The last time someone copied a post from the Facebook group our mod team got a copyright legal take-down threat from the lady in question! 
I donāt think you need to worry.
At this point, all the objections have been collated and considered by the planning committee, and their write up makes it quite clear that their intention is to refuse the permission.
If you have the time, read their report, its deals with all the points very clearly.
Itās nice that Matt Letwin, who lives very locally to the area is accepted to speak, and kind of him to give his time, but it seems almost unnecessary at this point as thereās already been fantastic input and interest from the community.
From the report:
Well done to everyone that came together and contributed to the effort. Hopefully it will be straight through on the 23rd.
5 Likes
While hopefully the decision is a done deal, I have seen adjustments made based on the input of the two parties. Iād lay a bet the developer will use their time well. So as a final piece of advice, get to the session early. The planning officer should help you find other objectors and take the few minutes available to strategize.
Good luck.
4 Likes
Iāve contacted Lewisham planning and have registered my intention to object to the proposal as Chair of the Ravensbourne Park Gardens park user group. Iāve also written to planning by end of day Friday, 17th January 2020 to request evidence of the 1968 Tenancy being unilaterally terminated by JC Decaux prior to the sale of its section of the āGreenā by public auction in 2018.
To back this up further, I have also made a Freedom of Information application on the same day to request the same.
Just to recap that the planning Appendix to the agenda issued in advance of Planning Committee Bās meeting on 23rd January 2020 does not provide evidence of termination and only shows a copy of the Tenancy itself. This corresponds to the same copy of the Tenancy I received following my FOI application for all relevant contractual information from July 2019. My FOI application did not flush out any termination of contract correspondence.
At the same time in 2019, my correspondence with Vince Buchanan [Lewisham Greenscene Officer] and Damien Eganās office provided me with responses that avoided answering specific questions to pre and post auction contracts for Lewisham to maintain the āGreenā.
No mention from either that the Tenancy was terminated.
Therefore, the only reference to the 1968 Tenancy being terminated is now found (for the first time) in the Planning agenda notes for the meeting scheduled for 23rd January 2020 but without evidence shown in the Appendix.
Whilst I appreciate the fact that the current planning will be refused, it still will not prevent further applications and will not resolve how the site can be accessed by the public or maintained for the future.
I suspect, until proved otherwise, that the 1968 Tenancy was not terminated prior to the auction sale in 2018 and that JC Decaux could have assigned the land in breach of this ongoing contract. If Iām correct, then the Tenancy is still is legal effect and should still be laid out as āpublic gardensā maintained by the London Borough of Lewisham and not built on. This will resolve all the issues raised in the above.
The question is this - Does anyone have any understanding in relation to the termination of the 1968 Tenancy issued to London Borough of Lewisham by JC Decaux prior to the auction sale to the current developer company in 2018?
If someone could copy/paste this question to the FB site of Save Duncombe Hill Green and any other forums, then you have my permission to do so. This is key to saving this open green space.
Thank you.
This email to me from Vince Buchanan was his only response [he didnāt respond to my follow on emails so I made a FOI application which only disclosed the 1968 Tenancy] and you will note that he failed to outline that the original 1968 Tenancy was terminated. He only states that Glendale did not have a contract to maintain the new ownerās land following its enclosure.
Buchanan, Vincent Vincent.Buchanan@lewisham.gov.uk
Fri 05/07/2019 10:52
- You;
- Maynard, Peter;
- Hollands, Pat
īø
Dear Austen,
Thank you for your email in relation to Planning application DC/19/111251.
I am having some difficulty understanding exactly what you are requesting. However, I can confirm that there is no agreement to continue with the maintenance of the area recently enclosed by the owner of the land at Duncombe Hill .
Only sections of the site that remain the responsibility of the London Borough of Lewisham are maintained via our contract with Glendale Grounds Management.
I hope my interpretation of your request is correct. If you believe that I have misunderstood your request please let me know and once your request has been clarified I will, if possible provide you with additional information.
Kind regards
Vince
It sounds as if the occupier/owner of the dining room on the ground floor of No. 5 Duncombe Hill would have a rights of like compensation claim against the developer. Experts told me this is usually 1/3 of the increase in value of the property that reduces the light. Since it is currently an open site I would suggest that the legal claim would be for 1/3 of the sale price of all the properties!
Hello everyone. Itās Matt Lewin.
Thanks to all on the thread for the campaigning and helpful suggestions. Iāve registered to speak at the meeting on Thursday. I live directly opposite the site and I work as a barrister practising in planning law, so would hope I am well qualified to do so.
In response to Austenās suggestion of using the 1968 tenancy agreement as a basis for objecting - unfortunately itās not a planning issue, so is not something the Committee could rely on in refusing planning permission.
It seems to me that the agreement has been terminated and, in any case, the land was sold 18 months ago. Planning regulates the use of land, not who owns it.
I agree with the comment above that with a very strong recommendation for refusal, thereās not much more to add to the officerās report. Nonetheless I think itās important to show the developer that he has a fight on his hands!
I look forward to seeing some of you at the Town Hall this week.
Look out for some news on an application to register the land as a village green in the next week or two.
Matt
7 Likes
Best of luck at the meeting @matt_l, and thanks for posting on SE23.life. Itās good to have updates shared here where everyone on the internet can see them.
1 Like
A very good point, and thank you for taking this on! This particular developer does seem to be quite beligerant, so everything helps.
