I do, then the use of the whole site is for Lewisham Council to maintain as “Public Gardens” and this provides an ongoing, legal impediment to any land owning applicant to succeed with a change of use far more potent than any other objection.
Simple disclosure to prove it was would confirm that I am incorrect to pursue this line. However, even the agenda for this Thursday’s meeting [Section 2 para 7] and the Appendix fails to provide even a date when the termination notice was allegedly served on Lewisham Council, let alone a copy to match the copy of the Tenancy.

Not one person on this Forum appears to support my view, even Matt who is a barrister. I wonder if my individual efforts will be proved correct. I don’t know, but para 7 of the Agenda provides sufficient, ongoing vagueness for me to continue to challenge the issue and not merely accept what has been set out.

I personally don’t understand everything legal. But I hope those like yourself and others who care so much about this public space within our community stick together strong on this has we do on the forum. I don’t read everything but I love the support it’s been given.

Do you think it’s in a Planning Inspector’s power to enforce that contract?

Whether or not, should consent be granted, the contract were to be duly challenged and prevented the proposed development is another matter.

Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate and admire your efforts and tenacity in fighting this for the good of the neighbourhood.

I support your individual efforts on this, and hope your view can be proved correct

As you’ve said before, establishing such a legal basis could block future developments, not just this one battle.

It is not the task for the Planning Committee to deal with contract enforcement. It’s role is to assess whether the ongoing use as public gardens has altered at any point since 1968 in order to vote on the proposed change of use for the applicant’s land.
A non-terminated tenancy, which had a clear purpose to lay out and maintain public gardens use, binds both JC Decaux and the new owner at present and the transfer of land ownership to the new company owner complicates the issue. However, legal delay is likely to be more of benefit to keeping the site open to all and places JC Decaux and the developer owner on a significant back foot in my view.
Lewisham Council’s legal team will no doubt deal with enforcement matters as a wholly separate matter to Planning concerns.
If Lewisham Planning cannot present evidence of a valid Tenancy termination prior to this Thursday’s meeting, then I will be speaking and requesting that the current application to build on the site is refused due to a legal impediment to a proposed change in land use and due to the enduring terms of the non terminated, legally enforceable Tenancy Agreement dating from 6th May 1968.

I’ll post up any response I receive from Lewisham planning following my contact by email to them last Friday. I anticipate that I will not be contacted and am convinced that JC Decaux sold their land at public auction in 2018 to the applicant owner without a valid termination of the Tenancy beforehand.

It’s going to be an interesting week!

Below is a copy of my email sent to Lewisham Council Planning before end of day, Friday, 17th January 2020. I will copy paste any response.

Dear London Borough of Lewisham,
I will be speaking at the meeting scheduled for 23rd January 2020 and have already contacted Claudette Minott today to confirm.

One query for your clarification - the agenda refers to a terminated Tenancy Agreement dating from 1968. I cannot source any evidence to substantiate the assertion that the Agreement [which ensured the site would be kept as “public gardens”] was terminated prior to the sale of Part by JC Decaux to the applicant in this matter.

I made a clear request under a Freedom of Information application in July 2019 for disclosure of any relevant contracts held between Lewisham Council and any private company relating to the whole triangular site and only received a copy of the 1968 Tenancy Agreement.

I note that Planning Committee B notes for the meeting on 23rd January 2020 only contains a copy of the Tenancy [addendum].

My simple request is this - kindly provide me with the evidence for the alleged termination of the 1968 Tenancy Agreement.

Yours faithfully,
Mr Austen Jones
Chair of the Ravensbourne Park Gardens User Group SE6

Dear Matt,

I trust that you are keeping pace with my posts. I believe that you need to consider that JC Decaux has sold its land at public auction in 2018 in breach of the 1968 Tenancy requirements “not to assign” its land without permission from Lewisham Council and there is still no evidence that the Tenancy was validly terminated at any point since 1968.

I believe that I have clearly identified the crux of the matter with the best option to proceed and I welcome your revised opinion.

