Proposed Development on Duncombe Hill Green [2018-2019]

Interesting to see this patch of land at the junction of Brockley Rise and Duncombe Hill for sale, with suggestion of a development (subject to consents):
Brockley Rise/Duncombe Hill, London, SE23 1JP
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-72710996.html

I think this is a particularly bleak part of the neighbourhood (despite being the location of a great bar and restaurant) - so would be great to see it spruced up with some stylish new flats and shown some love.

image745×444 118 KB

It’s a bleak, grey part of the neighbourhood, except for that little patch of green space and its mature trees.

I wish they’d leave these precious green spaces alone. Once they’re gone, they’re gone forever.

That seems really cheap. I can only guess what that parcel of land would fetch if it came with planning permission. One could build a large exceptional house on that land. And with that price at a fraction of what it would be to buy and rebuild.

Guess there are all sorts of considerations regard this, way before picturing it covered in property.

Priced to sell without planning consent, always an indicator of likelihood of getting said consent.
Mature tree, allowed to be removed, or left in situ (the latter I would hope)
The path, is that a public right of way, if so has to remain, and is therefore not part of the plot.

Plot shrinking rapidly already.

In reality it is about half the visible plot.
Maybe enough room for a good compromise of public space and a building.

image1680×1050 756 KB

And what about if that big tree’s got a TPO on it!
Its trunk must be about a metre in diameter, which would (should’ve been spelled ‘wood’ just for @starman ) mean that the workable plot is reduced even further due to the Root Protection Area, which is 12.5 times the trunk dia.

I’ve worked in wood.

In reality, I think they know exactly what they are selling and the liklihood of anything being done with it other than a play area or something low impact.

If you look at the photos on Rightmove it shows the exact footprint and it doesn’t include the footpath.

I wonder who the current owner is and why they’ve decided to sell now. My own view is that it’s a shame to lose these little patches of green - I know this isn’t an idyll, but these sorts of pocket park are surely better than building up to the edge of every road.

I pass this plot every morning and have often thought that more use could be made of it: maybe a more formal parkscape or some sort of play area which retained some of the grass and trees.

Given that I believe we’ve only just got agreement to get trees planted in the triangle of concrete opposite the Chandos as an attempt to smarten up the area, because it seems to be generally agreed we need more greenery, it would seem to defeat the aim of retaining and/or expanding open space in the area if the Duncombe Hill plot is destined to become yet another “luxury apartments” development.

Lewisham Council seem hellbent on selling everything… this is the only bit of green in Brockley Rise and they want to flog it to the highest bidder… I mean, seriously!? What can we do about this? Buy it as a collective? It’s wholly unsuitable for development and will mean a loss of some much needed greenery…

Do you know that the Council own this?

I don’t know but it seems like a fair assumption given what/where it is

Given that it has some planning protection as a London Square, and is listed as such by the Council, then it would seem disingenuous to sell it for development subject to consent. So, it would be an interesting situation if it is the owner though I suspect the agent wouldn’t care a jot. Caveat emptor.

My presumption given the private nature of the sale is that some other interest owns the land. Would be interesting to know though.

I wondered if it did belong to a Church or a school or some other institutional organisation.

https://twitter.com/wearese23/status/989271581150142464?s=21

image594×857 62.3 KB

image576×869 60 KB

The funny little strip behind the benches is now being dug up. Anyone know what’s happening there?

image2448×3264 3.05 MB

I went past there this morning on the bus & Im sure I saw on the signboard ‘2 five bedroom houses with 3 bathrooms’ or could that relate to something else??

It could be, but from what I can see I assumed that it’s outside the boundary of that refurbishment.

It’s printed on the Lilypad board that is at the back, where they are digging.

We live on duncombe Hill and my husband stopped to talk to the builders this week and the owener of the houses was there so they chatted. The grass area being sold isnt even the entire grass area just a portion of it and isnt owned by the council - its private. However there are tree protection orders on all 7 of the trees so i dont know who would be interested in buying it.

The area where the advertisement boarding was has come down because there was japanese knotweed there which the owner of the houses has paid to dig out and treat and he plans to use a legal process to either get the money he has paid back or he would be interested in having that potion of land before the walk way to make in to a garden for the end house.

I happened to meet someone who works at the planning department for Lewisham the other day, as I was walking past the triangle. She told me that the trees were only temporarily protected but anyone could write directly to planning@lewisham.gov.uk to show support and request for the protection of the trees to become permanent.

Hello, noticed that this triangle was being fenced off today. Does anyone have any more information? Has it been sold now? It’s going to look awful

I wondered whether some sort of deal had been done because the fence appeared to move a lot closer to the benches when it was rebuilt after the knotweed infestation was dealt with.

Surely a right of way has been established on this land as it’s been open to the public for more than 20 years?

The land seems to be owned by the advertising company.

It was sold in June 2018 to a property Investment company

Does anyone know the status of the tree preservation order that was placed on the trees there? Also does anyone know if there has been planning application for the fence that is going up today? I think that you have to have planning for a fence over 1m high by a road. It does look to me like the very high fence will make it very difficult for cars to safely turn out of Duncombe Hill as the road sort of curves.

There’s no record of a planning application for the fence…

image1014×502 85.5 KB

Just sharing this from Facebook.

https://twitter.com/thedanwoods/status/1089538045022531584?s=21

Very disappointed to see this fence erected. Shall be contacting the council re fence and trees, thanks to those for posting email addresses above.
Notes re TPO:

There’s a big conversation going on about this in the se23 mums Facebook group. Two things:

1. The fence does not have the correct permissions due to size and proximity to main road. Enforcement officers were out this weekend looking at it.
2. The tree preservation orders were temporary and due to expire in May. The time for public consultation has passed by there’s an email address to send comments to

Finally someone has set up a petition. I’ll dig out links tomorrow and share with this group.

Thought it was a bit strange that this fence was being erected and painted on Sunday afternoon.

Great to see locals have plastered these over the fence:

It’s all kicking off on Brockley Rise! (note that we were not involved in this action!)

image812×1095 555 KB

I was almost knocked off my bike today by a pick-up truck taking this corner fast and wide. It’s now completely blind when turning left up Duncombe Hill.

That is why you are not allowed to have a fence higher than 3 feet where it abuts a highway.(or possibly a meter).

Now this is what probably makes me the most nervous. It’s fair to assume that they would have done their due diligence to make sure they can do with the land whatever their intention is, which presumably is to build on it in a way that maximises returns for their shareholders. Couldn’t they have bought the MOT garage instead?

Maybe not. They may have looked at house prices in the area, saw a bit of land going cheap and thought they could make a load of money without doing proper research. They’ve already caused themselves a problem with Lewisham planning department by putting up the fence without planning permission.

Do we have a company name for the ‘property investment company’?
We can then do some crowd sourced due diligence.

Investor Alliance Ltd. based in Luton paid £120k in ?June 2018

Cheap, but a tiny slither of land on a busy road with awkward geometry.

If they did take the approach @Swagger suggests many developers do - ignore a tree preservation order in preference to pay the fine, I’m not sure they would make enough back to justify the risk.

That’s if the temporary orders don’t expire I suppose.

If it’s unauthorised, then it can be pulled down by just about anyone. Crow bars at the ready.

Except the council it would seem…

I am sure there are people out there not from the council with crow bars.

Errrrrrrr, no. The fence is still private property and someone taking a crowbar to it would be liable for prosecution for criminal damage.

I don’t see why they can’t do something considering it has been turned into a dangerous junction.

I assume they haven’t blocked the path at the top, otherwise there is probably something that can be done as it is a right of way.

Intrigued that there is a tree officer at Lewisham Council. Part of special branch…

Access for supplying materials on such a tight spot would be a logistical nightmare for any contractor mad/brave enough to accept the contract. HIAB lorries would cause huge disruption to passing traffic. I’d be amazed if Lewisham’s planning department didn’t reject any application on those grounds alone.

Am I the only one on here who thinks that a development of flats might be nice here, and contribute to the ongoing regeneration of the area?

Let’s find out …

image1125×404 224 KB

storyofonetreehill_nisbet.pdf (3.0 MB)

I think you might be, yes.

Does the 3ft max height only apply to if it joins a main road? I ask because a very high fence has gone up around the garden of a house on the corner of Brockley View and Montem road. That corner is absolutely lethal. It’s a 90 degree corner which is now a complete blind spot when driving round it because of the high fence. It’s an accident waiting to happen.

Logistically speaking, it’s too small a plot for a block of flats to be built on using traditional cavity construction in the sense that once the first lift is up to slab height a mobile crane would have to be used to lift the bison beams into place after any necessary steels have been fitted. From experience that process can take up to two days and Brockley Rise would have to be closed to accomodate the crane which would cause huge disruption to traffic and the project’s immediate neighbours. Then along comes the next problem. After the bison beams (celular concrete rafts - the floor) have been lowered onto the blockwork superstructure, scaffolders would have to include a loading bay/gantry into the scaffolding package. In any normal project the loading bay would be serviced by an all-terrain telescopic forklift that would not be practical on such a tight spot such as the one one being discussed. For anything to be built there it would almost certainly be a timber kit superstructure with a masonry jacket of brickwork. This will have less of an impact on the local community but from the developer’s perspective they’d be making a loss because timber frame construction is notorious for lowering the value of the property because they tend to have only a lifespan of fifty-odd years before they start to become structually unsound.

