Planning application with 5 year old tree survey

[ArthurJob]

Hi all,

 

I'm hoping I can get some advice please as fighting a planning application that's causing a lot of upset for a whole community due to the greed of one person.

Basically this is the 4th attempt in a number of years and in the application this year he has submitted the tree survey from 2019 that was used in the last application. The tree survey itself says it's only valid for 12 months. The council tree officer has said there are no trees of any significance yet there are two Silver Birch about 40 feet tall and an English Oak about 30 feet tall, all planted under an urban forestry project in 2000. It is deemed they are replaceable, the site has a woodland TPO on it as well which I understand should cover all trees regardless of size. The landowner bought the land cheap in 2011 and hasn't taken ownership of any of the maintenance of the trees etc. That are overhanging public footpaths etc. The council had to cut them back to stop people having to walk in the road.

I have seen other planning applications where the tree officer has asked for more information due to old tree reports. Unsure why he is accepting one from 2019 as the trees have grown significantly since then. It was a previous tree officer that applied the TPO to protect visual amenity.

Also the trees in the area subject to the planning application were planted at the same time as the adjacent larger area also under the TPO. Ultimately by saying these trees in this area are insignificant it's saying the same for all of them in the wider area as the same age, size and also mostly Silver Birch.

Edited May 17 by ArthurJob

[difflock]

If the land was "bought cheap" why did somebody else in the community not buy it?

I hate this "community" type activity pertaining to telling other people what they can or can not do with property they lawfully own. Because the community enjoy the amenity benefits of the other property for free or at the lawful owners expense. But the "community" never dips into their own pockets.

[ArthurJob]

26 minutes ago, difflock said:

If the land was "bought cheap" why did somebody else in the community not buy it?

I hate this "community" type activity pertaining to telling other people what they can or can not do with property they lawfully own. Because the community enjoy the amenity benefits of the other property for free or at the lawful owners expense. But the "community" never dips into their own pockets.

Happy to explain that one. The developers of the estate went into administration in 2006. The land went to auction with a guide price of £10k by the administrators in 2011. The community all discussed buying the land communally. Our ward councillors said not to do it in a big meeting and with flyers to residents as we would be responsible for maintaining all of it and also the estate roads which were unadopted and getting worse with potholes. The councillors put a TPO on all the trees as our reassurance and told us due to land stability issues from mining and a history of subsidence that no building could ever take place as they on purposely didn't build there for that reason. Since then investigatory drilling seems to have satisfied the worries of the coal authority and local authority who recommended approval (with conditions) in 2022 after 2 failed applications. So ultimately our councillors at the time massively failed us.

The landowner hasn't maintained any of the land at all, the council adopted the roads at taxpayer cost and also mowed all the open spaces at tax payer cost as well as cut the trees and bushes back as needed.

The land is a mix of public and private open space, mature woodland and woodland planted in 2000. Ultimately we would like the landowner to be held to account for 13 years of grounds maintenance and cutting back the trees but he insists it's not his problem and is rude to residents (the few he doesn't ignore).

[GarethM]

The landowner isn't required to do anything, it's not some American home owners association where you can force them to cut the grass and fine them.

 

Most roads are eventually adopted by the local council after a few years as this is also necessary for the maintenance of sewage, gas and electric for the future think it's about 5 years on metallised roads. I remember something about it having to be tarmac and not gravel.

 

Land wise, he owns what he owns it's not open or public it's private, so technically that would be trespass.

Edited May 17 by GarethM

[ArthurJob]

16 minutes ago, GarethM said:

The landowner isn't required to do anything, it's not some American home owners association where you can force them to cut the grass and fine them.

 

Most roads are eventually adopted by the local council after a few years as this is also necessary for the maintenance of sewage, gas and electric for the future think it's about 5 years on metallised roads. I remember something about it having to be tarmac and not gravel.

 

Land wise, he owns what he owns it's not open or public it's private, so technically that would be trespass.

That's the thing, the council have been maintaining the open areas as a goodwill gesture to the estate residents as such. Much of the land is public open space as a requirement by the council to the original estate developers under a section 106 agreement and has footpaths going through it. The residents have been using it all daily for well over 20 years without any hindrance.

Like you say there was no legal requirement for the landowner to maintain the land as such and for a period of time it did get overgrown. How about the trees that overhang a public footpath leading people to walk into the road? Wouldn't he be liable for those? The council cut them back as people went to the council over it. Yet the council are at rights really to just direct them to the landowner. Some of the trees are also causing damage to walls etc.

The roads were adopted by the council last year, didn't cost the landowner a penny for any of that.

Edited May 17 by ArthurJob

[GarethM]

Road adoption is free, as you pay council tax & VED for that maintenance after the estate is built.

 

Unless it's on a council map, usually called a Definitive Map. Otherwise your still trespassing, just because he's not enforced something doesn't make it legal.

 

Technically it could be permissive, same way I let cyclists use my footpath, if they get arsey they'll get a Cumbria style stile.

 

Overhanging footpath is a bit of a grey area as it's not a main road which falls under highways. Council could charge but again, they mow the grass so not worth the agro.

[ArthurJob]

Thanks, yes it took them around 20 years to adopt the roads after getting the sewers etc sorted. The bonds to do it seemed to have got lost...

They had to get the landowner to agree to it but couldn't see him contesting it as they were more a liability for him I think. The land has local Conservation status for wildlife. As part of the planning applications there has been threats to fence off the land as well although there are no restrictions at all at present, people use the land freely for all sorts of recreational activities.

It's shown and labelled as open space on Google Maps but the local plan just has it as a green area.

The trees overhanging the footpath were on a main road alongside the estate managed by the council.

[openspaceman]

30 minutes ago, ArthurJob said:

t's shown and labelled as open space on Google Maps but the local plan just has it as a green area.

for statutary designations you are better off searching on maps at

MAGIC

MAGIC.DEFRA.GOV.UK

---

The MAGIC website provides authoritative geographic information about the natural environment from across...

magic

[GarethM]

Definitive map and land registry are the only thing that matters legally.

 

Everything else is because he allows you, or as I tend to describe things, play nicely.

 

When I say road, I do mean arterial or A & B roads.

 

There was a thing locally asking people to cut back hedges, bugger all got done and the irony is the council then did the no mow BS.

Edited May 17 by GarethM

[richyrich]

Maybe the tree officer is mates with the developer. Put your concerns in planning objections. Contact your chief planning officer and district councillor (s). You have to create a lot of noise...

Sounds a bit 'corrupt'...