Possible to dispute the view of a tree officer?

[ArthurJob]

Hi all,

 

Sorry to raise this one again.

 

Having reviewed tree officer comments on a recent planning application I feel the assessment was factually inaccurate.

The comments were that there were no objections to the loss of trees as they are not of sufficient amenity and significance to warrant formal protection therefore their removal is considered broadly acceptable subject to appropriate mitigation being provided for the losses.

 

There is a woodland TPO on the trees as they are on the edge of a larger wooded area.

 

The report to the planning committee stated the trees were "self-seeded" "younger", "less dense" and of "lesser quality" than the rest of the wooded area.

 

I have seen those trees growing the same for 20 years now, all the same size and relative rate of growth. I measured around the trunks of the trees and they seem to be at least 25 years old (when the woodland was planted):

In application site:

Silver Birch 52cm

Silver Birch 62cm

English Oak 58cm

Ash 32cm

 

Another random tree further into the woodland:

English Oak 54cm

 

I know some trees are self seeded as the Ash above likely is but many were planted.

 

With regards to quality, the trees are covered in healthy leaves, one or two branches lost lower down but they seem all green and healthy.

 

They also seem to be at a similar density, approx 2-3 metres apart and the density of trees in the rest of the woodland varies anyway with open patches.

 

The thing is the council tree officer opinion seems to be the be all and end all even if photographic or other evidence can be provided (also BlueSky reports) to the contrary.

 

We considered potentially another tree report but unsure if that can be used to dispute the one from 6 years ago by the developer?

 

Many thanks

 

Edited June 9 by ArthurJob

[GarethM]

So you've just admitted to extensive trespass on private property without permission on a public forum.

 

It looks like a bloody eyesore!.

[ArthurJob]

9 minutes ago, GarethM said:

So you've just admitted to extensive trespass on private property without permission on a public forum.

 

It looks like a bloody eyesore!.

It's currently public open space, this is just a tiny amount of the woodland.

Could have probably got a better pic than that.

Edited June 9 by ArthurJob

[GarethM]

7 minutes ago, ArthurJob said:

It's currently public open space, this is just a tiny amount of the woodland.

Could have probably got a better pic than that.

If a developer has put in an application it's not public open space, it's private property regardless of if it's fenced.

 

Either put you hands in your pockets and buy it or continue to grumble and let them improve what most people would call an eyesore.

 

All you'll do is annoy the landowner and what was going to be 3 spacious executive homes will turn into 150 HMOs and a carpark.

[ArthurJob]

11 minutes ago, GarethM said:

If a developer has put in an application it's not public open space, it's private property regardless of if it's fenced.

 

Either put you hands in your pockets and buy it or continue to grumble and let them improve what most people would call an eyesore.

 

All you'll do is annoy the landowner and what was going to be 3 spacious executive homes will turn into 150 HMOs and a carpark.

Fair point, it is something residents are looking into.