Muckaway for the footings using a HIAB grab lorry would mean the pavement on Brockley Rise would have to be closed because the owners of said lorries insist on their lorries being on the most level piece of land and although they can self-level using hydraulic jacks they are prone to tipping over so Duncombe Hill would be out of the question. Footings would take ages because you could only realistically use a one or two ton mini digger to dig the trenchs and then you have to close the pavement once the concrete wagon turns-up for the day. Dust surpression will also be a huge challenge to overcome. When I was helping to build the new block of flats on Dacres Road dust supression wasn’t much of an issue because we used the disc cutters at the back of the project. On the job I’ve just finished doing in Golders Green we had complaints during the summer of dust clouds obscuring bus drivers’ vision because we were cutting near the main road. I suspect the same would be an issue on this little plot of land.

A fence higher than 1 metre adjacent to any road needs planning permission. This is unlikely to be granted where there is danger, e.g. at a junction.

You should complain to Lewisham Council.

Interesting and very helpful insight to the logistics of building a block of flats on this site.
Thanks for taking the time to share as I’d imagine it will add weight to the argument to oppose development.

Thank you, and you’re more than welcome; but don’t take it as gospel if or when you take it to a planning committee/appeal. I’m a professional bricklayer, not a general building contractor overseeing the entire build and the problems I’ve outlined are from personal observation and not from the perspective of the principle contractor who’ll have more of a vested interest in the project than I would.

Correct

Nice!?

Unfortunate news. The recent bad weather must have smashed the lock and left the gates wide open yesterday. …or something. So you can go in and hug a tree whenever you like. That fence was built to last though.

image3264×2448 2.37 MB

image3264×2448 2.48 MB

Does this add any idea as to the motive for the fence? It looks like there’s nothing been done in there from your pics… nothing being hidden.

Somewhere in the back of my mind I seem to remember reading something along the lines of… a public space and footpath, which has been used as such for donkeys years, gains established use and can continue to be used by anyone who wants to use it as they always did.

These links might help.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/constitutionuk/2014/03/31/a-right-to-public-space/

no, as at Monday, they had just dug the fence post holes and put up the fence. there was a load of timber on the ground but I took that to be excess fence supplies. otherwise untouched.

the footpath remains outside the fence entirely untouched and in use as usual, but the space itself is completely enclosed.

The bomb damage maps are based on 1916 ordnance survey maps and it appears the site was open then. A V1 bomb landed there in WW2.

image2448×3264 1.67 MB

I did wonder how long it would take before ‘bad weather’ had an effect on it

For those interested there is a new Facebook group specifically focused on taking action around this issue.

Save Duncombe Hill Green

Good News! From the Change.org petition…

_15 Feb 2019 — _

Lewisham Council has issued an enforcement notice on the land owner, Investor Alliance Limited, requiring them to remove the fence and restore the land to its previous form and appearance. The owner has until 1 April 2019 to appeal. However, the Council has stated that it doesn’t consider that retrospective planning permission for the fence should be given as it (a) has resulted in substantial harm to the appearance of the street scene and public realm visual amenity and (b) is a bulky and incongruous addition that is contrary to the Council’s Core Strategy and Development Management Local Plan.

This is a great outcome for us, so I think we should all give ourselves a huge congratulatory pat on the back! However, the owner is a property investment company so it’s unlikely that this will be the end of matters. It will certainly be interesting to see what their next move will be. In the meantime, I intend to press on with handing in the petition to the Council at the next public meeting and to keep the pressure on in relation to confirmation of the TPO.

A full copy of the enforcement notice can be found in the dedicated Facebook group “Save Duncombe Hill Green”, where you can also follow updates and contribute to the discussion.

So for now it’s a question of Watch This (green) Space… But, by pulling together so formidably, we’ve managed to tick off our first significant achievement - Chin Chin to that!

Wishing you all a great weekend

All good except:

A full copy of the enforcement notice can be found in the dedicated Facebook group “Save Duncombe Hill Green”, where you can also follow updates and contribute to the discussion.

Except it’s a closed group which needs a facebook account and pop-quiz answers before you can even see anything.

Could you please post the enforcement notice somewhere public like here?

So you can only “Save Duncombe Hill Green” if you have a Farcebook a/c

I tried joining this closed FB group and my join request was inexplicably rejected

It’s disappointing to see local community discussion confined to closed groups on American social networks rather than on open and inclusive websites which are:

• accessible to anyone
• searchable via Google
• linkable from Facebook, Twitter and any other website.

I’m not on Facebook either.

I have left a comment on the Change.org petition, asking them about the closed Facebook group, and where to get hold of a copy of the Enforcement Notice. I did a search on the Lewisham Council website and nothing showed up there. The petition has not yet been ‘handed in’ so I doubt its organiser (Nicola Johnson) has been sent a copy. It may just have been attached to the fence itself…

I believe it is photos of the notice attached to the fence. I’ve seen pictures on twitter with retweets by a number of regular local tweeters. Shouldn’t be too hard to find.

It’s also worth noting that the petition is just tens away from the 5000 target, so worth signing if not already, here.

Right you are:

https://twitter.com/SE23Nic/status/1096296795406241792?s=20

So the notice takes effect on April fools Day, then there is 1 month to remove the fence and restore the area using ‘hand held non-mechanical tools’. I guess that means hand saws, hammers, crowbars and spades.

If the new land owner is respectful I guess they should remove the fence now as it sounds futile to try and appeal. If they are belligerent we could see the fence remain until May, perhaps longer if they did want to appeal. Let’s just hope they aren’t criminal and damage the trees anyway.

Update
NewsShopper is reporting that People Before Profit are planning to take the fence down themselves unless the landowner replies to them before next Saturday:

Taking the fence down is good, but there’s a lot of wood to tidy away so I hope they have a plan for that which won’t save the landowner the hassle, but will restore the greenspace.

Great that Daniel Egan has responded. Wonderful community response from all involved and special thanks to SE23nic for powering the effort and handing in the over 5000 strong petition this evening to Lewisham Council.

Really fantastic. Hope we keep our green space green.

Those photos of the seven flats, surrounded by landscaped greenery, demonstrate how we could actually have nicer surrounding under the proposal than we do currently.

The current patch of green is like a scrap of waste land by the road - no-one in their right mind would sit there reading a book, have a picnic or bring their children there to play (especially with Blythe Hill Fields a 5 mins walk). I don’t see what the big deal is with losing this scrap of land (which, by the way, has always been private land with no public’s rights over it).

A post was split to a new topic: Public meeting about Duncombe Hill Green development

Not all green space needs to exist solely for our use. And I’d hardly call it a ‘scrap of waste land’, it’s full of mature trees.

I think the proposed flats look quite nice.

It’s not really a “used” space as mentioned a few posts above. We do have plenty of actual parks around.

Couldn’t the council insist that the 6 (approx) trees there must be replaced elsewhere (such as Blythe Hill Fields) by a multiple of 2, 3 or 4x mature trees thereby increasing not decreasing trees in the vicinity? I’d have thought the cost of this (say £20k) would be worth paying for the developers and would achieve some equilibrium environmentally.

Have you seen the size of Duncombr Green? There is no way they could actually fit 2 blocks of flats and all those trees on that space.

My thoughts too.

The green space, while much better then flats, could do with some development itself - but keeping it as a green space. So some flowerbeds and low hedges with perhaps more trees or minor monument as a focus of interest.

Clearly the new owner doesn’t have that in mind, and their underhand tactic of putting up the large hording quickly and without permission on a Sunday was a poor start. And they’ve not acted on the very clear enforcement notice yet either.

In a ideal world the council would have purchased the land and then taken on upkeep and planting as that area really benefits a bit of green space much more than any flat would. But I guess the council just doesn’t have the budget.

The Council is making £9 million cuts with more on the way. Sadly it is unlikely to want to purchase the land and take on the annual cost of the upkeep.

Who maintained the land before? Someone must have mowed the grass regularly, doubt it was the advertising company, would imagine it was the council running a mower over it when the did the other grass verges so wouldn’t think it wouldnt cost much to do. Personally I don’t think it needs landscaping it serves a purpose of breaking up the street with a burst of trees, similar to street trees but bigger

Campaigners are asking for pictures to be drawn and messages posted on the fence in advance of the public meeting next week. Budding urban artists welcome.

Tree Preservation Order confirmed:

image1242×1404 253 KB

image1242×1489 275 KB

The Facebook group is now on Twitter too.

@DHGreenSE23

https://twitter.com/DHGreenSE23/status/1102765190465097729?s=19

image1145×928 307 KB

Forest Hill PROP SITE PLAN.pdf (176.2 KB)

Forest Hill PROP 1F PLAN-1.pdf (92.4 KB)

Forest Hill PROP 2F PLAN.pdf (92.7 KB)

Compare to the original rendering:

image2400×1108 347 KB

Looks like there are some trees with a confirmed TPO standing in the way of those plans…

Still, having paid £120k for the plot, plus fees and the architect, I’m guessing it will take a lot of pictures from children on the fencing before they give up on this ‘investment’.

