Fantastic!
Because the Inspectorate website is so slow and frequently falls over, here is a copy of the report:
Appeal Decision 3256304.pdf (145.7 KB)
I’m pretty sure it was already established that the hoarding doesn’t have planning permission. I really hope Lewisham can move towards enforcement both to get the hoarding down, and require proper maintenance of the area as noted above.
What is the process - and what timescale are we talking about?
I’m not sure. The previous ones definitely didn’t, but the current ones I guess can count as a fence, which I think you can just put up. They’ve reduced them on the sides where the roads are to 1M to comply with that obligation so I would hazard I guess they’d be allowed now, as hideous as they look.
The grass also appears to be have been treated with something inside the ‘fence’, though again nothing illegal with that as far as I am aware. Distasteful and uneccesary again, and pesticides, assuming that is what was used, not good for the environment as we know.
The trees are protected I believe, however they wouldn’t be the first developer to just cut them down or otherwise kill them, that would be my greatest concern at the moment.
Hi @AnotherJohn - I think there is some info here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/neighbourhood-planning--2
I guess the problem is that we have a malevolent out-of-town property developer determined to turn some profit from this little bit of land, and there’s little to currently stop them trying to change the plans until something is finally accepted (in fact the appeal refusal from the Planning Inspectorate noted that further adjusted plans had been submitted with the appeal, but those were irrelevant to the appeal process which instead looks at the decision made by Lewisham on the basis of the application as it stood at that point in time).
So it seems something needs to be done to try and safe-guard that once grassy triangle, and neighbourhood planning maybe a tool to do that.
There was previously an enforcement notice to remove the hoarding - it is linked in this post: Proposed Development on Duncombe Hill Green [2018-2019]
Reading the enforcement notice, I do not think that simply lowering the corner complies with the council’s instruction as they ask for the whole thing to be removed, along with any debris. There was apparently an appeal on the enforcement notice, but I struggle to find any reference to it at present.
I would hope Lewisham move toward enforcement if there is no ongoing appeal for that enforcement.
If the poison (could be herbicide or salt) affects the trees - which are protected by Tree Preservation Orders - it could invite a fine.
Thank you - and I agree that this developer isn’t finished yet.
Very true, but they did remove it all so I don’t know how it then stands if they put a ‘new’ fence up which probably complies?
From the previous enforcement notice, the reasons were well beyond just visibility at the corner:
It’s an interesting point though - if you comply with the instruction and then undo it later, I would like to think that there must be some consequence, otherwise what’s the point of an enforcement notice if it can so easily be side stepped in cases such as this?
I’m surprised that any of the illegal hoardings are still standing. I’m sure it wouldn’t take much for some vandals to knock them down.
Does anybody have any concerns about different ways that this illegal hoarding could be removed by irate neighbours - you know the sort of thing: sawing supporting posts, removing nails - can anybody else think of other ways the hoardings might not stand up to attack from angry mobs?
And does anybody have any particular times that they are concerned about people theoretically meeting up, tooled up for such abhorrent activities?
I don’t know. I suspect they could say they have complied and then put up after a period of time more suitable fences. I think the point above still stands about the appearance, but you can now see the ‘dead’ grass and trees so might be harder to argue the fact, and I suspect the council have other priorities right now. They might also argue the writing on them was not done by them etc - I’m purely speculating but suspect they would have a stronger case now as it doesn’t dominate as much - still hideous but they could maybe be asked to paint them over…anyway I’ll stop my uninformed ramblings…
I have wondered if these might fall over at some point, but I think if they did so in high winds for example, they would potentially cause a risk to people walking past if not secured appropriately.
I still struggle to understand their behaviour. Whilst I am sure there would have been opposition to the development scheme, acting in the way they did by boarding it up galvanised resistance to the plans far more than simply submitting an application would have. Bizarre behaviour and / or some very bad advice.
The one (and possibly only) positive to the death of the grass will be that come spring seed could accidentally fall or be blown in by the wind into the area and you could have the possibility of meadow flowers or other similar schemes which would look amazing. I might wander past on a windy day next year if the ground is still relatively bare.
Have often wondered what could possibly happen if enough people just so happened to be passing a certain green space at the same time…
I thought I would try and get a before and after pic of this sorry site:
The camera lens really makes the area look bigger than it is - when walking by it is hard to imagine a block of flats on such a small setting.
That would be very fortunate because bare earth will be quickly over grown with weeds unless something better were to find it’s way there.
Hopefully some squirrels will bury a few acorns there too 
I was watching nature slowly take back this corner as spring was re-greening and nurturing it, perhaps aided by some guerilla gardeners and butterfly friendly wild seeds:
Unfortunately it looks like the land has been ‘treated’ again as the ‘green’ is once more dessicated and brown today and the seedlings have perished:
I find it hard to comprehend the wickedness and failings that allow this once green patch of land to be repeatedly poisoned and vandalised in this way.
That’s outrageous.
Ultimately people can you use whatever pesticides they like on their land, and whilst there will be much condemnation of this (rightly so), there will be plenty of people using them in gardens, allotments and patios etc (I’m against all pesticide use generally to be clear!). Doing it at this time of year is especially not great as it will likely also kill lots of insects in the grass and plants.
As I mentioned further up, I really don’t understand the developers thoughts. They seem to periodically engage in acts of effective local vandalism, and in this case enviromental vandalism, on their own property which will only annoy likely objectors. From erecting their ridiculous fence, to then taking it down, putting back a lower one, ‘treating’ the grass they could not score more owngoals if they tried.
I bet they’d have had less objections if they’d not put the boards up in the first place. Bizarre.
I think it was a nice for someone to plants stuff on the land, but I can see why the developer pulled them out as soon as they noticed as (a) it’s their land and (b) they were planted by trespassers… So it’s not exactly another example of outrageous behaviour by the developer.
Also - for all the developer knows - it could have been something like Japanese knotweed to try and mess up the site 
I think that would be fine (not great but fine), but some grass was growing, which appears from the photos to now be dead, which means it’s likely been treated again.
