News: The Park Plan

Monday, June 26, 2006 - 12:05 PM

By now you should have received a copy of The Park Plan which aims to give guidance on deveopment within the estate in order to preserve its unique character. The document, together with The Park Management Plan have now been uploaded to this website in the Downloads section. Your comments will be welcome and if you cannot attend any of the meetings, please use ths discussion forum on the website to contribute to the debate.

Items not fully explained:

Purpose, ownership, lifetime and strength of the document.

The Park Plan does not adequately explain its own purpose, or how it will make a difference to the way in which planning decisions are made in the future. This needs clarifying not just for the residents, but for those that will be referring to the document for guidance when it is adopted. In particular, the existence of permitted development, and the type of development that this will allow should be clarified, together with which properties are affected by this. Is a house in single occupancy but with a Œgranny flat¹ covered by the rules of permitted development?

The role of the NPEL

The role of the NPEL in policing the Park Plan under the Action Plan, clause 2.3, and the extent to which their comments will be acted upon by the Planning Department needs clarifying. We see this proposed role as vital to the success of the Conservation Plan.

The role of precedent in Planning decisions


The purpose of a conservation area having a Management Plan such as this is to prevent the use of previous planning decisions being used as a justification for current ones. We therefore assume that once adopted, the Park Plan will act as a Œfresh start¹, and that no previous decisions will have an impact on what is being discussed in the future.


The discrepancy between Park and conservation area boundaries.


Clarification of where the boundaries are and why they are different would help in defining to what extent the Park Plan protects these peripheral areas, which are currently vulnerable to inappropriate development. Whether the entrances fall within the Conservation Area would help us decide how best to protect these and what line to take with the City Council over their inclusion in The Big Wheel proposals.


Items removed by City Council:


The results of discussions prior to the Consultation Period commencing.


There has already been a number of amendments made to the Park Plan which have in some instances diluted its powers to prevent certain aspects of development. The removal of Permitted Development rights was seen as too far reaching in that it would result in an increase in the workload for an already stretched planning department. Our feeling here is that this is not the right reason on which to base such a decision. If a conservation area is being compromised by the existence of permitted development rights, then the decision should be to increase staffing levels, and we would ask for this amendment to be reconsidered or at least given a proper justification.



Items not covered:


Street parking / on site parking


We feel that this is an area that needs further attention. The streetscape
forms an important part of the Park's atmosphere, and the over use of these streets for parking will have a detrimental affect on this. The creation of
parking spaces in existing gardens is equally unwelcome, and both should be
taken as a sign of over development.

Basement development


There is no mention of basement or attic developments which may appear
invisible, but still have an impact on density. We feel this should be addressed through the impact on street parking that will almost inevitably result from this kind of development.


Use of rooflights, and other inappropriate alterations


Rooflights are covered by permitted development, but are also prevalent in
many other properties without any regard to their external appearance and
impact on the roofscape. We feel more could be done to prevent this occurring. The use of plastic windows, garage doors, etc. are also difficult to control because of this clause.


Overall density of development


The development of inner city "brownfield sites" - sites which have
previously been developed - is being encouraged throughout Britain. The
acceptable density of these developments, i.e. the number of properties per
hectare, is currently held at a level that is far higher than we feel is appropriate in
The Park. We feel that thePark Plan should set its own threshold density,
based on the existing character of the Park, as this is a vital part of what
a conservation area is meant to protect.


Guidance on appropriate massing / height of new buildings


A way of allowing the viable redevelopment of some plots would be to
encourage the replacement of single or two storey properties with buildings
of more appropriate height and massing. This, in some areas of The Park,
would favour three storey developments, which would then allow for ground
floor garaging within the property¹s footprint.


Guidance on post 1914 properties


It is felt by some that the focus of the Park Plan on the original estate
houses has meant that not enough guidance or protection has been given to
other properties, often around the vulnerable perimeter of the Park. The
1960¹s development on Lincoln Circus, for instance has been much improved by
the replacement of a variety of metal garage doors with the same type of
wooden door. An element of control over these later developments would
therefore seem appropriate.


Locally listed properties


There are a number of listed properties in The Park not itemised in this
document because they are only listed locally. They must have some merit above other properties, however, and this should be recognised in some way.


Items not adequately protected:


Park Bowl and all other open spaces


These areas perhaps more than anything else would have a dramatic effect on
the nature of The Park if they were to go or be changed in any way, and yet they are protected only by the use of the phrase "there will be a presumption against", which we do not feel is adequate.



Strength of language:


Much of the Management Plan uses the phrase "there will be a presumption against" which in most cases would seem an appropriate level of language,
but in some instances could perhaps be replaced with something stronger. The
phrase "would be resisted" occurs once, and we assume carries more weight
than the presumption against. Whilst we realise we can "never say never",
there must be an alternative that sits somewhere between the two, and
instances where this could be used.