Interesting… their artistic rendering of the development last week (with a very interesting interpretation of both scale and perspective), had two separate blocks with a gap between them. The site is pretty small and it would be challenging to fit one block, let alone two on it. Their hastily drawn up architectural plans seem to have the two block jointed up - and include a living wall and they clearly hope that by adding a tree at the side they can bypass the TPOs.

And they don’t seem to have any dimensions on them, apart from an overall square meterage of each flat.

I would have assumed that to be true intuitively, but recent studies show that older trees absorb more CO2

The images show a tree in front of the building making it look like two buildings, but the plans show otherwise. The differing heights of the floors on the picture also give a sense of separation, but that is not the case. But at least they show the balconies on the correct side, which is better than the site plan.
However, the site plan shows that the largest tree on the site has been removed, despite it being quite noticeable coming out from behind the building.

The flats are fairly small, which is why there isn’t room for a kitchen table, just a bar to eat at (unless you sacrifice some of the kitchen). But if you are having friends round for dinner you might be better off across the road in Babur.

The flats are all below the minimum space standards for new dwelling for four persons. The two bathrooms in the larger flats would suggest that there is an expectation of four people in the flats and they are 2sqm below minimum space requirements for 4 people. But perhaps it is a two double bedroom flat for three people, which would explain why there are so few seats in the kitchen/diner.

I’m not sure that it is ideal that half the lounges in the rear flats are overlooked by the balconies of the front flats, in fairly close proximity.

However, building on this site is contrary to the Hopcroft Neighbourhood Forum proposals, the final submission of which was made in September 2018. This designates Duncombe Hill as a Local Green Space, and would offer similar protection to Green Belt land according to the National Planning Policy Framework. Although not formally adopted, the council planning department would have to give serious consideration to the proposed designation when it receives any planning application.

There have been some interesting posts on the FB group about the developers and they’re proposals for the land. They intend to keep and maintain the fences to keep the public off the land in order to protect the trees that have the TPO.

I wondered about that. I thought there was an instruction from the council to remove it as there was no planning permission.

Do try to keep up @starman

To allow time for appeal, the enforcement notice doesn’t come into effect until April 1st. Then there is one month allowed to actually remove the fence.

And this assumes a lengthy appeals process doesn’t extend that schedule…

Point taken.

To be fair, there’s a lot of different discussion on this topic - here, FB, Twitter, council meetings… Lots of noise too.

I just hope that due process prevails in the end and there’s no foul play from any parties involved.

True. Though in other developments I’ve seen a better understanding of local planning and other issues which might affect the outcome. Erecting a fence which clearly needed planning isnt a good start.

Yes, and unfortunately persons foolish or conniving enough to part with £120k+ without an understanding of local planning may well be foolish or conniving enough to try and carry on further.

And we also have the sunk cost fallacy working against us.

A post was split to a new topic: Tackling anti-social behaviour on Duncombe Hill Green

Summary of a meeting with the developer that happened on March 10th:

[removed due to legal threat received from Save Duncombe Hill Green Group]

Thank you Starman, appreciate the help.

Post(s) from this topic were removed as they were off topic

SE23.life aims for transparent moderation. Members are able to view the conversation around this intervention by opting in here.

I share your view. You would think people would want to work together on this. So sad.

I went past this morning and the fence on the corner of duncombe hill is coming down, though I think being replaced with a lower height fence.

20190317_1022334032×3024 4.53 MB

Is it my imagination or is there a post and guide line in the middle of the plot? Perhaps to still enclose the trees?

Just been past again - will take a photo on my way home, but basically they have reduced the corner height of the fence where Brockley Rise and Duncombe Hill meet, but move the high bit back inside so it is still all effectively fenced off with a high fence and just one corner now has a lower fence, in front of a higher fence that is more set back from the road.

I knew it!

I’m not entirely sure this follows the direction of the enforcement notice. It will be interesting to see the council’s view on this change.

I do wonder if the developers are reacting in kind at this point to some of the more aggressive campaigners.

I’m hoping when everyone’s calmed down a constructive compromise can be reached.

What do you mean aggressive? Let’s not forget the developers erected a 2m fence without seeking planning permission and have subsequently been ordered to remove it by the Council. This is not their first ride at the rodeo and they will have done so with the full knowledge planning permission was required. They are now appealing on the basis they must protect the trees which have been been healthy and thriving for many years without a 2m fence.

Oh I quite agree, the fence should go.

I just think there’s been a fair amount of anger and name calling, and I’m not sure that’s always the best approach to a positive outcome.

Sure. Any campaign will work better if they don’t react to external provocation. But I just don’t see the Developer’s actions today as a reaction to some aggression. In their meeting with a few select campaigners they were reported to have little interest in the safety issues created by the fence. Such as the drug dealing in the newly created alley way.

I’d suggest the Developers, at this stage, are showing little interest in the community’s concerns. Do you think otherwise?

Here you go - not sure why the developers are acting like this and it’s more work for them also. Bizarre. I wondered if there was some clause that if something was fenced off and hidden from view for a certain amount of time it would lose it’s status as a public space etc. Strange otherwise.

20190317_1408113024×4032 3.48 MB

I think if I were a developer, I’d be more up for seeking a constructive solution if I had been approached in a constructive fashion.

Mostly the campaign and local action has been very positive, I just feel that if you start publicly calling people idiots they are much less inclined to do what you want them to do.

True. Though the word idiot was only used once on the FB page.

The most aggressive behaviour has come from the political group Lewisham People Not Profit who tried to organise a posse to tear the fence down. LPNP are not aligned with the FB group I think.

But as the LPNP were able to grab the meeting with the developers at their leaders home maybe aggression is what the developers best react to.

From what I can see I suspect that they will be granted planning permission for the fence now that it does not pose a danger to traffic at the corner.

Perhaps they have been advised and made a compromise with the Lewisham planners, but their action doesn’t appear to follow the original enforcement notice (linked in the thread above).

I also wonder if the new bit of fence compromises the mentioned root protection areas, though unlike planning applications, it seems difficult to find any info on the Lewisham pages themselves.

Was there a planning application submitted for the fence?

Not that I can find.

There was additional info referenced on the enforcement notice - but I can’t find that either.

If there were a planning application, it would at least allow the public to comment in a structured manner, so long as any objections contain material concerns that can be considered by the planners.

A possibility here is that the fence is probably still in breach of planning, but the fact that they’ve alleviated the potential danger to the highways by opening up the sight lines might mean that they can’t be made to remove it until after an Appeal against enforcement has been decided.

Perhaps they also are worried about liability (perhaps legally, but at least morally) if there were a serious accident at the junction which was aggregated by the loss of visibility from the fence.

The irony of course that they claim was put up in the first place for reasons of liability.

I’ve now been blocked from the Facebook group. Which in one way is very predictable, and in another shows how childish one of the admins can be at times.

I don’t think there was an application made for the fence, I’m nearly 100% sure on that.

My gut feel is that the developers will say the green is not in use so development should proceed. I’m sure I read that they had claimed to have studied the site over x amount of months and had never seen it in use. I suspect they are right on this, I’ve never seen anyone using it other than to let their dog run around it, in the 13+ years I’ve lived here. BUT people do sit on the benches and get to look out onto it my kids like running around it, and it could be so much better with some nicer planting of bulbs and perennials an it is of course a green space on a relatively main road.

It’s a strange one this, in many ways their are other campaigns like the cleaner air one that would have better long-term benefits for residents, and for me for my kids but I think the developers have riled so many people putting up the fences I think it’s become almost symbolic of developers etc taking green space for profit with scant regard for local opinion. I suspect if they had approached this differently opposition would have been less. If you ever wanted an example of a bad PR approach to something here it is.

Hopefully everyone with an interest in this can keep things positive as divide and conquer will be music to the developers ears. Let’s keep it positive SE23!

I was informed that a local councillor spoke to the developer today. The developer believes he has improved road visibility at the corner and has done all he can do regarding reducing the impact of the fence.

The developer lodged an appeal last week against the council’s enforcement notice, which means over the next 7-8 months (while the appeal is decided), the fence will remain as is.

2 posts were split to a new topic: Designating Duncombe Hill Green a Village Green

I think you might be right here. I drove down Duncombe Hill yesterday and felt sightlines were ok turning out, not sure about turning in but I suspect there are a lot worse corners.

For those that want to keep the green effectively as it is, it will be important to choose their battles appropriately. It will be important to define, without emotion, what the planning teams will use to decide on the application. The TPOs will certainly carry some weight, but it’s been seen elsewhere when the trees are simply cut down, fine paid, for developments to proceed.

I think everyone will just have to accept the fence will stay up as it is for 9 months or so from now, which is a shame as it’s a definite eyesore and will encompass most of spring, summer and autumn.

I sometimes wonder with these things if you could do a form of swap - for example allowing development here if it meant a section of unused land (to be clear not another piece of green space) was transformed into a park and or something down in conjunction with clean air i.e Hedge planting by road etc. Developers get their building, community gets an open space and the same or more amount of green space transformed so that they can use it, and hedging give everyone cleaner air.

The developer had approached the Council about a land swap for adjacent land but did not take this forward.

Article in paper here

It really does beggar belief you can put something up like this without planning permission and it can just stay up for 9 or more months.

Sad that the councillors just assume residents are all against the development.

