ArthurJob

11 hours ago, monkeybusiness said:

Essentially someone bought some land with no planning restrictions that was thought to be impossible to build on because of potential mining issues. It was available for sale to the highest bidder, and nobody else fancied paying any more for it.

Said buyer invested (heavily I would imagine) in ground investigations and subsequently proved that where they want to build 3 houses is actually suitable from a ground-stability perspective. 
It seems a bit late to be moaning about potentially having new neighbours if I’m honest.
An investor has gambled and it looks like it may well pay off. Nobody wants development next to them - that’s why everyone knows the term NIMBY… 
 

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.

27 minutes ago, openspaceman said:

This can be difficult if the owner is not willing, not many are, even councils and charities with a remit to provide public recreation because most are run by people managers who don't want to have loss of control.

 

Generally a village green cannot be established if the area is part of the council's local plan for future development.

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.

34 minutes ago, GarethM said:

Well, I think you'll understand why he's now past the point of being amicable and is happy to spend whatever fighting and salting the earth.

 

And without being picky, so what if he did make more selling driveways.

 

The homeowners probably added triple to their house price, to what they paid him as that driveway quickly becomes an extra two bedrooms.

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.

Just now, GarethM said:

Well, simple solution is for the 80 complainers to stump up some cash and buy it as a community, 50k might change his mind for zero work with a sizable penalty clause.

 

If this land is sold or developed it's 50% of the uplift value for a period of 25 years 

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.

48 minutes ago, GarethM said:

Shall we say I've experience of the system and the costs, it adds even to small rebuild projects.

 

80 objections will result in a committee meeting, unless they have a base the developer will make sure you lose every mm of land that's his.

 

Plus your average planning application including surveys etc is about 5k before we even get onto building control side of things.

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.

49 minutes ago, openspaceman said:

look on the tab with statutory designations, check for registered common land, village green , CROW access land or section 15 land, these are the ones that define public access. Section 15 land will not be enforced over most of England.

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.

5 minutes ago, GarethM said:

Whilst I don't know the developer and all the guff that goes with it.

 

I know enough about locals, lies, councillor and the bs that goes with it, you'll probably find it's some A hole that's spread rumours that's become a spiral of Chinese whispers.

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.

40 minutes ago, richyrich said:

Maybe the tree officer is mates with the developer. Put your concerns in planning objections. Contact your chief planning officer and district councillor (s). You have to create a lot of noise...

Sounds a bit 'corrupt'...

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.

54 minutes ago, openspaceman said:

for statutary designations you are better off searching on maps at

MAGIC

MAGIC.DEFRA.GOV.UK

---

The MAGIC website provides authoritative geographic information about the natural environment from across...

magic

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.

16 minutes ago, GarethM said:

The landowner isn't required to do anything, it's not some American home owners association where you can force them to cut the grass and fine them.

 

Most roads are eventually adopted by the local council after a few years as this is also necessary for the maintenance of sewage, gas and electric for the future think it's about 5 years on metallised roads. I remember something about it having to be tarmac and not gravel.

 

Land wise, he owns what he owns it's not open or public it's private, so technically that would be trespass.

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.

26 minutes ago, difflock said:

If the land was "bought cheap" why did somebody else in the community not buy it?

I hate this "community" type activity pertaining to telling other people what they can or can not do with property they lawfully own. Because the community enjoy the amenity benefits of the other property for free or at the lawful owners expense. But the "community" never dips into their own pockets.

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?

I hear what you're saying about highways officers, the houses would be on a bend in the road where people cross to a dog bin and to continue a footpath as well as there being kids playing football in the middle bit and always running out into the road. There are trees and bushes affecting the view around that corner and it'll mean loads of cars parking on the bend as visitors come round as well as people parking there already still using it. My neighbour pointed out as well that a garage and driveway will mean cars pulling out from behind a fence as people come down a road and is an accident waiting to happen as no way would you see them coming out into a joining street with 22 houses in the top bit.

Thanks richyrich, really appreciated.

The main councillor (been in position since 2005) was the vice chair of the planning committee until about a month ago having been on there for several years I believe so hopefully is a strong force in our favour. He has put in a great objection and is going to speak at the committee he said. I have the feeling I may have been delegated as the speaker if it goes to committee (can you only have one resident doing that?) but hopefully we'll have another 'residents meeting' which might be better attended than the last as we were a bit wary of the 30 outdoor limit.

I had a look round there yesterday and there is a really nice mix of Oak, Alder, Ash and Birch with Hawthorn inbetween which is covered in blossom at the moment. The largest oak there has already reached a good size, about 8 metres. What is ridiculous is that the council has recently done a tree planting scheme and there are small saplings with protection scattered around green spaces in the area yet they're looking at wiping out trees growing for 20 years. There's a sapling planted on the adjacent green space about 100 metres away. In the space subject to the application I saw butterflies and dragonflies there yesterday, apparently the ecological side is being considered at the moment as the local wildlife trust pointed out it was urban forest, a PSI and no ecological impact assessment has been done, it's also a crucial linkage as part of a wildlife corridor.

I'll devise a good speech with the councillor and do as best we can. As long as I have put up a fight that's the main thing, didn't want to just sit back and do nothing.

