Proposed Development on Duncombe Hill Green [2018-2019]

Naturescape
#197

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.

#198

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

#199

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.

3 Likes
#200

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

#201

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]

#202

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.

#203

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

#204

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.

#205

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.

1 Like
#206

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)

#207

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.

#208

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

1 Like
#209

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

1 Like
#210

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

#211

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.

#212

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."

#213

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.

#214

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?

#215

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

1 Like
#216

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.

2 Likes