In fairness to them I suspect the vast majority of people who contacted them were against the development, or the fence, but I agree the last bit did seem a bit odd on first reading. Probably worth writing to them if you disagree with them - they do seem open to listen to opinion and getting involved.

As a resident who lives more or less opposite the land, I agree with you on this. Whilst I disapprove of the fencing-without-planning saga, I think the proposed development will be positive, and indeed ultimately better use of the land. I will write to the councillors to voice this actually.

‘Ultimately better use of the land.’ Who says land always has to be ‘used’ for something? And you’re saying you would prefer to look out on to two blocks of flats rather than green space and trees? I find that extremely odd.

I take my hat off to you.

I totally disagree with what you’re saying but, at the same time, I respect your view AND for stating it.

I have to say that planning policy and guidelines - not campaigning - will see the proposed flats refused but it’s always interesting to see how different folks are with things.

So, for me, thanks for sharing.

While not strictly untrue, the planning process does seek comment from the public, societies and 3rd parties. If the campaigning raises awareness of plans for the plot, it may produce more and better informed letters of opposition (or support) which wouldn’t have happened otherwise. This in turn may promote the planning process to go to committee and see extra scrutiny.

Of course any concerns have to be of material consideration, so as you say the policy and guidelines ultimately rule.

Apart from that, had the community not bought the attention of the council to the erection or the fence, or pushed things on regarding the unconfirmed TPOs at that time, it’s entirely possible the developer could have outpaced the council and already started works with little reprise.

I didn’t criticise the campaign against or @Cosmo for stating that he will write in to support it.

One significant action, which could be attributed to the campaign against, is the TPOs, however, I’d be very surprised if the tree officer wasn’t already on it.

My point was really just to thank Cosmo for showing a different opinion.

Simply cannot understand how anyone could be in favour of cramming two blocks of flats, however attractive they may be, onto a tiny patch of land that sits cheek by jowl to a busy main road.

I’m not disagreeing with you @AnotherJohn. I certainly agree with the points you make regarding expression of other viewpoints - monocultures aren’t generally a good thing and if we all thought the same se23.life would merely be a notice board without interesting discussion. Yes, thank you @Cosmo too.

I merely wish to respectfully suggest that the campaigning in this case has been more worthwhile than may have been mildly suggested, and may indeed be facilitating better outcomes. Of course the council is limited to only certain powers and so has to act within them; it can’t unilaterally accept or reject something just because a vocal bunch of people think it is a good, bad or fun idea. If that was your point I full agree too.

London needs more houses. Some people are happy for this to be in their back yard.

Just a friendly reminder to all members - please keep this topic focussed on Duncombe Green.

Conversation about the need (or not) for housing growth in London is better suited to the opt-in General Politics category. Thanks.

https://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=_LEWIS_DCAPR_99164

Here’s the link to the planning application. It’s a truly awful, incomplete, ill-considered scheme. No sign of an arboricultural statement, some outright lies in the Design and Access Statement. Doesn’t fill me with hope for the finished product!

The TPOs are also now linked on the planning site too:

https://planning.lewisham.gov.uk/online-applications/propertyDetails.do?activeTab=relatedCases&keyVal=_LEWIS_PROPLPI_319721_1

Oddly there appears to have been an admin error linking a document from Brockley Hill Trust Garden too, though the rest looks relevant.

What I still can’t get my head around is what the developer thought putting this fence up would achieve. If anything, surely this has only attracted more potential objectors to their proposed development or angered those who may have otherwise taken a neutral view. That aside, it has already caused them a lot of money to spend and hassle to deal with. I can still see no practical purpose for this fence until any construction is about to go ahead which I’m assuming is at least months away.

I can think of 2 things it may achieve.
1 - so some objections get dealt with before more money is invested in the process
2 - to make the land less appealing so that in future the locals will prefer for the land to be developed than stay fenced off.

Yeah, the cynic in me - and the actions of the developer so far - lead me to suspect that your Option 2 is the more likely.

After nine months of waiting for the appeal on the fencing, and presumably even longer to go through the actual development application, I can only begin to imagine the condition of the ground behind the fence, as I very much doubt the developer will be taking any steps to keep the place tidy.

At which point he’ll make the claim that the ground is severely neglected and in a poor state of repair, so there’s no visual amenity left to be preserved - and surely it would be better to have a residential development on the site than a piece of wasteland…

The developers have already flouted planning rules with the fence. With an enforcement order in place, and under appeal for that land… I would hope that is grounds for the council to delay consideration of the planning application the developer’s has submitted.

Everyone opposed to this should object (using the link above), and if possible lobby their local Councillors. The TPOs are a major obstacle for the developer, but objections will let the planning committee know the level of local opposition.

It might be the other way around because developer can’t take the proposed flats to appeal until after the application has been refused. Hopefully, it’s been validated now and the council will be making their determination within 8 weeks.

I’ve just received an update via change.org as I’d signed the original petition.

The planning application appears to have 7 comments so far, of which 6 have been classed as objections (I believe) link here to Lewisham Application page. If you wish to write against, or in support of this, or otherwise, best to do so fairly soon.

The update via change. org link here.

One key bit from the update linked to above is a public meeting next Thursday at 8pm at the Ackroyd Centre, extract from link above:

We’re also holding a public meeting on 11 April 2019 at 8pm at the Ackroyd Community Centre, Ackroyd Road, SE23 1DL - local councillors, our planning lawyer and architect and the rest of the campaign team will be on hand to update you and take any questions, so please come along if you can!

The SaveDuncombeHill Group have also put some put some publicly available documents together to help people with comments link here and in the petition link above and also here again. . If you have any question on the doc they have said they can be emailed saveduncombehillgreen@gmail.com .

Let me make clear none of the above is my work, all the work of others involved in the campaign, and as I said detail in the various links.

The @ForestHillSociety have put a short and succinct objection to the planning permission and published it on their site today:

It’s a good example for anyone else that wishes to add to the volume of objections, and also makes the astute observation that the 3D renders of the proposed development include at least one of the protected trees that is absent from the site plan.

The developers seem to be appealing against the enforcement notice for the erection of the fence. I assume I got a letter as I objected to the planning application- or have the council mailed all local residents? Does anyone understand the grounds for objection made by the developer (attached) and I assume ‘making your views on this matter to the planning inspector’ relate to the fence or is it the wider planning application too?

image3024×4032 2.07 MB

Yep, makes no sense except to drag things out.

In addition to @anon93536262 reply, the council letter also mentions damage to the roots of the TPO’d trees as a concern.

The purpose of the letter seems to be to invite further public comment to resolve the appeal, asking for either written comment on triplicate, or emails.

@Suze would you be able to post the full letter here, including the 2nd page which gives the details of how to respond correctly?

It looks like the case has been referred to the Planning Inspectorate in Bristol.

image1339×1898 698 KB

image1575×2099 780 KB

So the easiest thing to do is to email teame2@pins.gsi.gov.uk, quoting APP/C5690/C/19/322410 and state your views on this matter, which is the planning enforcement notice for the errection of the fence without prior planning permission (i.e. not the planning permission for building flats on the land itself).

The full enforcement notice this relates to is here:

Correspondence with owner.pdf (44.0 KB)
Enforcement Notice - Duncombe Hill.pdf (602.6 KB)

Interestingly IAL must have paid £412 for this appeal.

I can’t make head or tail of Lewisham Council’s Planning portal - has any Tree Preservation Order [‘TPO’] been granted yet? And the construction proposal to build a 3/4 block of flats is deemed ‘Registered’ [not ‘Decided/Refused’].
I understood that Lewisham Council also decided that the ongoing site hoarding had to be removed by the owner of the site - what enforcement is Lewisham Council currently taking, since it’s still there?
Who can local residents contact Lewisham Council to put ongoing pressure to ensure that the hoarding is removed asap?

So the planning application for the flats is DC/19/111251.
It currently has 129 comments, all are objections and none in support. It’s unclear when a decision will be made, but the Contacts section of the portal has the relevant council details.

The Tree Protection Orders were issued have been confirmed and can be found on the planning site too, though copies of the TPOs are here and here in case you are interested in which trees are protected:

MADE TPO - T1 sycamore Duncombe Hill Brockley Rise 2019.pdf (138.1 KB)
MADE TPO G1 9.11.18.pdf (145.4 KB)

Finally an enforcement notice was served for the removal of the fence (a full copy of which is linked in my reply above this one), but it has been taken to the Planning Inspectorate for appeal by the new landowner. Lewisham council have written to a number of people asking them to provide the Planning Inspectorate with comment to help come to conclusion on the enforcement notice. This can easily be done by email, as detailed in my previous reply.

I will write in support of removal of the fence. Prior to doing so, what I fail to understand is how a publicly accessible space [as it was for years] with open access and public bench seating, could be then fenced off.
I presume that London Borough of Lewisham/Glendale had accepted an ongoing responsibility in the past to maintain the Green, as it was never overgrown. Lewisham Council normally accepted an ongoing maintenance role when public access is accepted by an ongoing, private land owner [regardless of a change of land ownership].
In the case here, there was a fully instated, publicly accessible path and public seating.
Have you requested from Lewisham Council/Glendale to confirm that they maintained the Green until it was fenced off and whether, or not, a public footpath exists, which runs through the it to link Duncombe Hill to Brockley Road? I think this is the most obvious, additional legal way to prevent any development.

