The Facebook group is now on Twitter too.
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:
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 guess that, if they chucked some cash at the council for some new trees elsewhere, that tree would come down.
I did, incidentally, read somewhere, that younger trees absorb more CO2 than older trees, as they grow, although big trees definitely look a lot nicer imo. But in terms of pollution, replacing trees could be more beneficial than keeping old ones. Not that I see much evidence in our road, which has significantly fewer trees than 10 years ago and fewer suitable planting places due to driveway developments.
There’s actually one which is completely dead over the road, which the council are definitely aware of, but have left in situ for at least 3 years. Let’s hope it doesn’t cause more damage than they’ve saved by ignoring it.
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…
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]