Help please – provisional TPO puts halt to sale of property

[clivep]

My father recently died and his property was put on sale by informal tender. He was 88 and suffered from Parkinson’s and had looked after my mother who had Alzheimer’s until she died 4 years ago. For the last 10 or so years he had not really been able to look after the house and grounds properly.

 

The property consists of about 2 acres of what used to be part of a farm. The plot was bought by my grandfather in the 1940’s and he built a bungalow on it. The Northern 1/3 of the property has the bungalow with gardens to the front and rear. The Southern 2/3 has some pigsties and was at one time rented out by my grandfather to a local farmer.

 

My grandparents died and my parents set up residence in the late 1970’s. The photos I have from the early 1980’s show that there were few trees about apart from on the boundaries with the neighbours. My father planted a plum tree and other saplings in the front garden plus some apple trees in the back garden. The Southern 2/3 was mainly grassland with a few trees and he planted apple, plum & chestnut trees along with numerous other saplings… 30 years later this has now become a fully wooded area.

 

The property is in the green belt but not in a conservation area. There are a few houses nearby which are more or less surrounded by farmland. The property has 3 neighbours to the West whose gardens are mainly lawns. To the East there are 2 neighbours who have lawns/grassland and some fruit trees. To the South is a farm. There are no public footpaths and the only view of the property is from the Lane to the North of the front garden. The rear garden and woodland area beyond cannot be seen from this road or any other public place.

 

Once the estate agents advertised the property then a few property developers contacted the planning office regarding the site. This set alarm bells ringing and the planners immediately slapped a provisional area TPO on the whole property. This resulted in all the developers who had expressed an interest pulling out and not tendering.

 

I have formally objected to the TPO on the basis that the vast majority of the trees have no amenity value as they cannot be seen from a public place. I read the planning practice guidance notes and also have looked at the local council’s tree management policy which states “Visibility: the extent to which the tree(s) or woodlands can be seen by the general public. If they cannot be seen or are not readily visible from a public place such as a road or footpath, a TPO will only be justified in exceptional circumstances”.

 

A planning officer has not visited the site yet. I spoke to them on Tuesday and they are going next Tuesday following which they will discuss matters with me before making their report for the ward councillors.

 

Any advice from forum members would be greatly appreciated.

 

 

Attached images:

1. Front of property early 1980’s

2. Rear of property early 1980’s

3. Map showing property

4. Recent aerial view of property

5. Recent aerial view of surrounding area

[Jesse]

First thing, don't panic, its the LPA's way of buying a bit of time so that they can fully access the site. Any developers will also know that should approval for development be granted this would over rule any TPO's, what it does create is more work for the developer to put together a sympathetic proposal for the landscape and any retained trees, and will also ensure that any retained trees which would possibly depending on there health and condition be TPO'd are fully protected during construction , (bs5837). If there are poor quality trees it allows mediation to take place any proposed trees could be replaced with a new tree planting scheme. Any serious buyers will know this, it may be better to put the site up for Auction , that would generate the most interest and bring all the developers out from under there rocks. Development sites even with tree constraints are making a fortune, put it with Savels or some big well know auction house.

[Chris at eden]

The area order should be interim only, its is unlikely they will confirm like that, or at least they shouldn't. They should resurvey and decide what needs protecting and what doesn't and then re-designate as individuals, groups or woodlands.

 

The problem they will have is that woodland is rarely suitable in a garden area and there are too many for there to be individual. They will most likely count them up and modify to a group when they confirm. It looks like the main visibility will be from the road to the east but remember that trees can be protected for their future amenity as well as current. This basically means that they can be protected even if you cant see them at present but if you will be able to in a few years.

 

What is the postcode? I will have a look on street scene and give you an opinion on visibility.

 

Cheers,

[oslac]

Hi

 

This is just up the road from us and knowing the Tree Officers in the is area, they are normally on the ball and are proactive in managing trees in relation to development.

 

The council's big concern is that the site is large enough to interest a developer but the council probably wouldn't want any mass tree removal prior to a planning application. Many developers might see the potential of this site in terms of pure profit and the trees are irrelevant to this. You may also see the trees as irrelevant to your sale. The fact that the council is aware of developer interest has caused them to act by serving a TPO. This is proactive action to preserve trees until they can be considered within a planning application and is born out by the fact that the developers have melted away.

 

The council would normally serve a TPO on trees with amenity value but can also serve an Order if they feel that trees are under threat especially from development.

 

You have the right to object and the council have the right to confirm, not confirm or to Modify the Order at confirmation.

 

My view would be to ask the Tree Officer to site and talk through why the Order was served and which trees are likely to finally end up protected. Also bear in mind that the existence of a TPO will not necessarily affect any future planning proposal.

 

It is highly unlikely that any new house or other structure will be permitted within the Green Belt and the fact that potential developers have walked away suggests that their interest in the property was to realise profit at the expense of trees.

 

Hope this helps.

[Chris at eden]

No need for post code, I've found it. The group to the rear is highly visible from Downham Road to the west so I doubt planning committee will go for the lack of visibility.

 

If they confirm you could apply to fell some of the trees but maintain the screen on the rear boundary. If they refuse you appeal to the planning inspectorate. You have more chance of getting that in my opinion.

[clivep]

Many thanks for everybody's quick replies.

 

I've just spoken to the estate agents and they are now saying that it's the lack of development potential rather than the TPO that put the developers off.