Yep - a terrific job to ensure TPO’s on pretty much all the trees in the ‘Green’ by those involved.
I noticed about a week ago that the site is still effectively ‘open’ to the public, due to one of the hoarding boards removed on Duncombe Hill. Legally speaking, that’s good news, in my view.

It is absolutely essential now to request from Lewisham Council [under a Freedom of Information request] for a response on the following:

1. Did London Borough of Lewisham maintain this site until it was fenced off?
2. If so, provide local residents with a copy of the original agreement made between the London Borough of Lewisham and the relevant landowner of the site under which the London Borough of Lewisham agreed to maintain the site.
3. Did the London Borough of Lewisham instate the publicly accessible pathway linking through the site from Duncombe Hill to Brockely Rise and/or the publicly used park benches?
4. Was the London Borough of Lewisham responsible for maintaining the same publicly accessible pathway and/or the same publicly used park benches?
5. Does the London Borough of Lewisham accept that there is a publicly adopted path running through the site from Duncombe Hill to Brockley Rise? If not, then why not?

I’ve never written to Lewisham Council under a Freedom of Information request before. However, if the above reads well, then I will do so. Just tell me who to address it to and I’ll get onto it.

Obtaining prove that Lewisham Council maintained the site on the understanding that the public would benefit indefinitely from use and free access will effectively bind the new owners of the site on the same terms and ensure the success of removing the hoardings.

What do you think?

I think the path and bench you may be thinking of are actually outside the area that’s been sold and fenced off. There’s a picture of the area at the very top of this topic, and the fence is also outlined in the enforcement notice. You can also visit the actual site and see if you are passing.

I’ll pass by tomorrow evening. Do you know who owned the proposed development site prior to the current owners?

The land registry does, and the records are already posted further up this topic. It’s worth reading top to bottom as many questions are already asked and answered.

I’ve read the whole post and visited the site today.

1. The useful Land Registry download doesn’t appear to include a section relating to ‘Restrictive Covenants’, which could really help. If there is a negative restriction relating to building on the Deeds to the plot. If this Land Registry page is available, then someone post it up. Otherwise, a search of the title deed is required [if anyone can assist!].
2. There is no information presented in relation to what appears to have been Lewisham Council’s clear acceptance in the past to manage the whole site [including the footpath/benches] with a previous, private landowner. As such, the whole of the ‘Green’ included a local authority ‘adopted’ path and fully accessible open space for all. I believe it would be useful to contact either Peter.Maynard@lewisham.gov.uk or Vince.Buchanan@lewisham.gov.uk [Lewisham Greenscene Managers] and request a copy of any Lewisham Council agreement to manage an ‘open and accessible’ green space on behalf of a private landowner, which may back up a position that the ‘Green’ should be kept as open space, accessible to all. This information would also show just how long the ‘Green’ has been an open space
   Given the urgency of the current planning application, then a reasonable, timescaled response of 5 working days should be requested prior to applying for the same under a Freedom.information@lewisham.gov.uk application having contacted the relevant department without response.
   Any thoughts on the above as an additional way to effectively block the development?

I’m hopeful that there are already sufficient grounds and objections that the planning department and Inspectorate will both deny planning permission for the flats, and see through the enforcement to remove the fence and squash the appeal.

You seem to be looking at further legal arguments to block development, though I’m not sure such arguments can be considered under the powers given to councils and the Planning Inspectorate. Rather you may need to wait for the planning decision outcome and then seek legal advice to mount a legal challenge, which could be slow and costly.

I know someone on another council’s planning meetings. He says provided the application meets council planning schemes they must approve it.

You are confirming my thoughts - the current attempts by objectors to ensure the removal of the hoarding [due to being put up without permission] and reliance on Tree Preservation Orders is not sufficient to block the current development proposal, since clarification on the ‘Green’ being open, green space has not yet been established.
That is why I am now in contact with Mr Vince Buchanan [Lewisham Greenscene Manager] with regard to my request to London Borough of Lewisham [LBL] to disclose all previous maintenance contracts held between LBL and any previous/current private owner of either the whole or part of the site.
This request is in order to assess any legally binding contract [binding even on a new, private owner of the proposed development site] to establish whether, or not, LBL originally agreed to maintain the whole of the ‘Green’ on behalf of a private landowner on the understanding that the whole of the ‘Green’ would be utilised as a publicly accessible space in perpetuity.
Vince responded to me on Friday, 5th July to clarify the information I requested and I have requested his further response to me tomorrow [Monday, 8th July 2019].
It cannot be possible that LBL agreed to maintain land belonging to a private landowner over many years without an ongoing, contractual and mutual understanding that all of the ‘Green’ would be ‘open green space’ and binding on any new owner either of the whole or part of the ‘Green’.
If LBL’s maintenance contracts show this to be true, then this will lead to a double, positive ‘whammy’ - the hoarding will have to be removed immediately to restore access to all and all planning applications for development on the site will be refused on the same basis.

I’ll keep you posted on Vince Buchanan’s response [due Monday, 8th July 2019]. Vince understands that I will apply under a Freedom of Information application to LBL for the same information if he does not. All of the correspondence between Vince and myself is entirely amicable and is simply seeking a way forward on this procedural matter.

There may have been a legal easement established over the land.

I have not received a response from Vince Buchanan by end of day today. Therefore, I have requested his response by 11am tomorrow, as a concession. Otherwise, the procedure moves on to my application for the same information under a Freedom of Information application to the London Borough of Lewisham [LBL].
If Vince Buchanan fails to respond tomorrow, then take note folks - we should expect our local authority to support ongoing, open access to green space and not fall silent when asked for information to support this cause.
Anyway, here is a copy of my email to Vince Buchanan sent at around 8.30pm, 8th July 2019.

Dear Vince.

With regret, I haven’t had your response to my email from 5th July 2019, which repeated my request to respond by Monday, 8th July 2019.

Therefore, unless I receive an email from you by 11am, Tuesday 9th July 2019 with your overdue response, then I will proceed with an application for the same information under a Freedom of Information application as the next step procedure.

Regards,

Austen [Jones]

For how many years did the public have free access to this land?
This may have established a legal right of way over the land for the public.

Planning permission can still be granted, but will not overrule any legal public right of way.

No response by 11am today from Lewisham’s Greenscene Department, so here is my Freedom of Information application to Lewisham. I’ve also written to the Appeal committee in relation to the hoarding to request that their decision is deferred until Lewisham Council provide the FOI response.
Very disappointed that Vince Buchanan [Greenscene Manager] didn’t respond. However, it’s a probable indicator that Lewisham’s maintenance contracts with the private company owner of the original whole site may reveal the ‘quid pro quo’ terms that the ‘Green’ should be kept open to the public when Lewisham Council originally agreed to maintain the whole site. With luck, a legal easement on the same terms should have been registered on the Title Deeds.

Anyway, the ball rolls to the next procedural step and Lewisham’s response now will be the end goal. Post up your comments.

Dear London Borough of Lewisham [“LBL”],

Background relating to this publicly accessible/open green space

Duncombe Hill ‘Green’ is privately owned land and yet it has been maintained by LBL/Glendale over many years. Last year [2018], part of the land was sold off to another private company, which has applied for planning permission to build flats and has erected hoarding around their land,without obtaining planning permission, to exclude public access.

No decision has yet been reached in respect of the planning application for building or in relation to the company’s Appeal against LBL’s decision that the hoarding needs to be removed.

Therefore, a significant part of what was publicly accessible/open green space is currently lost to public access.

Prior to my Freedom of Information application, I have contacted Vince Buchanan [LBL’s Greenscene manager] on 3rd, 5th and 7th July 2019 to request a copy 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.

It is likely that these contracts will reveal whether, or not, any private owner of any part of the ‘Green’ are bound to keep their respective share of the ‘Green’ as publicly accessible/open green space and may indicate that a legal easement was registered on the Title Deeds on similar terms.

As such, it is in the public interest for LBL to release all information relating to its maintenance contracts, so that the public can comprehend whether, or not, the ‘Green’ should remain open to the public as green space and, if shown to be the case, then to be in a position to best guide LBL’s planning team in relation to their expected decisions on both the hoarding Appeal and the application to build on part of the site.

Mr Vince Buchanan’s response to me on 5th July 2019 failed to outline anything other than the current level of maintenance, which is now reduced to the area around the linkway footpath from Duncombe Hill to Brockley Rise, and my further clarification request for copies of LBL’s maintenance contracts have gone unanswered by the end of my reasonably extended deadline of 11am, 9th July 2019.

I did outline to Mr Buchanan that the information request was especially urgent given the possible, imminent decision of both the current planning application and hoarding Appeal. He did not indicate to me that my advanced timescale was unreasonable.

Therefore, I have followed and exhausted the correct procedure to contact the relevant LBL department prior to this FOI application.

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’.

Kindly indicate your response timescale.

Yours faithfully,

Mr Austen Jones

The statutory timescale is 20 working days with conditions. Have you been in touch with the Save Duncombe Green group? I’m seem to recall they were investigating a number of avenues as well.