I urge you not to waste too much of the limited and valuable time you have addressing the Committee with rantings about this 1968 Tenancy Agreement.
I believe concentrating on relevant Planning Policy and the Green’s previous use and its value as a community and environmental asset will be far more beneficial.
Obviously, that’s only my opinion but whatever happens, as you said in an earlier post, it’s gonna be a an interesting week - so good luck with it!

Sold at public auction wow shocking!!! Silly me but…
Sorry not everyone was aware about this and now we fight to keep it an open public space. This doesn’t add up and is misleading which makes people want to gather important info!! The whole picture isn’t being painted well from the start so maybe his point is valid. Hidden info shouldn’t be covered up or over looked. It makes sense to why some have little faith when truth starts to unfold. That’s how it seems and though some points about this part argument is challenging and I understandable I do think Austen’s shouldn’t be shut down regardless of it being sold or not!! Hmmm makes you think how this is starting to look. I hope this works out well and fairly. Though I do lean more to the beautiful space we have now and enjoy admiring daily to remain open.

Unfortunately, at the Committee stage, passion doesn’t win Planning arguments.

My money’s on a calm & pragmatic approach to highlighting Policy breaches winning the day.

I understand that lol

Hi Austen,

Thanks for your further comments.

I’ve gone back to look at the tenancy agreement.

In summary:

• The tenancy agreement does appear to have been terminated.

• Even if it had not been terminated, that is not a basis for refusing planning permission.

• Therefore the objection must be limited to planning issues.

It seems to me that, in all likelihood, the tenancy agreement has been terminated. Clause 3(h) provides that the Company [i.e. JC Decaux] shall “…at the determination of the tenancy … remove all advertisement hoardings and fences erected upon the new site land and to deliver up the land cleared and levelled”. The hoardings were removed several years ago which implies that the tenancy agreement was terminated at around the same time.

Even if that is wrong, and the tenancy agreement was not terminated in accordance with its terms, it is still not a reason for refusing planning permission. This is because the Planning Committee can only take into account “material planning considerations”.

It is well established that a material planning consideration is one which relates to how land should be used and/or what form of development (if any) should take place on it. This is quite a helpful explanation of the concept: https://www.eastriding.gov.uk/EasySiteWeb/GatewayLink.aspx?alId=97933

The tenancy agreement in this case is essentially a private agreement between the Council and JC Decaux. This is quite different from what the Planning Committee are considering, which is whether, in principle, the proposed development is acceptable in planning terms (i.e. good design, no harm to highway safety, adequate level of privacy, etc). The terms of the tenancy agreement have no bearing on the planning issues arising from the development.

This means that the tenancy agreement is not relevant to question of whether planning permission should be granted and is therefore not a basis for refusing planning permission. The officers’ advice is correct and so any objections based on the tenancy agreement would have to be disregarded by the Planning Committee.

Note that the planning permission would not override the tenancy agreement. This means that the Council retains contractual rights under the agreement and could, in theory, sue JC Decaux for breach of contract (although there appear to be no grounds for doing so). However, as the developer was not a party to the tenancy agreement, the Council cannot enforce the contract against the developer. Therefore this process sits entirely outside the planning system and is not a basis for refusing planning permission.

Perhaps we’'ll get a chance to meet and discuss further on Thursday.

Matt

Hi all,
It is now clear that the whole of Duncombe Hill ‘Green’ is still governed by use as “public gardens” requirement under the non-terminated [you guessed it!] Tenancy Agreement from 1968 still held between Lewisham Council and the advertising company, JC Decaux [who have sold their land section to the current developer company].
This legal impediment to the proposed change of land use for the site is a 100% guarantee to have the current application refused at the Planning Committee meeting being held on 23rd January 2020.

Lewisham Council has a number of logical reasons for wanting the tenancy agreement to be viewed by the public as terminated in order to avoid the legal costs of dealing with DC Cadeux’s suspected breach of contract by selling its land without notification/termination and to continue to save money to maintain the site as required under it, for example.