 

As the property is in green belt, the planning department say the latest guidelines dictate that the bungalow could only be replaced by another bungalow of similar size rather than a 2 story property like the other houses in the vicinity.

 

You would have thought the estate agents would have known this when giving the property valuation and tender guide price.

[Chris at eden]

Many thanks for everybody's quick replies.

 

I've just spoken to the estate agents and they are now saying that it's the lack of development potential rather than the TPO that put the developers off.

 

As the property is in green belt, the planning department say the latest guidelines dictate that the bungalow could only be replaced by another bungalow of similar size rather than a 2 story property like the other houses in the vicinity.

 

You would have thought the estate agents would have known this when giving the property valuation and tender guide price.

 

 

Estate agents overstate what they are in my opinion. If you want information on what you can Build in accordance with current planning guidance speak with a planning consultant.

 

I'm not a planning expert but I cannot see why you could not change a bungalow to a house within green belt if there are other houses in the vicinity and the footprint stays at a similar size. Its not increasing density or out of context with the street scene.

 

Green belts are not what they used to be in my experience. I just did a development site survey for 25 dwellings in the green belt and the planning dept have given the unofficial nod. The current government are pro-development to say the least as they see the building trade as the way out of the recession. If the council refuse consent you could always appeal to planning inspectorate who are effectively central government.

 

As I said I am a tree consultant so don't take that as an expert opinion its just my experience of late. First step speak with a planning consultant, see what can be done if that is what you are looking for. Remember if there is an opportunity to build you may be able to sell with outline or full consent and get more money for the land. Worth considering but there is no guarantee.

[Chris at eden]

Many thanks for everybody's quick replies.

 

I've just spoken to the estate agents and they are now saying that it's the lack of development potential rather than the TPO that put the developers off.

 

As the property is in green belt, the planning department say the latest guidelines dictate that the bungalow could only be replaced by another bungalow of similar size rather than a 2 story property like the other houses in the vicinity.

 

You would have thought the estate agents would have known this when giving the property valuation and tender guide price.

 

Another point from paragraph one is that the TPO is a direct constraint on development potential so that is kind of a strange comment to make.

[oslac]

Estate agents overstate what they are in my opinion. If you want information on what you can Build in accordance with current planning guidance speak with a planning consultant.

 

I'm not a planning expert but I cannot see why you could not change a bungalow to a house within green belt if there are other houses in the vicinity and the footprint stays at a similar size. Its not increasing density or out of context with the street scene.

 

Green belts are not what they used to be in my experience. I just did a development site survey for 25 dwellings in the green belt and the planning dept have given the unofficial nod. The current government are pro-development to say the least as they see the building trade as the way out of the recession. If the council refuse consent you could always appeal to planning inspectorate who are effectively central government.

 

As I said I am a tree consultant so don't take that as an expert opinion its just my experience of late. First step speak with a planning consultant, see what can be done if that is what you are looking for. Remember if there is an opportunity to build you may be able to sell with outline or full consent and get more money for the land. Worth considering but there is no guarantee.

 

In this neck of the woods, the planners are usually very hot on controlling what happens within the Green Belt. The often cited 'Affecting the Openness of the Green Belt' is the main argument against development and constructing an additional floor onto an existing building is affecting the openness.

 

I agree that you need to speak to a local planning consultant who may be able to guide you through. If you go for pre-application advice, you are likely to receive a negative response and probably refusal at determination but a good planning consultant may be able to win on appeal.

[clivep]

An update...

 

The property has been visited and the TPO schedule amended as follows -

6 individual trees specified, 4 on the front boundary, the large pear tree adjacent to the front boundary and an oak on the western boundary. Also the entire woodland.

 

I've no problem regarding the individual trees which should not interfere with any modest changes to the bungalow that the new owners may be allowed to make.

 

With regard to the woodland they have said:

 

"It is noted that you are displeased with the inclusion of the woodland within the Order. Whilst it is noted that it has limited views from Downham Road itself, the properties on Downham Road, ie. Cherry Cottage and Tetlows, are adjacent to this woodland and it contributes to the rural setting of those properties.

 

The Council therefore believe that Tree Management Policy DM3 justifies the protection of the woodland as the removal of the trees would have an impact on the local environment. It additionally provides a significant wildlife habitat to badgers and deer, both of which are evident in the curtilage of the property, as well as birds etc. You cite policy DM6(a) Visibilty as a reason why the woodland should not be included in the Order, however due to the presence of the badger setts, the Council would maintain that this proposal is justified as an exceptional circumstance".

 

My view is that it should be up whoever buys the property to decide what to do with the wooded area. Whilst I do not believe planning consent would be given for building works in this area, it may be that the new owner may wish to restore the grasslands at the bottom of the grounds that were present before my father allowed the trees to grow in the early 1980's. The properties on Downham Road, ie. Cherry Cottage and Tetlows, that are adjacent to this woodland have only had it contributing to their rural setting in recent years.

[Jon Heuch]

I assume you are interested in maximising the value of the property but the TPO amongst other planning matters creates uncertainty over current market value? Many developers cope with type of situation by purchasing an option over the property. If planning permission is granted the existing owner gets a higher price and if no planning permission is granted the developer can walk away or purchase at a reduced price. Both seller and purchaser get a better deal, as long as both can wait while the planning process proceeds. You need a lawyer and preferably an experienced developer who understands this type of arrangement.