I’ve checked through their Facebook site and it looks as if no one there is pursuing the issue of establishing whether, or not, there is an ongoing restriction on any legal owner of any part of the ‘Green’ to ensure that it is keep open for public amenity.
It just takes one person like me to pursue the matter and wait for the FOI response and then lodge any good news in separate objections to planning over the proposed development and the Appeal committee over the hoarding.
In the meantime, I’m about to post my objection on the planning portal to the development of flats and to recommend a delay in a planning decision until the FOI response is received.

Good work, @Austen_Jones.

Those involved in the Facebook group are, of course, more than welcome to get involved in our conversations here, and hopefully @Starman will point them toward this thread (I can’t do so as one of the admins of that FB group blocked me - and other members of the community)

There has, or is an ongoing effort to collect anecdotal information of the Green’s long term use with sights on protecting it from development as a Village Green.

Well, if my FOI request fails to outline what I hope, then anecdotal evidence will prove useful. However, I understand that the law relating to London boroughs protecting Village Greens dates back to 1931 and only affected those already in existence at that time.

Given that the Duncombe Hill ‘Green’ site only appears to have resulted after a V2 bomb struck during WW2 [i.e. after 1931], then I’m not sure that the law will operate to support designation of the site as a ‘Village Green’. That’s something for others to look into before continuing on in that direction.

My focus is now to wait for contractual, legal, written evidence for the FOI request to overturn both the hoarding Appeal and any proposed building works [present and future].
I’ve had an email from the FOI team at Lewisham this morning to confirm my request with the response due in a maximum period of 20 working days. See below:

Dear Austen,

Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000

Environmental Information Regulations 2004

Reference No: 3553566

Thank you for your recent request.

Your request is being considered and you will receive a response within the statutory timescale of 20 working days, subject to the application of any exemptions. Where consideration is being given to exemptions the 20 working day timescale may be extended to a period considered reasonable depending on the nature and circumstances of your request. In such cases you will be notified and, where possible, a revised time-scale will be indicated. In all cases we shall attempt to deal with your request at the earliest opportunity.

There may be a fee payable for the retrieval, collation and provision of the information requested where the request exceeds the statutory limit or where disbursements exceed £10. In such cases you will be informed in writing and your request will be suspended until we receive payment from you or your request is modified and/or reduced.

Your request may require either full or partial transfer to another public authority. You will be informed if your request is transferred.

If we are unable to provide you with the information requested we will notify you of this together with the reason(s) why and details of how you may appeal (if appropriate).

Please note that the directorate team may contact you for further information where we believe that the request is not significantly clear for us to respond fully.

Kind regards

Corporate Complaints, Casework and Information Governance Team

but doesn’t the map I posted on page 73 of this thread show that the site was open land in 1916?

That would be good news. As said, I’m doing my thing and I wish anyone the best on pursuing the ‘Village Green’ side.

I think you should look into the Highways Act.

I often see notices on open areas quoting this Act and saying the area is not public land. I don’t think anyone ever put such a notice on this open area.

Highways Act 1980 states:-

" Dedication of way as highway presumed after public use for 20 years.

(1)Where a way over any land, other than a way of such a character that use of it by the public could not give rise at common law to any presumption of dedication, has been actually enjoyed by the public as of right and without interruption for a full period of 20 years, the way is to be deemed to have been dedicated as a highway unless there is sufficient evidence that there was no intention during that period to dedicate it."

I think the Highways Act 1980 is not relevant to the current green space/building application plot.
There is clearly a ‘publicly adopted footpath’ [not a Highway] still running from Duncombe Hill to Brockley Rise. What I’m trying to understand from Lewisham Council is whether, or not, the hoarded off, green site was understood under its maintenance contract with a private owner of the whole site [before part was recently sold off] to be non-change of use, publicly accessible space and binding on a new owner of any part of the ‘Green’.
A legally defined ‘highway’ under the Highways Act appears irrelevant to either the footpath [which is not in dispute and already ‘adopted’ by the local authority] and the proposed building plot, where the main issue is to prove an ongoing, public right of random access to a green site, which clearly cannot be deemed to be a legally defined ‘highway’ with a specific start/finish point.
Lewisham Council’s maintenance contract[s] are likely to outline a legally binding contract with the private owner of the whole site to balance public money used to maintain the ‘Green’ as a whole with a registered restrictive covenant at the Land Registry to bind any legal owner of the site to ensure public access to all of the ‘Green’. If so, then the hoarding will have to be removed and any application to develop the site will be rejected.
We just have to wait for the FOI response. In the meantime, I’ve already written to both the Appeal Committee on the hoarding issue and Lewisham Planning to request a delay to their respective decisions until the FOI information is made available.

I’m afraid I don’t see any restrictive covenants entered into the Land Registry:

RegisterPlan57238.pdf (330.0 KB)

Or would you want me need to check the slither of land adjacent to the plot, where the footway and bench currently reside?

Why do you all care so much about this under used tiny piece of green ? Isn’t it better it is used for something ?

Yes, but the proposed development to pack tiny little flats into this slither of land in order for an opportunistic investment company to profit, to me, does not seem like a good replacement for the green space that would be lost in any way I can conceive.

Fair point - However, you’ll read on page 1 of the Title that the information provided is not the full Title, which will contain any restrictive covenants. That’s why I have asked Lewisham to disclose any information whereby the whole of the ‘Green’ had a restrictive covenant lodged on the Title at the time when Lewisham Council agreed to maintain it as a local authority.
If so, then the same restrictive covenant would pass on to the ‘slither’ as a ‘Sale of Part’ [of the whole], so no need to check both Titles, just the original.

I care since it is the only public green space on a straight line, green walk/cycle link from Blythe Hill Fields through to Forest Hill. Although looking dreary for years, due to local authority cutbacks/basic maintenance, once it is opened up again with the hoarding brought down, then new railings, path resurfacing, additional planting, etc will make the use of this public green space with public bench seating much more appealing/useable.

Yes ofc green is better than no green. But also house is better than no house. How to reconcile that. ?

I don’t

Too few houses in London?

image2500×1545 1.64 MB

I don’t want to delve any further into General Politics territory here in the main forum, but just wanted to point out that not all of us believe “just build more houses” is the way forward (although obvs we have a price bubble)

Here is my 1st post on Facebook’s ‘Save Duncombe Hill Green’ [they accepted my invite]
In my view as the ongoing, volunteer Chair of Ravensbourne Park Gardens, SE6, we need a continuance of open, green space kept open for both pedestrians/cyclists as previously experienced between Blythe Hill Fields and Forest Hill/Honor Oak at all green, public space areas located between Duncombe Hill/Brockley Rise.

For all concerned - check out the latest from this community link for SE23

https://se23.life/t/proposed-development-on-duncombe-hill-green/8959/221

The most important factor at this point is to be entirely positive that the ongoing hoarding will come down and that any current/future planning application to build on Duncombe Hill ‘Green’ will not be given permission.

My pending correspondence to Lewisham Council under a ‘Freedom of Information’ application so that the public can view Lewisham’s maintenance contracts with a private owner of the whole site [prior to the Sale of Part by auction in 2018 to another private owner, which then applied to develop the site for housing] is likely to secure a ‘double whammy’ community win win situation -

1. to confirm to all Lewisham residents that Lewisham Council agreed, under legal contract, with private company site owner DC Cadeaux, to maintain the whole Duncombe Hill Green site at public expense on the legal understanding that the whole site would be open, green space in perpetuity.
2. If the above is confirmed, then the hoarding Appeal lodged by the new owner of part of ‘our’ green space will fail and their current planning application will also be rejected - a local ‘double whammy’ win win.

So, here we are.

I am a volunteer Chair of Ravensbourne Park Gardens User Group since September 2014 and support fresh Green Chain links between Catford and Forest Hill via Blythe Hill Fields.

I am concerned with DC Cadeaux’s ongoing, private company policy to ‘cash in’ on selling off potential development land sites from their private land portfolio when the sites being sold off at public auction are subject to local authority maintenance contracts on terms which permit public access at all times.

This is my first post on this site - I would love to hear from the ‘Friends’ of Blythe Hill Fields’ and any local resident on their current/ongoing stance on the situation.

I’m doing my best to ensure the open. green space future of Duncombe Hill ‘Green’ and I want to hear similar back from you and from the nearest park to Duncombe Hill ‘Green’ - the ‘Friends’ of Blythe Hill Fields’.

I would love to know what the ‘Friends’ of Blythe Hill Fields’ have done/are doing to support keeping this essential green space ‘link’ open to all. From their park user website to date, it appears that this park user group have not even discussed this obvious issue.

Absolutely nothing in any of my open communications shown here could ever show anything other than support for legal, ongoing, public access to open, green space, as we await Lewisham Council’s response.

HI Austen

Thanks for you post and your work on this.

Can you please however take this as a gentle nudge not to drop in digs at the Friends of Blythe Hill please.

Thanks

Al

Auto correct?!? I think that should read ‘JC Decaux’, though they may be giving presents to opportunistic property developers

I would simply like to know what stance my nearest park user group has in relation to the ongoing situation exists in Duncombe Hill ‘Green’. I support re opening of what appears to have been openly accessible, green space as the volunteer Chair of Ravensbourne Park Gardens User Group. I want to understand if the Friends’ of Blythe Hill Fields support my stance or not, since I cannot find their position from their postings on their official website.

