One of the most frequent pieces of casework that I've had over the last four or so years has been about stopping people (usually letting agencies, actually) from taking out the front walls to their properties and turning their front gardens into parking spaces. Local people really value the beauty and heritage that the original Victorian walls bring to the area and are very sad to see them go - see pic.The additional issue for me is that it effectively 'privatises' the public highway by dropping the kerb and stopping people parking on the road outside. This does nothing to solve parking pressure in the area - it just makes things worse, which makes more people consider taking out their garden... a vicious circle.
Annoyingly, this sort of project doesn't usually require planning permission. My Cotham colleague Anthony has been working on a solution to this for some time, to give the community more control over what bureaucrats call the 'streetscene' - shorthand for "what our street looks like".
This takes another major step forwards on Wednesday this week. The Development Control (North) Committee is recommended to approve a report that starts the process of making what's called an 'Article 4 Direction'. This is a legal tool that allows the Council, in a defined geographical area, to require planning applications where they wouldn't otherwise be needed. Wednesday's report (which is supported by the Redland & Cotham Amenities Society) will kick off a consultation period. If this doesn't result in massive objection, a 12-month period will elapse and then the Article 4 Direction will come into force. It's not a complete ban - it just gives local residents and councillors the chance to object to what the house owner is proposing.
A long and tedious route, but "well done" to Anthony for starting it off now. It should help to guard against yet more lost walls, trees and gardens.
7 comments:
I can understand (only just) how turning ones front garden (private space) into a parking space may not need planning permission, but I can't understand how having the curb (public space) dropped doesn't. I would have thought that it would only be fair to other citizens that alterations to their property by another private citizen would have to be democratically accounted for. This is even more the case (as in your photo) when a whole swathe of curb is affected.
bsk - bizarrely, I believe not, but I agree with you! I believe that people just need to get a technical sign-off from the Council (i.e. that it's done properly by a professional) if they want to create a new dropped kerb into their property.
Most of the patch (possible all of it) is a conservation area. Doesn't that count for anything?
Rick - nearly all is and, yes, it does have two impacts. Firstly, it does mean that *some* applications do currently need permission (e.g. outside HMOs). Secondly, it makes it much easier to bring in the Article 4 Direction as the evidence for historical interest is already there.
Happy to say that the report was approved, so now the formal consultation will start soon...
I understand both sides here - the need for parking (or at least ensuring a parking space near one's home), and the sense of loss when pretty walls are destroyed. Why can't people be allowed to have their own designated parking spaces outside their own homes?
JimJ - this has been looked at from time to time, but the administration is a nightmare. Some houses have no cars and others have several, so you potentially have people 'selling' their space and then someone moves etc etc. Just too messy.
Post a Comment