Hi richyrich,

Sadly it does feel that way. When I spoke to him on the phone he really sounded like he couldn't be bothered. He maintained there were no trees at all where the buildings would be and I insisted there were some saplings and he just laughed it off saying the committee wouldn't care or take him seriously if he mentioned them. I mentioned the two very tall Birch trees and he said "they'll give you some privacy then" but aren't shown on any of the plans so assume they'd be lost. He just moaned about how busy he was and all the stuff he had to deal with and sounded really fed up. He also said how he tried to get some Birch trees protected behind his property and couldn't so sounded a bit bitter. His first comments proposed losing one plot and the landowner called and shouted at him just before I spoke to him and so was irritable about that.

The councillors are all opposed to it and have objected. They held a meeting with loads of residents about it as well. They have been good with updates.

Excellent, thanks. Some good options there, I did consider if I used bamboo that it would be in some kind of really strong container but the neighbour annoyance idea is interesting 😁 Certainly not going as far as Japanese Knotweed anyway! (a criminal conviction and major devaluation of my own property wouldn't be fun to start with!) My fence is about 6 feet at the back.

1 hour ago, swinny said:

Yeah councillor buggered you up there. 

 

In fairness when it comes to stuff like this I trust no.one and go with instincts. 

 

I was just trying to give you a reply from the other side as such with my earlier reply. I like to sit on the fence and swing my legs before making decisions. 

 

You'll have to keep campaigning but will need some sort of miracle to succeed.

 

Good luck

Thankyou, absolutely and it raises another arboricultural query too. The houses will look straight into the gardens and living rooms of my houses and my neighbours so serious privacy issues (in objection). I've been considering some kind of screening. Bamboo was one thought as fast growing and predictable height but may be difficult to contain and rustle in the wind. Looking at something evergreen so a line of conifers that would grow quickly to around 15 feet or something. Any more and I'd be losing light in my garden. Trying to work our what would fit the bill best.

That's the annoyance as we were going to buy it and the landowner has already made his money back selling little bits of land off to people in the estate to expand their properties. The councillor reassured us it would never be built on and not to do a communal purchase so now we're thinking we shouldn't have listened to them and done it but too little too late.

Like you say, council refuse or goes to committee and then Bristol overturn it with the appeal. It's the third time he's made the same application, he withdrew the last two.

Hi kevinjohnsonmbe, thanks for the reply.

Basically the story goes that the estate was built in the early 90s but the mining history caused issues. Some houses subsided and the developers changed the land use from residential to public open space and woodland in 2000. The woodland was planted as an urban forestry project funded by the Millennium Commision with a deed of dedication for 99 years. The land went to auction (sold for just £15k) and the councillor said not to do a communal purchase and got the TPO slapped on all the land which does include some mature woodland. This area was included as a Woodland TPO where the trees were all planted in 2000 so assume on that basis it was done for visual amenity benefit. The land was backfilled basically creating a large mound as building was not seen to be possible for the 'forseeable future'

My issue is that the TO refuses to acknowledge there are any trees there as a tree report just discounted them as being of low value and he went with that. Yet I believe a woodland TPO means he should be recording all trees there regardless of size, species or their 'value' and he won't. The TPO covers a much larger area so on the basis that this small patch contains trees discounted as low value then the much wider area would be considered the same as the trees are the same age, size and species. Ultimately it would render the TPO applied to that area as being void if the basis of protection in his view is just on the 5837:2012 size situation as being less than 15cm diameter. It would mean no reason why the developer can't build over the whole of W2.

Hi all, thanks for all the feedback and comments. I have put forward the situation to the council that if the TPO wasn't to preserve the trees for visual amenity then there would have been no logical reason to apply the TPO over that area as if it was working off the basis that the trees are 'low value' and easily replaced then that would apply to the whole area covered by W2 in the TPO and it may as well be a TPO on a football field. All the trees were planted at the same time so will all be much the same size and in 20 years not many are likely to have a trunk greater than 15cm in diameter.

The attached image shows the black region top left where trees were planted for the urban forest along with the species used and the right side is the TPO showing it as W2. My point made was if the trees in the red squared area of the TPO are disregarded then it paves the way to the whole of the black area and W2 being built on in the same respect as they would be of equal value. The tree officer comments were to protect the 'shelter belt' of trees to the East but those are mostly Birch trees of the same age as those in the red square so why aren't they considered low value?

Thanks all, the application has already had over 100 objections including all the local councillors and the wildlife trust.

The thing that I thought today was that it is within that woodland TPO area where all the trees in that compartment were planted at the same time as an urban forestry scheme. I doubt any of those trees are going to be over 15cm in diameter in the whole compartment for the TPO. I believe the TPO was put in place on the basis of visual amenity and to protect the planted urban forest. Otherwise it would seem pointless having it if all the trees in it were disregarded as low value surely?

The annoyance is that the tree officer for some reason acknowledged the trees at the side of the area subject to planning permission which were of the same age and just completely discounted the ones in the area affected which is all the ones in the photos below. They should all be of equal value I think for visual amenity and part of the urban forest. Badgers are there as well as bats but no sets unfortunately. GC newts are nearby.

The application hasn't been decided on yet.