The developers seem to be appealing against the enforcement notice for the erection of the fence. I assume I got a letter as I objected to the planning application- or have the council mailed all local residents? Does anyone understand the grounds for objection made by the developer (attached) and I assume ‘making your views on this matter to the planning inspector’ relate to the fence or is it the wider planning application too?
Yep, makes no sense except to drag things out.
In addition to @anon93536262 reply, the council letter also mentions damage to the roots of the TPO’d trees as a concern.
The purpose of the letter seems to be to invite further public comment to resolve the appeal, asking for either written comment on triplicate, or emails.
@Suze would you be able to post the full letter here, including the 2nd page which gives the details of how to respond correctly?
So the easiest thing to do is to email teame2@pins.gsi.gov.uk, quoting APP/C5690/C/19/322410 and state your views on this matter, which is the planning enforcement notice for the errection of the fence without prior planning permission (i.e. not the planning permission for building flats on the land itself).
The full enforcement notice this relates to is here:
Correspondence with owner.pdf (44.0 KB)
Enforcement Notice - Duncombe Hill.pdf (602.6 KB)
Interestingly IAL must have paid £412 for this appeal.
I can’t make head or tail of Lewisham Council’s Planning portal - has any Tree Preservation Order [‘TPO’] been granted yet? And the construction proposal to build a 3/4 block of flats is deemed ‘Registered’ [not ‘Decided/Refused’].
I understood that Lewisham Council also decided that the ongoing site hoarding had to be removed by the owner of the site - what enforcement is Lewisham Council currently taking, since it’s still there?
Who can local residents contact Lewisham Council to put ongoing pressure to ensure that the hoarding is removed asap?
So the planning application for the flats is DC/19/111251.
It currently has 129 comments, all are objections and none in support. It’s unclear when a decision will be made, but the Contacts section of the portal has the relevant council details.
The Tree Protection Orders were issued have been confirmed and can be found on the planning site too, though copies of the TPOs are here and here in case you are interested in which trees are protected:
MADE TPO - T1 sycamore Duncombe Hill Brockley Rise 2019.pdf (138.1 KB)
MADE TPO G1 9.11.18.pdf (145.4 KB)
Finally an enforcement notice was served for the removal of the fence (a full copy of which is linked in my reply above this one), but it has been taken to the Planning Inspectorate for appeal by the new landowner. Lewisham council have written to a number of people asking them to provide the Planning Inspectorate with comment to help come to conclusion on the enforcement notice. This can easily be done by email, as detailed in my previous reply.
1 Like
I will write in support of removal of the fence. Prior to doing so, what I fail to understand is how a publicly accessible space [as it was for years] with open access and public bench seating, could be then fenced off.
I presume that London Borough of Lewisham/Glendale had accepted an ongoing responsibility in the past to maintain the Green, as it was never overgrown. Lewisham Council normally accepted an ongoing maintenance role when public access is accepted by an ongoing, private land owner [regardless of a change of land ownership].
In the case here, there was a fully instated, publicly accessible path and public seating.
Have you requested from Lewisham Council/Glendale to confirm that they maintained the Green until it was fenced off and whether, or not, a public footpath exists, which runs through the it to link Duncombe Hill to Brockley Road? I think this is the most obvious, additional legal way to prevent any development.
Yep - a terrific job to ensure TPO’s on pretty much all the trees in the ‘Green’ by those involved.
I noticed about a week ago that the site is still effectively ‘open’ to the public, due to one of the hoarding boards removed on Duncombe Hill. Legally speaking, that’s good news, in my view.
It is absolutely essential now to request from Lewisham Council [under a Freedom of Information request] for a response on the following:
- Did London Borough of Lewisham maintain this site until it was fenced off?
- If so, provide local residents with a copy of the original agreement made between the London Borough of Lewisham and the relevant landowner of the site under which the London Borough of Lewisham agreed to maintain the site.
- Did the London Borough of Lewisham instate the publicly accessible pathway linking through the site from Duncombe Hill to Brockely Rise and/or the publicly used park benches?
- Was the London Borough of Lewisham responsible for maintaining the same publicly accessible pathway and/or the same publicly used park benches?
- Does the London Borough of Lewisham accept that there is a publicly adopted path running through the site from Duncombe Hill to Brockley Rise? If not, then why not?
I’ve never written to Lewisham Council under a Freedom of Information request before. However, if the above reads well, then I will do so. Just tell me who to address it to and I’ll get onto it.
Obtaining prove that Lewisham Council maintained the site on the understanding that the public would benefit indefinitely from use and free access will effectively bind the new owners of the site on the same terms and ensure the success of removing the hoardings.
What do you think?
I think the path and bench you may be thinking of are actually outside the area that’s been sold and fenced off. There’s a picture of the area at the very top of this topic, and the fence is also outlined in the enforcement notice. You can also visit the actual site and see if you are passing.
I’ll pass by tomorrow evening. Do you know who owned the proposed development site prior to the current owners?
The land registry does, and the records are already posted further up this topic. It’s worth reading top to bottom as many questions are already asked and answered.
1 Like
I’ve read the whole post and visited the site today.
- The useful Land Registry download doesn’t appear to include a section relating to ‘Restrictive Covenants’, which could really help. If there is a negative restriction relating to building on the Deeds to the plot. If this Land Registry page is available, then someone post it up. Otherwise, a search of the title deed is required [if anyone can assist!].
- There is no information presented in relation to what appears to have been Lewisham Council’s clear acceptance in the past to manage the whole site [including the footpath/benches] with a previous, private landowner. As such, the whole of the ‘Green’ included a local authority ‘adopted’ path and fully accessible open space for all. I believe it would be useful to contact either Peter.Maynard@lewisham.gov.uk or Vince.Buchanan@lewisham.gov.uk [Lewisham Greenscene Managers] and request a copy of any Lewisham Council agreement to manage an ‘open and accessible’ green space on behalf of a private landowner, which may back up a position that the ‘Green’ should be kept as open space, accessible to all. This information would also show just how long the ‘Green’ has been an open space
Given the urgency of the current planning application, then a reasonable, timescaled response of 5 working days should be requested prior to applying for the same under a Freedom.information@lewisham.gov.uk application having contacted the relevant department without response.
Any thoughts on the above as an additional way to effectively block the development?
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.
I know someone on another council’s planning meetings. He says provided the application meets council planning schemes they must approve it.
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
There may have been a legal easement established over the land.
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]
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.
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
- 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.
- 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
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.