So to clarify my view, given the choice of you speaking or not speaking - yes please, give it your all!
1 Like
Even with the Case Officerās recommendation to refuse, itās still the Committeeās decision. So nothingās won till itās won. And Iāve been caught out at Committee hearings when revised plans got submitted on the day of the hearing and on which objectors had had no chance to comment. (And donāt get me started on āConditionsā. They donāt get enforced.)
Following refusal the developer then has 6 months in which to appeal.
At appeal the Planning Inspector only considers those grounds for refusal that were actually given in the Councilās decision letter. So itās important to make sure that all grounds for refusal get mentioned in the letter. Iāve been involved in a case where a Committee has refused an application following a discussion where they had many concerns but because only one thing was mentioned in planning deptās actual decision letter the inspector only considered that one matter and upheld the appeal (ie over turned the committeeās decision and granted permission).
Let it go Chris, bigger things to discuss on this thread than taking shots at the Facebook group.
1 Like
I completely agree and hope lots of people turn up to see the decision.
Itās hard to see it not refused though - there are some very specific and non-subjective reasons for refusal listed here by the case officer. For example, six of the seven properties are undersized against recommended areas for internal and external amenity. For example, 5 trees subject to TPOs would have to be removed, and a sixth impacted.
For the committee to ignore this would be to go against the very policies they are employed to uphold.
Imagine the planning permission were granted - some very serious questions about the integrity of the committee would surely have to be answered.
In this case I think major changes would have to be made in order to address the complaints, including new architectural drawings. It would seem inconceivable to me that objectors or the planning committee could usefully review and then go on to approve them in a short timeframe - given its taken them something like 10 months to get this far.
Iām definitely not one to count chickens before they are hatched, and I know strange things can and do happen. But this case, at least, looks pretty well buttoned up to me.
Anyway, letās all show our support on the 23rd.
1 Like
Yes letās not forget how committed the council appeared to be to saving the Bell Green Gasholders (with massive local support, the local listing, and the various councillors standing behind the campaign). Things can change very quickly.
1 Like
Well done @matt_l for stepping up to the plate and giving this campaign the benefit of your expertise in standing to speak in objection to this hideous proposal.
Of course a strong recommendation for refusal doesnāt guarantee the same outcome, nor will a vote being carried to refuse prevent this developer from taking their madcap idea to Appeal, but a strong, well-put-together statement stressing and demonstrating all the ways this is at odds with Planning Policy will ring true in the ears of the Inspector and, hopefully, make it too compelling not to concur in his or her decision; and I have every confidence that youāll do exactly whatās required in that sense. So good luck and thank you.
2 Likes
Matt,
If the 1968 Tenancy is not a planning matter, then why has the planning agenda specifically referred to it and uploaded a copy in the Appendix? The tenancy governs the use of the land as āpublic gardensā and would clearly be considered in relation to a change of use to develop the site.
From your post, it appears that you have not had sight of any evidence to demonstrate the termination of the Tenancy [no one has to my knowledge] and until shown, then a non-terminated and valid tenancy would appear to most obvious course of action to automatically request a refusal of the planning application based on use of the land.
The tenancy requires JC Decaux ānot to assignā their land without either mutual consent or 12 month termination notice. Any breach could be pursued 6 years following, so the sale at auction 18 months ago in within this period for Lewisham Council to pursue, if required, to restore the āpublic gardensā requirement.
Anyway, I should hear back from Planning this week in relation to providing evidence to support termination notice and I shall post up the response.
Iām neither a lawyer nor a *planner, but surely the 1968 tenancy is merely contractual between 2 parties, and therefore outside of the planning remit, so any skullduggery to sweep it under the carpet is presumably either a criminal or civil matter?
(* I did, however, have a huge run-in with the Head of Development Control in Bromley about a new house that I wanted to build, on what he insisted wasnāt a plot, and my application went to committee with a very strong recommendation for refusal, supported by a very vocal and influential local residentsā association, and I won the day with no professional help. I have also beaten the local planners twice since then - so I have a proven limited understanding of the subject).
Any legally binding contract related to the ongoing use of Duncombe Hill āGreenā is a clear planning matter. I have had no definitive disclosure from Lewisham Council to suggest that the 1968 Tenancy has been validly terminated. Until I do, then the use of the whole site is for Lewisham Council to maintain as āPublic Gardensā and this provides an ongoing, legal impediment to any land owning applicant to succeed with a change of use far more potent than any other objection.
Simple disclosure to prove it was would confirm that I am incorrect to pursue this line. However, even the agenda for this Thursdayās meeting [Section 2 para 7] and the Appendix fails to provide even a date when the termination notice was allegedly served on Lewisham Council, let alone a copy to match the copy of the Tenancy.
Not one person on this Forum appears to support my view, even Matt who is a barrister. I wonder if my individual efforts will be proved correct. I donāt know, but para 7 of the Agenda provides sufficient, ongoing vagueness for me to continue to challenge the issue and not merely accept what has been set out.
1 Like
I personally donāt understand everything legal. But I hope those like yourself and others who care so much about this public space within our community stick together strong on this has we do on the forum. I donāt read everything but I love the support itās been given.
5 Likes
Do you think itās in a Planning Inspectorās power to enforce that contract?
Whether or not, should consent be granted, the contract were to be duly challenged and prevented the proposed development is another matter.
Donāt get me wrong, I appreciate and admire your efforts and tenacity in fighting this for the good of the neighbourhood.