ArthurJob

Thanks, yes one thing that has been mentioned is the large number of conditions that would be added if approved. Would you as a TO accept a tree report on an application that was old? I made a point that it was 5 years old and stated it expired after a year but the TO went to site (apparently) and made his own determination on the trees. I believed a tree report should be more comprehensive than just a TO visit?

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

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...

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.

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.

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.

That's fair enough although this was Spring last year before the new targets and also the land isn't allocated for housing in the local plan too. The councillors and MPs etc. Are all oppposed to it but the landowner won't give up as there is profit to be made.

He did say when I spoke to him on the phone that the landowner/developer had just shouted at him before I called as he requested amendments on the first planning application.

Thanks both. That's the thing, if you don't agree with the tree officers view then how can you dispute it if the council just goes by his own view. I measured the width of the tree trunks about 1.5m above ground and they're over 15cm across. They're quite well established trees. I have sought opinions from other arboriculturalists and got Bluesky tree reports as well. They seem to think differently to him too. He was a tree surgeon before, what degree of transition is there to become a tree officer as I believe a level of empathy is required as to public opinion of the benefit of the trees to the community? The TPO was put in place to protect the visual amenity. What's the point really if a new tree officer comes in and says some of the trees are low value and easily replaced if all of them covered by the TPO were planted at the same time and of the same quality?

Hi all, Hoping people can advise please. In 2001 an area of land was planted with trees as part of an urban forestry project. The council put a woodland TPO on the land to protect the trees for their visual amenity in 2011 due to the threat imposed by a new landowner. Around 2018 a new tree officer came in who was previously a tree surgeon. When planning applications were made on the land he initially denied the land was covered by the TPO and when asked to check saw it was and then later either stated there were no trees there or the trees were all self-seeded. Yet the trees are all the same size as the rest of the planted area in relation to species e.g. Silver Birch being significantly taller than English Oak. Even still I believe a woodland TPO should cover trees of any age or size including any self seeded. On top of that the two planning applications had expired tree reports, one was 5 years old, the other was 8 years old. He accepted them on both occasions, visited site and declared the trees had no significant amenity value and their loss could easily be compensated for. This risks the trees in the wider area of the same age and size surely. Also one of the proposed developments showed the trees being planted to replace roughly the same number lost as surrounding the new houses, only 2 or 3 metres around them and next to driveways. How can it not be considered that those trees wouldn't cause issues for future occupiers? They would be native species. Surely they would block windows, cause issues with cars and leaf fall etc. And the roots near foundations. Those trees replacing the protected ones on the same site would likely be heavily pruned or cut down in future years. Interesting to know peoples thoughts on this. How can things be determined and trusted based on the competency and views of this one person? Lots of people love and appreciate the trees and know they have been there for well over 20 years. How is it down to the opinion of this one person as to whether they provide visual amenity? Many thanks

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.