SE23.com - The Official Forum for Forest Hill & Honor Oak, London SE23
Online since 2002  -  10,000+ members

Home | SE23 Topics | Businesses & Services | Wider Topics | Offered/Wanted/Lost/Found | Site Feedback | Advertising | Contact
Geddes Hairdressing & Barbering Studio One Armstrong & Co Solicitors


Post Reply  Post Topic 
Pages (3): « First < Previous 1 2 [3] Last »
Conservation Area
Author Message
brian


Posts: 2,002
Joined: Apr 2005
Post: #41
28-08-2009 07:47 AM

Roz
I appreciate the council can act retrospectively on all homes that were in the the original conservation area ( surely up to buyers solicitors to find out conversation matters in search etc ) , but cannot believe they have the right to get people to change retrospectively in the new proposed extension.
Surely the document cannot say this , if so a good lawyer could challenge it in court.

Find all posts by this user Reply
roz


Posts: 1,793
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #42
29-08-2009 11:41 AM

I've re read the document and now it seems a bit ambiguous ; does anyone else think re the reference to article 4 and discussion on reinstatement of ie sash windows, this is saying that they will make people change back, or is it saying that if people apply to change their windows then sashes which resemble the originals will be encouraged. I can't see the point of the latter to be honest as it would be self evident so my take on this is that it is indeed talking about getting people to reinstate stuff. Any opinions welcome! Could be that its just badly worded.

Find all posts by this user Reply
roz


Posts: 1,793
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #43
29-08-2009 11:56 AM

BTW you can still I think develop a parking space in front gardens if you use sustainable materials and allow for rainwater run off ; it doesn't mean you have to concrete over the whole lot. I have read a few articles on this somewhere. You can also buy a special mat that will allow you to park on your drive but will still allow plants to grow through.

Find all posts by this user Reply
michael


Posts: 3,220
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #44
15-09-2009 02:50 PM

Does anybody else think that some of the posts are now automatically generated to try to promote dodgy websites (which are blocked when they are posted to the forum).

They are getting quite clever referencing the original author of a thread and a direct quote from Wikipedia to topic name. Facinating to watch these things develop (and fail).

More related to the thread:
I have been out this weekend photographing half of Forest Hill for consideration for the conservation area. In particular Round Hill, Tyson Road, Honor Oak Road (middle), Rockbourne Triangle, Waldram Place Triangle.

More details soon.

Find all posts by this user Reply
admin
Administrator

Posts: 395
Joined: Dec 2002
Post: #45
15-09-2009 05:37 PM

Michael Wrote:
Does anybody else think that some of the posts are now automatically generated to try to promote dodgy websites

Yes - counter-measures are being put in place.

Find all posts by this user Reply
michael


Posts: 3,220
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #46
21-09-2009 09:40 PM

The Forest Hill Society response to the conservation area consultation can be read at: http://www.foresthillsociety.com/2009/09...ponse.html

You have until Friday to respond on the council website.

Find all posts by this user Reply
jacksprat


Posts: 13
Joined: Jul 2008
Post: #47
25-09-2009 10:51 AM

Do people realise that the proposed article 4 direction (which conveniently isn't properly explained at all in the Councils leaflet) will take away any permitted development rights that you may have at the moment?

This includes the right to build a single storey extension (which you can do at the moment even in a conservation area as long there isn't an article 4 direction in place), install windows of your choosing, satellite dishes, aerials, exterior painting etc etc. Basically you'll need planning permission / conservation area consent FOR ANYTHING AT ALL.

Find all posts by this user Reply
roz


Posts: 1,793
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #48
25-09-2009 08:49 PM

I think people should think carefully about whether or not they want to support this as there are pros and cons to be weighed up. Its a shame that people in the affected roads do not carry more weighting than the general public when it comes to decision time as it it is they who will be most affected. Generally conservation areas are fairly good things to have around as they can hold property values and be generally maintained as a nice place to live. Planning laws have become so much more relaxed recently that some people can and do get away with anything and bad design implemented under permitted development rights can often ruin an area forever. It can be nice for people to visit conservation areas and to enjoy them however for the people living there its just as you stated, jacksprat , there are considerable inconveniences and costs of maintaining , refurbishing and redevelopment that they might not be able to afford. Is it possible for a conservation area to be established without article 4 or even an amended article 4? I'd be grateful if people could explain this to me. The Council is now closed until Monday and I can't wait until then!

The irony for me in all of this is that the Council will think nothing of imposing such a fairly onerous arrangement on people whilst continuing to have such poor assessment of design quality elsewhere. However maybe they are hoping conservation areas will save them from themselves.