Sure - but they are not responsible for this land and it’s not what they have been set-up for. If they want to engage, great, if they don’t, also fine. Let’s just stay focused on the matter in hand, which you are doing admirably .

I’m not responsible for this land either. It’s not what our volunteer group has been set up for. However, a straight line, green chain pedestrian/cyclist link between Catford/Forest Hill and Honor Oak should be of mutual interest to volunteer, park user groups in my view. I am trying to encourage the continuance of this through my voluntary efforts. I actually disagree with you that the Friends’ of Blythe Hill Fields are “fine”’ to not engage with this collective debate and I trust that you will respect my opinion.
Maybe you can indicate to all here if you have any link with anyone associated with the Friends’ of Blythe Hill Fields, so that we can all engage with your post.

Hi Austen

As you may have seen from other posts I have made today, I am all for joined up action across multiple groups and forums. That only works if things are kept positive- you want to ask for engagement from others do so, but it’s other groups decision whether to participate or not. We’ll not have lambasting of other groups or people - I think frankly the last few days has shown where that gets people.

And no I have no affiliation to the Friends of Blythe Hill, or anyone involved in it.

Now let’s get everything back on track please.

Thanks

Al

With 1 day prior to the statutory requirement for a response to my Freedom of Information request to Lewisham Council, here is a copy of a 1968 Land Registry entry disclosed to me by Lewisham Council.
land swap with jc decaux.pdf (226.5 KB)

On 1st reading [having only just received it] it looks very promising that the advertising company agreed with Lewisham Council [the ‘Corporation’] agreed to lay the whole site out to public garden use only.
Anyway, have a read through everyone and let’s hear your thoughts first before going forward.

Thanks,
Austen

I will need to read it thoroughly. At a quick glance it looks as if the land is to be used onl

only as a garden.

Another question is ownership of the land.

I have written back to Lewisham Council today and requested a clear copy of Page 3 [which partially omits the crucial information, which looks like maintaining the site as a ‘public garden’ only] and to provide the coloured reference Title Plan linked to the Title and referred to in the text.
From the text, it appears that both the Company [and it’s successor - JC Decaux] and Lewisham Council [Corporation] would both have to agree to sever the 1968 Contract once one of the parties gave the other 12 months’ advance, written notice - ‘Jointly not severally’.
Just to add that my Freedom of Information request did ask specifically for disclosure of all of Lewisham Council’s contractual agreements made with the land owner [JC Decaux] prior to the Sale of Part in 2018 and Lewisham have only provided me with this 1968 Land Registry Deed. Therefore, I can only conclude that Lewisham Council were not approached with a view to terminating the 1968 contract and has not agreed ‘jointly’ to sever it either since part of the land was sold off.
This is very good news for Duncombe Green, in my view.

Dear Councillor,

Kindly catch up with the latest information on this post [6th August 2019].
My Freedom of Information request from July 2019 has now led to Lewisham Council disclosure of its 1968 contractual tenancy agreement with the forerunner advertising company for the site under which it is becoming clear that the whole Duncombe Green site was agreed between Lewisham Council and the Company owner [and successors] to be kept as ‘public gardens’ unless the agreement was jointly terminated after at least 12 months’ notice by either party.
Given that Damien Egan’s support for Duncombe Green appears unequivocal to support ongoing public access, then I doubt that Lewisham Council could have either provoked a request to terminate the contract, or jointly agreed to terminate the contract.
Now that this contract from 1968 appears to clarify the legal position, then I suggest that you bring this to the attention of Damien Egan and to Lewisham Planning in relation to both the undecided Appeal relating to the hoarding around part of the site and the undecided planning application to build on part of the site.
You will also note from the 1968 Tenancy that the ongoing, advertising company owner of the site had a negative, legal obligation to obtain Lewisham Council’s permission prior to any assignment of any part of the site.
My Freedom of Information request specifically requested disclosure of any contractual agreements between Lewisham Council and De Cadaux prior to any ‘Sale of Part’ last year. No other documents to the 1968 agreement have been disclosed.
Therefore, what we appear to be dealing with at Duncombe Hill ‘Green’ is this:

1. A legal contract from 1968 under which Lewisham Council and a private advertising company agreed on terms to maintain the ‘Green’ as a ‘public garden’, which could only ever be terminated on jointly agreed terms.
2. The same agreement provided that neither party could assign either the whole or any part of the ‘Green’ without the express permission of the other.
3. This agreement should be brought to the immediate attention of the Mayor of Lewisham Council and to the respective Planning Officers who are dealing with the undecided and separate planning issues of both the hoarding Appeal and the planning application to build on part of the site by the new owners, who bought part of the site at public auction in 2018.

I welcome your response.

Hi - kindly digest what appears to be good news for Duncombe Hill ‘Green’ in relation to a 1968 contract between Lewisham Council [‘Corporation’] and a prior name advertising company to DC Cadaux.
Lewisham responded to my Freedom of Information request with one day to spare!
I welcome your response to what appears to be a legally binding, ongoing, agreement to keep the whole area as “public gardens” with no assignment of part/whole unless notified to the other party and no legal right to unilateral termination.
This appears to be the best evidence to put forward to the respective officers in charge of both the hoarding Appeal and the undecided planning application to build on the site.
However, digest the link to the contract and I welcome your views.

@Austen_Jones, I’m not sure if you mean to reply specifically to me or the topic, but this looks like a fantastic find and good use of a FOI.

My own FOI didn’t find anything useful that wasn’t already in the public domain, though did furnish me with my own copies of some of the documents. You however, Sir, are showing how it should be done!

What are your next steps, or do you consider this a fait accompli?

Thanks for your support here.
Let’s hear from others on this exciting news first and then progress.
By the way, I did write to you separately, as a person with interest in the subject, and to respond to a previous post from the local councillor.
My initial, and ongoing engagement, was based on previous work done by you and others.

I’ve written to the following today to outline that Duncombe Hill ‘Green’ is subject to a tenancy agreement dated from 6th May 1968 agreed between London Borough of Lewisham and the private company owner[s] of the site:

1. The Mayor of Lewisham - Damien Egan
2. London Borough of Lewisham Planning to object to the current proposal to build flats on part of the site.
3. The Planning Inspectorate in Bristol, which is dealing with the undecided hoarding Appeal.

Now that it is clear that the whole site is subject to a legal obligation to ensure that the whole of Duncombe Hill Green is used only as “public gardens” from an ongoing agreement from 1968, then I believe that no further action is required by anyone following my correspondence today.

This sounds like great work, well done, certainly muddies the water for the developer but not sure of the legal ramifications as to whether it is a slam dunk or not

I think it is a ‘slam dunk’, ‘cut and dry’ issue.
When I read Damien Egan’s open letter on the issue dated from February 2019 [posted on 27th February 2019 as post 87 on this ongoing ‘thread’, I couldn’t understand why a local authority would have maintained the whole site for many years when it was owned by a private landowner.
It’s a fair and honest comment to state that our Mayor failed to outline to us all that, on 6th May 1968, Lewisham Council agreed a tenancy agreement with the pre-named, private company [now called DC Decaux] under which our local authority agreed to maintain the whole area as openly accessible, “public gardens”.

It’s also fair, honest and true to state that my initial efforts to approach Lewisham Council’s Greenscene Officers to view any relevant contracts relating to the junction with Duncombe Hill and Brockley Rise resulted in silence, which then led to the 1968 contract being disclosed under a Freedom of Information request.

I’m now pushing our Lewisham Mayor to become more pro-active and robust, in light of the disclosed, 1968 agreement, and I’ve requested a fresh, open letter from him to actively back the fact that all of the green site is still governed by the legal ramifications of the enduring 1968 agreement, which binds both the original, legal owner of the whole site and the ongoing, legal owner of part of the site as well.

What disappoints me [and I expressed it in my emailed correspondence to the Mayor of Lewisham] is that Lewisham Council could have dealt ‘in house’ with our concerns from start to finish by simply providing the relevant Planning Officer with a copy of the enduring, 1968 contract agreed on terms between Lewisham Council [a local authority] and a private company [DC Decaux] in order to refuse any planning permission to either erect hoarding or build on the part owned site.

Instead, it has been left to a private individual [me!] with legal training and a keen interest in protecting open, green space to point out and then flesh out the obvious by devoting my voluntary time to the cause.

The additional irony is that I joined the Facebook ‘Save Duncombe Green’ group and was excluded from the group within 24 hours! You couldn’t make it up!

Anyway, I am very proud to be engaged and involved in trying to resolve this ongoing issue.

I have no doubts at all that both the hoarding Appeal and current/future building development applications will be refused and that, once re-opened to public access, this ‘stepping stone’ between Blythe Hill Fields and Forest Hill/Honor Oak will attract publicly financed, re-engagement within our community.

One thing that everyone living in the Crofton Ward, SE23 can do over this weekend - write a copied email to all of your local councillors on this matter - Tauseef Anwar, Chris Banham and Pauline Morrison.
Simply point out in your email that you are now aware that the whole site at Duncombe Hill/Brockley Rise is subject to being kept open as “public gardens” under an ongoing, legal agreement dating from 6th May 1968 signed between London Borough of Lewisham and the previous incarnation of ‘DC Decaux’.
And then get tough and simply ask them, “What are you going to do to back up our community to ensure that this legal contract will be enforced by London Borough of Lewisham in order to get our green space back?”

