Thank you Starman, appreciate the help.
Post(s) from this topic were removed as they were off topic
Sod this for a laugh. Organiser of the fb group has taken the time to hunt me down on Facebook and personally block me and everything is being overmoderated on here. I despair at the human race.
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.
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.
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.