Therefore, it would be completely in the interests of Lewisham Council to voluntarily disclose any held termination notice, but they haven’t because it is apparent that this notice does not exist!

This is a great day for the future of Duncombe Hill ‘Green’.

Tue 21/01/2020 17:34
Dear Planning Committee B/Lewisham Planning,

You have failed to provide any response to my emails to you dated 17th and 21st January 2020 by end of day today, as I clearly requested. Both emails requested a copy of the alleged termination notice served on Lewisham Council by JC Decaux in order to terminate a tenancy agreement dating from 6th May 1968 relating to the use of the applicant’s land as “public gardens”.

It is now abundantly clear for all to comprehend that your planning committee B has outlined under paragraph 7 of its agenda for its meeting to be held at the Civic Suite on 23rd January 2020 [under Section 2 - Site and Context] that a lawful and valid notice was served by JC Decaux on Lewisham Council to terminate the tenancy, but without providing any evidence of such within the agenda or in response to my ongoing correspondence to date.

As such, Lewisham Council is misleading the public and an immediate investigation is required in order for Planning Committee B to understand and publish the name of the source of this false information.

I trust that the agenda will be amended in advance of the meeting [on 23rd January 2020] and to show quite clearly that it appears that a legal impediment to a change of use of the applicant’s land has now been accepted by Planning Committee B due to the enduring nature of the 1968 Tenancy Agreement.

Yours faithfully,
Mr Austen Jones

Austen,

I suggest that you also write a formal letter to Lewisham Council’s Chief Executive asking him to investigate your complaint.

@Austen_Jones I personally think @Anotherjohn, @Sherwood and @matt_l are exactly right.

Pursuing the legal basis for protection has a lot of merit and should be pursued, but it is not of material concern for the planning committee - especially where the case notes already dismiss this argument.

Do you still plan to speak at the meeting on the 23rd, or do you think a single statement from Matt would be the most effective use of the allowed 5 minutes at that meeting?

In my email to planning this morning I pointed out that Matt’s objections differ to mine and that both of us should be permitted to speak unless they object to that. Therefore, I will be speaking as it currently stands.
I am baffled that your opinion is that the USE of land is not of material concern to planning and reject that the legal basis found under the tenancy to continue its use as public gardens is an irrelevance when they will be considering a CHANGE OF USE to build on the site. I’m simply stunned.
Also, that you have accepted the agenda’s conclusion under para 10 without requiring any proof that the tenancy was terminated.
I’ve requested proof of the termination from Mayor Egan, Lewisham Greenscene officer Vince Buchanan and the planning department and still no copy of the alleged notice to terminate the tenancy which governs the USE of the land. This also does not resonate with you and others.

I would like to hear Matt’s opinion on the above in order to coordinate the approach.

I think the rules are that only one objector is allowed to speak, and only for five minutes.

Ideally (in my opinion), the community should choose who they would prefer to represent their concerns:

The results of this will not be relevant. There are only 2 planning applications being considered and it will be down to the Committee to decide on the night…

No, I simply suggest it is pursued apart from the planning meeting - which already has advice to dismiss this argument.

Good.

I think that’s a bit presumptuous and rude to be honest.

I believe I have been polite throughout.
Let’s agree to disagree. I respect your position and I trust that you respect mine.
I don’t need to exchange further on the subject with you now that we are both clear on the issue.

@matt_l and @Austen_Jones thanks both for giving up your free time to look into these issues, and detailing them here.

@Austen_Jones your arguments seem valid to me but I am no expert in law, or this area. As @matt_l actively practices law in this field, and will have I expect lots of experience, it might be wise to defer to his opinion as the expert as such and have a chat with him beforehand, and perhaps afterwards in the terms of the points you detail.

It will be important to use the 5 minutes as effectively as possible, and if @matt_l 's view is the approach he has outlined is the best to ensure success, it’s something we should support in my view. That’s not a slight on your points, which as I say seem perfectly valid and could be explored at another juncture, if required.

