Perhaps they also are worried about liability (perhaps legally, but at least morally) if there were a serious accident at the junction which was aggregated by the loss of visibility from the fence.
The irony of course that they claim was put up in the first place for reasons of liability.
2 Likes
I’ve now been blocked from the Facebook group. Which in one way is very predictable, and in another shows how childish one of the admins can be at times.
8 Likes
I don’t think there was an application made for the fence, I’m nearly 100% sure on that.
My gut feel is that the developers will say the green is not in use so development should proceed. I’m sure I read that they had claimed to have studied the site over x amount of months and had never seen it in use. I suspect they are right on this, I’ve never seen anyone using it other than to let their dog run around it, in the 13+ years I’ve lived here. BUT people do sit on the benches and get to look out onto it my kids like running around it, and it could be so much better with some nicer planting of bulbs and perennials an it is of course a green space on a relatively main road.
It’s a strange one this, in many ways their are other campaigns like the cleaner air one that would have better long-term benefits for residents, and for me for my kids but I think the developers have riled so many people putting up the fences I think it’s become almost symbolic of developers etc taking green space for profit with scant regard for local opinion. I suspect if they had approached this differently opposition would have been less. If you ever wanted an example of a bad PR approach to something here it is.
Hopefully everyone with an interest in this can keep things positive as divide and conquer will be music to the developers ears. Let’s keep it positive SE23!
5 Likes
I was informed that a local councillor spoke to the developer today. The developer believes he has improved road visibility at the corner and has done all he can do regarding reducing the impact of the fence.
The developer lodged an appeal last week against the council’s enforcement notice, which means over the next 7-8 months (while the appeal is decided), the fence will remain as is.
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 it’s 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 it’s 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
‘Ultimately better use of the land.’ Who says land always has to be ‘used’ for something? And you’re 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 you’re 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 it’s 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 wouldn’t 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, it’s entirely possible the developer could have outpaced the council and already started works with little reprise.
1 Like
I didn’t 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, I’d be very surprised if the tree officer wasn’t 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.
I’m not disagreeing with you @AnotherJohn. I certainly agree with the points you make regarding expression of other viewpoints - monocultures aren’t 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 can’t 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