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?
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)
2 Likes
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
/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 -
- 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.
- 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.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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
3 Likes
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 
.
1 Like
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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?