Thanks everyone.

edit - if you practice law in this field my apologies.

Just one point for all to consider - I’ve requested a copy of a single page document from Lewisham Council since July 2019 from all relevant departments to prove a valid termination notice of the tenancy which governs the use of the Green as publicly accessible space.
Even a Freedom of Information application on the same subject yielded zero to suggest that any such document exists. The planning committee have failed by end of day today to provide it.

There is a clear determination by Lewisham Council to withhold this document from public view due to the reasons posted in my other posts to outline that huge importance of the Tenancy Agreement from 1968, which I’m afraid Matt Lewin has not thought to be relevant.

I believe that Matt’s opinion is 100% incorrect at law and that is why I will be speaking as an objector.

If you think the results of this poll are irrelevant, why have you voted? (for yourself!)

Please… Your passion for this cause is both admirable and much appreciated - but your intransigence and refusal to back off on the side issue of the land agreement, at least for now, could water-down the effectiveness of our chance to give a planning barrister free reign in front of Committee.

I will not reply further to you. Your posts are not relating to the actual issue and are personally directed and I find this very hurtful and unnecessary.

I don’t know you.
I’m commenting objectively on what’s in front of me.
I was brought up in Agnew Road, which is opposite the Green.
Me, my brother and my sister and all of our friends used the Green as our little place to ‘hang’ for many years - so I have some real love for it.
It is now under threat from some greedy tosser.
HELLO! A PLANNING BARRISTER HAS OFFERED TO TRY TO PREVENT THIS PLACE FROM BEING SHAT ON!
You, presumably a good person, are also trying your best to protect the Green for the community - but, unfortunately, and with the greatest respect, you are barking up the wrong tree with CONTRACT LAW at a PLANNING COMMITTEE.
Unfortunately, it’s your problem if you find that hurtful - it certainly wasn’t my intention.

Maybe not, but please also have a look at the Save Duncombe Hill Green Facebook group. There is a post there directly addressing you by name, written by a lawyer, and giving further reason and pleas to redirect your energy.

I think you mentioned you are blocked from that group, so use private browsing or your partner/friends/dogs computer or device if needed.

Perhaps that message from another lawyer resonates with you?

OMG - it’s a contract relating to LAND LAW.
I will not be engaging further with your posts.
I respect the fact that you place your trust in an expert.

Exactly, and this is precisely where you’re missing the point.
I’m sure you will appreciate that there are barristers who specialise in land and others whose expertise in in planning .
At a Planning Committee meeting I’d like my case to be put by the one who does planning.

I would strongly suggest that others cease to engage on this matter with this guy. It really is a zero sum game. While I don’t know him personally, I’ve observed his behaviour on other community issues and noted strategies that attack those who do not support his position.

For instance negative online reviews for sponsors of the Blythe Hill Festival which at least admittedly notes the review has nothing to do with the company’s services. Local businesses like Pitta Patta Day Nursery and Babur will have suffered from this action.

So rather persuade those not wishing to be persuaded I’d suggest writing to the committee to support Matt as a your nominated speaker, particularly if you had objected to the application.

Ultimately it will be up to the planning committee to make decisions in these matters but support for Matt may help sway decisions should they not be inclined to support two speakers.

I voted like this because…
I see there is a lot of passion to protect this area which is great.
I like most of us would like to see a respectful approach to addressing this without anyone falling out or attacking each other.
Being hot headed to prove what could be a valid point may backfire and maybe those points should be addressed another time if kindly allowed. Some dodgy squatters just don’t deserve such rights and neither does being a smart arse. No digs aimed sorry for using a naughty word. Anyhow…I to do hope on the day this fight to save the green shines through.

Can I suggest a 5 minutes tea break.

