Council tree officer issue

[ArthurJob]

Thanks all, yes to add to the story we were advised by the council it was public open space and the TPO was extra assurance against development. So this has been a big community campaign against the landowner for a number of years now. This is a large amount of land and woodland so essentially allowing even the smallest development would risk a precedent to wipe out the whole woodland. So saying that one "small" bit just has easily replaceable trees risks jeopardising a much larger area as trees are the same age and size. Essentially destroying the benefits intended from the original planting scheme. Why plant trees for some greedy developer to just wipe them out 25 years later for luxury unaffordable homes for maximum profit.

[monkeybusiness]

2 hours ago, ArthurJob said:

Thanks all, yes to add to the story we were advised by the council it was public open space and the TPO was extra assurance against development. So this has been a big community campaign against the landowner for a number of years now. This is a large amount of land and woodland so essentially allowing even the smallest development would risk a precedent to wipe out the whole woodland. So saying that one "small" bit just has easily replaceable trees risks jeopardising a much larger area as trees are the same age and size. Essentially destroying the benefits intended from the original planting scheme. Why plant trees for some greedy developer to just wipe them out 25 years later for luxury unaffordable homes for maximum profit.

On the flipside if that ‘small’ bit of easily replaceable woodland prevents the development of an otherwise suitable area of land for necessary housing/employment etc then pragmatism has to come into play, and the decision will lie at the feet of some/several people (who will upset parties on one side or the other either way). 
 

[ArthurJob]

Sounds definitely like the way it's going. We're talking hundreds of local residents vs one individual. The councillors thankfully side with the residents/voters but of course the planners are going by the rules of planning.

[JLA1990]

13 minutes ago, ArthurJob said:

Sounds definitely like the way it's going. We're talking hundreds of local residents vs one individual. The councillors thankfully side with the residents/voters but of course the planners are going by the rules of planning.

Can I ask what you mean by this? As if the council is “on your side” it’s a non issue as planning won’t be approved! 

[PeteB]

In my experience with planning requirements and builders obligations, the builder will do what he wants once the project is started. If a wheel wash is expected, think vac lorry spreading slurry up and down street. If a hedge is supposed to stay,  once gone - tough luck. If a junction is to be altered, they'll say no funds available.....

 

As said, the LA has targets set by Whitehall and these 'misdemeanours' are a minor infraction to get to their targets,

[ArthurJob]

11 hours ago, JLA1990 said:

Can I ask what you mean by this? As if the council is “on your side” it’s a non issue as planning won’t be approved! 

Yes, basically before the land was sold we were assured it would be safe. The council even designated the land with conservation status and the councillors and MP all object to planning applications but the planners just tick all the boxes when he makes applications as he meets the criteria as such so it gets refused by committee.

As they say, they can't stop him making the applications as it's his land, they can only keep refusing them.

[ArthurJob]

11 hours ago, PeteB said:

In my experience with planning requirements and builders obligations, the builder will do what he wants once the project is started. If a wheel wash is expected, think vac lorry spreading slurry up and down street. If a hedge is supposed to stay,  once gone - tough luck. If a junction is to be altered, they'll say no funds available.....

 

As said, the LA has targets set by Whitehall and these 'misdemeanours' are a minor infraction to get to their targets,

Well that's the other fun part, the land has serious subsidence concerns and history which is why they planted trees there. So he then gets planning permission, sells off the land to some cowboy developers and houses start sinking into the ground including those already there so another cause for concern but according to NPPF that's the developers problem. Coal Authority basically say it's all fine but loads of houses could have serious issues so be careful...

[daltontrees]

22 hours ago, JLA1990 said:

They’re not based on just the TO’s opinion, the biodiversity metric (stat&bng) would have been applied to the site (ecologists) and unfortunately the trees you’re talking about are easily replaced to allow for development. I appreciate your woes and it is unfortunate but as another member suggested, in the grand scheme of habitat loss this is easily replicated whether you like the new locations of the trees or not. 

I dont think this can be right, the biodiversity value is not a relevant consideration in TPOs. It might be in a planning application, but that's a different matter.

[JLA1990]

2 hours ago, daltontrees said:

I dont think this can be right, the biodiversity value is not a relevant consideration in TPOs. It might be in a planning application, but that's a different matter.

I meant in regards to them being removed within permitted planning. 

[ArthurJob]

20 hours ago, PeteB said:

 

The BNG is another issue, there was a high claim on offsite BNG