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?
1 Like
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?
1 Like
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?
2 Likes
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.
3 Likes
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.
2 Likes
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:
Image: 2021-05-22T23:00:00Z
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:
Image: 2021-06-03T23:00:00Z
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.
3 Likes
That’s outrageous.
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
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.
1 Like
Also - for all the developer knows - it could have been something like Japanese knotweed to try and mess up the site 
1 Like
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.
Yeah - the seedlings weren’t pulled out, they have died like everything else that was green. Probably glycophosphate I’d guess, and they didn’t look like knotweed to me - thought knotweed is pretty hard to destroy even with glyphosphate (I think it has to be -injected- into the stems by specialists!).
Certainly it’s their land and they can do what they like (as they are spitefully demonstrating), but the tree’s have TPOs and I’m doubtful that repeated application of herbicide is having no effect.
Clearly playing a long and spiteful game here, slowly damaging the trees until they can be removed and the land developed.
1 Like
If it is the developer who’s killed the grass and pulled-up the new plants, I think it’s pathetic.
Dealing for that plot in the first instance was always highly speculative, and any payback was likely to be a long way in the future, so making a mess of the place just because he’s underestimated or not fully understood the planning implications is childlike in my opinion.
Okay, local people made their collective voice of opposition heard, but, ultimately, it was planning policy that put the block on his propsals, not the people.
You win some, you lose some - and move on accordingly.
1 Like
DC/18/109671 placed a Tree Preservation Order on the group of 5 trees on the green:
That order requires that:
Here’s a picture of the Crab Apple at the corner most extent of the green:
Note the brown and dessicated leaves on the suckers - clearly it has been sprayed too.
Personally I would suggest that is wilful damage to the tree, against the terms of the TPO and the Council should take an interest.
The notion that the land owner is unable to maintain the land and is spraying it to defend against knotweed is both disingenuous and frankly ridiculous. Hiring someone with a lawn mower would be sufficient to maintain the land - heck, I reckon there might even be some locals that would be willing to mow it for free. As pointed out on Twitter, the council could also issue a Section 215 notice to require proper maintenance of the land.
If however the council is uninterested in protecting the trees, they should cancel the TPOs and start a dialog about a suitable approach to planning - call it a small site and do something useful with it.
I think the current path of acrimony is good for no-one and will likely take the (limited) lifetime of the trees to resolve to the same outcome in any case, just after much friction.
2 Likes
Has anyone reported this to the Council’s Tree Officer? I know she’s terribly overworked, as Lewisham puts such little value on its trees that they only have one tree officer for the whole of the borough, but she might be able to do something as this is such a prominent Open Space.
Also just how safe is it to be spraying strong weedkiller around on such a site, adjacent to footpaths?
Has anyone tackled the owners of the site? Presumably still the three investors named at Companies House?
The weedkiller being used on the grass, if it’s very strong, may also be permeating down and damaging the roots of these protected trees in breach of 2 (a) or (b) of the order.
2 Likes
Its nothing less than environmental thuggery, but I would be amazed if anyone from the council is remotely interested.
2 Likes