Find all posts by this user Reply
roz


Posts: 1,793
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #49
25-09-2009 09:48 PM

I would be concerned about having a hedge (Horniman Triangle) subject to a conservation order, as proposed by the FHS. Hedges are not trees. They are functional items which tend to grow fairly fast, as compared with trees, and hence need regular pruning and often replacement as not all hedges fare well next to busy thoroughfares. I would have thought imposing such a restriction on a hedge would mean that Conservation Area consent would be required before any pruning was carried out. As this is a play area funded and maintained by the Council I would also be concerned about how this might affect the early years budget for this area and also of course how much this would cost.

I would like to know the logic and reason behind this particular request.

Can I also ask in the case of the additional individual properties proposed by the FHS whether the owners consent in each case was sought before this decision was made, and also what discussion was taken in respect of Article 4, which adds particular constraints , even to a Conservation Area?

Find all posts by this user Reply
Red67


Posts: 141
Joined: Nov 2007
Post: #50
26-09-2009 08:20 AM

I'm not sure, but i think that the hawthorn hedge, as part of the park, is the legal property of Dulwich Estate (who leased the area of the park to Lewisham in 1959 on a 99yr lease) so it probably has some protection under their requirements. Actually, the FHS is right in saying that the hedge (and in fact a lot of the trees) bordering the park pre-date a lot of the property in Forest Hill - yes, the park is now a useful and lively resource for children and families, but the botanical importance of this particular green space is of equal importance. I think the two should co-exist, don't you?

Find all posts by this user Reply
roz


Posts: 1,793
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #51
26-09-2009 09:16 AM

Yes, but hedges need regular upkeep and replacement in full or in part as a matter of course, and especially near a main road and where they are likely to be kicked around by children. I can't see the advantage in having a TPO slapped on it as this will make it harder to maintain if there is a lot of bureaucracy involved. It isn't in great shape at the moment and could do with a little additional planting to keep it full and healthy.

Find all posts by this user Reply
michael


Posts: 3,220
Joined: Mar 2005
Post: #52
26-09-2009 01:28 PM

At a recent public meeting of the Forest Hill Society it was pointed out by members that there were concerns that the council was considering opening a new entrance to the park directly through the hedge, which has not been well maintained in parts. It is due to these concerns that the Executive recommended the inclusion of the hedge for local listing or TPO. I do not know the details of how this might restrict the sensible maintenance of a hedge, I hope it would encourage maintenance rather than prevent it, but I am sure the officers will make consideration of this before any form of protection is granted.

I would question the value of a conservation area without article 4 protection. I would not seek a heavy handed approach from the council, but I do think the council needs to have proper control over the conservation area if it is to be properly maintained and to be of any value. The problems of a conservation area without article 4 can be seen across the current conservation area.

The Forest Hill Society in our submission have not sought the 'consent' of every house that will be affected by our recommendations, and I am not sure that we need their consent to express our views, we have specifically said in our submission that 'we cannot claim to represent everybody in Forest Hill'. However, I have spoken to at least one resident who lives in each of the extension areas that we suggested could be included within the conservation area. All those I spoke to welcomed the idea of extending the conservation area to their area and were able to provide additional details to help with our submission.

Find all posts by this user Reply
jacksprat


Posts: 13
Joined: Jul 2008
Post: #53
15-10-2009 05:17 PM

In answer to Ros on 25th Sept, yes you can have conservation area without Article 4 direction. The council can impose an Article 4 on defined areas.

Our residents association is opposed to the changes, principally because of loss of permitted development rights, and have sent a letter to this effect.

Did you know, by the way, that if you apply for planning permission for something (e.g. single storey extension) that was previously permitted development, and the permission is refused, you can theoretically claim compensation from the local authority for any loss (say, in value of house).

Find all posts by this user Reply
Pages (3): « First < Previous 1 2 [3] Last »

Friends of Blythe Hill Fields


Possibly Related Topics ...
Topic: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Proposed Conservation Area: Perry Vale ‘Christmas’ houses and further north blushingsnail 2 1,275 25-10-2018 05:13 PM
Last Post: StuartG
  Conservation area extension petersutton01 3 2,761 17-08-2010 08:05 PM
Last Post: davidwhiting
  Conservation area breaches loca 20 13,472 21-04-2009 11:46 AM
Last Post: brian
  Conservation area, planning and ... the pools? ForestGump 3 2,836 17-06-2008 01:36 PM
Last Post: NewForester
  Threat to Conservation Area Teresa 34 14,543 19-02-2008 02:36 PM
Last Post: brian