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.

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.

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