I practised law until 2007 and my wife is a practising lawyer. We are both of the opinion I have expressed throughout.
We’ve just read the FB post in which the poster clearly ignores the fact that the meeting agenda clearly specifies that notice was unilaterally served on Lewisham Council to terminate the tenancy under para 7. The poster argues that the termination occurred through mutual consent [not the case], which would mean that Lewisham Council agreed to lose our green space rather than defend it!

We now have opposing legal opinions on this matter, which is absolutely fine.

I’m content to accept that Matt has a perfect right to object to the proposal but I do not accept why I should be told to stand aside rather than joining with an additional objection on the points I believe have merit and to now face a barage of personal abuse to bully me into submission.

We’ve regrettably suspended @Austen_Jones account for a little while.

The reasons are that his posts aren’t furthering the discussion, meaningfully engaging or respecting other opinions, are going in circles, may not be acting in the best interests of the wider community. Critically they also appear to be turning on valued contributors who are positively contributing efforts into both the discussion and planning objection - people we would very much like to help and thank.

Please send any questions or comments on the above to @moderators, keeping this topic on, er, topic

Good luck to @matt_l for the meeting this evening.

Hope the outcome guarantees local people will keep this green space. There’s precious little of it left in London, outside the parks.

Ditto the break-a-leg message to Matt.

I’ve checked Lewisham’s website and it doesn’t look like they’re doing a webcast of the meeting tonight - am I right in that?

IMG_20200123_1936244215×2657 2.12 MB

IMG_20200123_1942234608×3456 2.94 MB

The applicant isn’t present, and only @matt_l is speaking in opposition.

And it’s been refused!!!

Great stuff - thanks for the update @ForestHull and for your efforts tonight @matt_l, and everyone else who has contributed!

Superb! Thanks for the update @ForestHull, and to @matt_l for representing all the local people who objected

Sorry kind of a bit like…
So is this Good news for us ??? Am I allowed to jump for joy kind of not sure at moment how to take this in

Great stuff!

Was it unanimously carried? (I can’t imagine anyone would have voted the other way - or even abstained)

Councillor Tauseef Anwar also put in a worthy objection, but @Matt_l’s was a master class! It was factual, informative (apparently developers disregard for planning committees and the work caused can be considered as material concern according to a recent Ministerial direction) and ended with a charm offensive thanking the planning officers and committee for their efforts.

The chair also thanked @matt_l and said it was “quite an objection, well done”.

The vote came quickly and was unanimous to reject the planning application (discounting one abstention due to declared interests - a relation living close to the site).

Other interesting comments were that one committee member said they thought it should be unacceptable to view proposals that don’t include affordable housing, while another complained that the only accessible dwelling had a single bedroom, very critically questioning “disabled people don’t have children?” One committee member was also interested in the size of the poll that has previously been organised and submitted to determine prior public use of the green space (180+ respondents, I forget the exact number).

So a good outcome, and a refusal so solid that any attempt to appeal would surely be futile given the current plans.

Well done all, and well done @matt_l - you are far too modest!

I’ve just heard the fantastic news - so thank you for standing for us tonight @matt_l

[Side note, I sought and received permission from the chair for the pictures.]

Thank you.

So that abstention was fair enough under those circumstances.

Also, it’s good to hear that Matt was so on it - we were so lucky to have a planning barrister because I dread to think what it would cost to engage someone of that calibre.

Yep - and pretty much required in order to have an unbiased and unquestionable vote, which this most certainly was.

Very lucky indeed.

Final point - tonight it was said that this application was recommended to go before committee because of public interest. So well done to everyone that was interested or involved in whatever way, and to the planning department for responding so well.

Matt - can I just add my heartfelt thanks for you giving up your time and considerable skill to protect this lovely patch of land we are all so fond of. A hearty congratulations on tonight’s outcome. We all owe you a drink and if you ever frequent The Chandos please make yourself known to Max the manager - there will be a drink waiting for you there from me.

Thanks to everyone for their support. Even to Austen, who is clearly on the same side of this fight to protect the Green.

Continues here: Proposed Development on Duncombe Hill Green - Planning Refusal Being Appealed