Don’t you mean JC Decaux?

Many thanks for your post. Fortunately, I used the correct spelling in all relevant correspondence to Lewisham’s Mayor and planning. Perhaps you would be kind enough to outline if you support my sentiment that the 1968 contract held between Lewisham Council and JC Decaux accords with re-opening the site.

I hope the petition to Save Our Space wins!!
These so called money makers just love to come and destroy such precious places however they please.

I am really fed up of idol ideas just to make a pointless mark.
I do love change but not unnecessary and silly thoughtless change. I am not sorry to shout about this!!! Glad I signed the petition.

Money just can’t buy class neither can it shine on someone else’s light no matter what… saying goes if it ain’t broke don’t fix it especially when places big or small hold special meaning to such a great area.

Proud to have grown up and still live in Honor Oak Park for many wonderful reasons. Beauty at its best xx

image768×432 71.3 KB

I think the petition was very good in showing the public interest in this issue, and certainly there were some very supportive statements (or tweets?) from Councilors.

But things move slowly through the planning process, and so we all wait to see what happens with the enforcement notice and planning application too.

Previously we’ve had a long thread about this, with some insightful comments and revelations: https://se23.life/t/proposed-development-on-duncombe-hill-green/8959 [note this just got merged into the same topic ]

Particularly @Austen_Jones has been a super-slewth too and has identified a prior legal agreement that hopeful can curtail future developments on the site.

Thank you very much for your feedback means a lot.
That’s encouraging news.
Great to hear the right people in place getting the message out. So very proud and I fully support that. I like many look forward to seeing those Beautiful Trees branching out dancing in the wind looking forever green.
Apologies for coming across like it was not my idea far from it. I wanted to share my support to this important cause. Just lately fed up of negativity like most. If we don’t show we care then nothing is worth it. I 1 million percent believe in this and happy share that openly with a great bunch of delights. Your response meant a lot and any other feedback. Have a great evening

I saw no problem with your post at all, and personally appreciate the interest in this topic, thank you.

I agree - well put, and that’s a good sentiment that goes far beyond just Duncombe Hill Green.

The campaign group are reporting that the landowners have been instructed to take down the fence by 27th October. I hope this sticks.

Verdict here: https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?caseid=3224210&fbclid=IwAR0AZU645fLZvi5IDkRZTn3eOAbpIv9I3nj6NMa2J9neCiJLhfxEl3PWDtk

Direct link: https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewDocument.aspx?fileid=34383384

Pretty damning too, but this stands out as the second reason for dismissal, particularly the last sentence:

The land is on a prominent corner at the western end of the residential street Duncombe Hill at its junction with Brockley Rise, a busy street with shops, bus stops, a public house and other businesses. Before the timber hoarding was Erected photographs show that the land was a grassed area with a group of trees which made a very positive contribution to the attractiveness of the street scene. The triangular shaped open space, although small, provided visual relief within the urban surroundings and complemented the street trees and larger open spaces in the area. Representations on the appeal indicate that the small open space is much valued by the local community.

[Emboldening by me]

Game over. Investor Alliance lost the appeal. Duncombe Hill Green is saved. The fence has to be removed before the end of October. We won everyone. Thanks to everyone who helped make this happen

IMG_20191001_0223063648×2736 2.13 MB

The verdict seems to be very robust.

I agree with it.

I don’t see how there could be significant development on this site with several trees subject to tree preservation orders, unless somehow they die. This would seem to be unlikely as local residents want the space to remain open.

Indeed. Am looking forward to that fence coming down, really has become an eyesore. I hope they have to clear up all the crap that is no doubt been dumped \ left behind.

It’s odd but I think if they’d not put up the fences they would not have met such resistance - a total tactical miscalculation by them.

That’s the best news to my week so far!!
If anyone is up for enhancing this beautiful space… like repainting the mini fence near the bus stop & new sitting area etc. I be up for that kind of magic maybe a few flower patches. So this historical area can sparkle for many years to come with new life. Sorry not sorry I like many just want to show off this beautiful area again appreciating the meaning of my local area and community mean to me ever more now.
Looking forward to the new wildlife also making a visit xxx Well done superstars xxx
I think I just won the lottery what a feeling xxx

While I’m delighted that the ruling has gone against IA and they have to take the fence down, people should remember that this is only half the battle - the proposal to redevelop the area into flats is (I believe) still lodged with the council, and is still pending a decision. I’d be very happy to be proven wrong, though.

I have a feeling that the Inspector’s comments, which will be a material consideration in any Planning Application, have swung things even further against the developer.

I agree the appeal notice is only regarding the enforcement to remove the fence.

The discussion of planning permission in the appeal decision relates only to the fact that if the appeal over the fence was successful, it is paramount to implicitly granting planning permission for the fence, and so legislation notes that when appealing, it also implies an applying for planning permission as per the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, section 177.5.

The section can be seen here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/8/section/177:

image1604×439 43.4 KB

I’ve read through the Appeal Decision relating to the removal of the hoarding.
Whilst relieved by the decision, I’m in full agreement with those who now forward the debate to a Lewisham Planning decision on the proposed development of the site.
I wrote my objections to both the hoarding Appeal and the undecided site development proposal on the relevant grounds that the whole triangular site is subject to a legal agreement dating from 1968 signed between Lewisham Council and the private, advertising company owner of the site, which ensures that the whole site is kept open as a green space for everyone to enjoy.
I urge everyone to lodge an objection to the undecided planning proposal to repeat this by stating in their respective objection - “this development site is clearly protected by virtue of an ongoing, written agreement signed with London Borough of Lewisham dating from 1968 under which the whole, triangular site at the junction between Duncombe Green and Brockley Rise is deemed to be open to the public as green space and no legal termination/amendment of this agreement has been formalised to date.”
To all engaged, kindly act on this and also copy/paste it onto any other sites with my permission to increase the chance of thwarting the undecided planning proposal to build flats on our open, green space.

Out of interest, what is Lewisham’s official designation of this site?
If it isn’t an Urban Green Space or a Local Green Space is the agreement merely contractual between its signatories and their legal teams rather than a matter for a Planning Officer to adjudicate over?
If there is no designation, then surely Lewisham has failed in its democratic duty to ensure continuous use as some sort of protected public open space - or has there been some variation to the original agreement, verbally or otherwise, that hasn’t yet been made public?
The whole thing doesn’t seem to add up.

image750×785 120 KB

I followed the link and like magic it disappears!!

Shifty all round aright

Anyhow…Please stop this silliness!!
For the many that care sure have had enough especially with the small lies, excuses and cover ups if that be it?? Just free this nature patch and local historical space because we all deserve to breath life not feel closed!!!

image4032×3024 6.9 MB

Goodbye fence

Yay…let that green patch breath new life!!

The fence may have gone but Investor Alliance are still being dicks. This was today. Nailing a plastic box that looks like a camera, but isn’t and signs all the way round the green. I doubt we have heard the last of them. Expect to see a chain link fence going up soon I bet😠

IMG_20191013_1033465120×3840 7.35 MB

IMG_20191013_1031472736×3648 2.33 MB

Sadly they have done this

IMG_20191013_1033465120×3840 7.35 MB

Does that camera really have a dangling cable that goes no where?!? Or is it just the picture?

That’s so wrong who do they think they are bleep bleep and bleep fuming!! How can this be stopped I hate people like that selfish people. I am angry like many of us whom don’t want this they haven’t won this fairly so why what and how ???
Can we knock that down?? Can we put a fence up ourselves why are the council letting this happen??

Oh I see reported elsewhere that this is a fake CCTV camera for £10 from Amazon, which comes with the signs. It may be the model with a solar panel on top to make a LED flash too.

It’s so absurd that it feels like some sort of Banksy installation. Has anyone checked there aren’t some stuffed rats having a tea-party in the middle of the green?

Not even a cable a hollow plastic tube

Are they seriously expecting people to observe the notices? Has to be a joke.

Drove past it today. Ridiculous. So tempted to take an electric saw to the lot of them.

Isn’t it ridiculous - Lewisham Planning has still not made a decision on the planning application [lodged in March 2019] to apply to build flats on part of the Duncombe Hill Green site.

It’s now 3rd November 2019.

As I discovered from a Freedom of Information application this summer - the whole, triangular site is subject to an ongoing, and non rescinded, legally binding contract signed between any ongoing, private owner of any part of the site and Lewisham Council dating from 1968.

Under this 1968 contract, all parties are legally bound to keep the whole, triangular site open as ‘green accessible space’ for all.

I forwarded this information to Lewisham planning in relation to the development application [as I did to the separate hoarding/fencing Appeal adjudicators].

I cannot comprehend any logical reason for the Lewisham Planning Department to refuse the planning application to build on the site in light of the 1968 Contract disclosed by London Borough of Lewisham itself.

Can you?

For clarification - I cannot comprehend any logical reason for the Lewisham Planning Department to ‘not’ refuse the planning application!
Thanks for ‘Forest Hull’ for pointing out to me the absence of one crucial word out of the many.

Continues: Proposed Development on Duncombe Hill Green [2020]