ArthurJob

Ultimately yes, I think the key irritation is that we trusted the councillors advice at the time and the council are now seemingly unable to resolve the issue years on. Them putting the tree Preservation Order on was meant to supposedly be something to stop development. Years on I realise TPOs can be totally useless and are in this case. The trees on the site are all 24 years old and the larger neighbouring area are all the same age so what was the point of applying the TPO if apparently all the trees are of low value. It was merely to placate the residents at the time we realise now. The concern is that all the green space can be lost as a result.

When it went to Committee last time all councillors bar one voted to refuse it due to loss of green space network and wildlife corridor etc. One chose not to vote. It went to appeal and thrown out for similar reasons.

That's one thing in our favour, it's not in the local plan for future development. The council local plan has lots of areas allocated to meet their housing needs until 2041 so really this isn't needed at all. They gave it local conservation area status only 2 years ago which they claimed will protect it for future generations. Problem is it's not protection to the same level as green belt, village green or LGS. It is said to be possible to overcome it with mitigatory or compensatory measures.

It was a very small extension to their drive really to accommodate an extra vehicle. We ultimately shouldn't have trusted the councillors at the time really.

Thanks, yes that would be great if he would be willing to do that. Even the council and local MP have struggled to communicate with him. A number of residents have been unable to aside from one or two that bought tiny bits of land from him to extend driveways etc at more than the £16k he paid. He is 100% money driven, we're confident he's selling the plots on to builders. The Planning Inspector on appeal stated there was a lack of compensatory and mitigatory measures for the loss of habitat and conservation area which he is trying to resolve by making "improvements" on the rest of the land but believe that needs to be for 30 years at least as well. The Planning application is for 3 detached houses.

Thanks yes, he's already had big machines in to do investigatory drilling. It is known the land is subject to subsidence issues and difficult to build on. The last application went to Committee with recommendation to approve with lots of conditions. It was £16k paid for about 4 hectares of land, 4 compartments. Two are mature woodland, one is an open space area and another is an area considered unsafe to build on due to instability that was planted with trees in 2000.

Thanks, will check again. It is a designated Site of Local Interest for Nature Conservation in local plans as well as the TPO. Not a statutory designation as such though, we tried for Local Green Space but the council turned it down. We did consider village green.

Wouldn't be surprised. Some people are really irate that we were misled about the whole thing being told the land would be safe and we would be liable for loads of things if we were to buy it ourselves.

Thanks, my thoughts exactly. Lots of stuff in objections gets ignored and overlooked. I called the tree officer and the landowner had literally just called before me and shouted at him apparently. We have around 80 or so objections so far to it. Our ward councillors are all opposed to it.

Thanks, it shows as green with woodland but can't find any statutory designations as such. Is there a particular menu option in the left I need to check. It comes under a Natural England Nature Improvement Area and a Forestry Project it seems.

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.

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.

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).

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.

Hi richyrich, thanks for the positive comments. I am actually meeting with the local MP and ward councillors about it along with many other residents. The councillors are basically are Parish Council rep I'd say as it's a large metropolitan area broken up into different wards. They're all Conservative and the council is Conservative run as well. I actually found a photo of the TPO notices that were posted on site and edited them so you can see the terms in which the TPO was applied e.g. for visual amenity protection in the face of potential future development.... so I am still in the thinking the age/size of trees wouldn't matter if that was the case as surely young and small trees in a planed woodland could be considered on the basis of visual amenity?