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 itâs 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 itâs 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.
4 Likes
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.
2 Likes
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.
1 Like
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.
3 Likes
âUltimately better use of the land.â Who says land always has to be âusedâ for something? And youâre saying you would prefer to look out on to two blocks of flats rather than green space and trees? I find that extremely odd.
4 Likes
I take my hat off to you.
I totally disagree with what youâre 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 itâs always interesting to see how different folks are with things.
So, for me, thanks for sharing.
4 Likes
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 wouldnât 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, itâs entirely possible the developer could have outpaced the council and already started works with little reprise.
1 Like
I didnât 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, Iâd be very surprised if the tree officer wasnât already on it.
My point was really just to thank Cosmo for showing a different opinion.
1 Like
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.
Iâm not disagreeing with you @AnotherJohn. I certainly agree with the points you make regarding expression of other viewpoints - monocultures arenât 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 canât 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.
2 Likes
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.
1 Like
Hereâs the link to the planning application. Itâs a truly awful, incomplete, ill-considered scheme. No sign of an arboricultural statement, some outright lies in the Design and Access Statement. Doesnât fill me with hope for the finished product!
4 Likes
The TPOs are also now linked on the planning site too:
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 canât 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 Iâm assuming is at least months away.
1 Like
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.