Apologies to regular readers who have been logging on in search of an update. Monday's meeting was an odd experience which we've been mulling over and checking out a few facts. Anyway, here's what happened.
First of all, the owners made it quite clear that they do not want to chop down the trees. Let's repeat that one just so there's no mistake. The owners do not want to chop down the trees. Nor do we. Neither does the Tree Officer. Given that nobody wants to lose the trees, what, as one councillor put it, where we all there for?
The reason is this. The owners believe that a Tree Preservation Order is unnecessary because the trees are protected by planning permission. Putting it another way, the planning permission is contingent on the trees remaining and therefore a TPO is, according to them, not required. That's why they have appealed against the order. This is where it seemed (to us at any rate) somewhat surreal. What difference will it make if the TPO is not lifted? If they want the trees to remain, what's the problem with a TPO being in place?
However, we need to remember that the owners are trying to sell the property as a development site with planning permission. The owners agents are actively promoting the sale using information provided by SBC to the effect that planning permission might be extended to nine properties. If that happens, and there is no TPO in force, the trees will no longer be protected (our assumption). However, this point was not explored at any length during the meeting. The Tree Officer did, however, argue strongly in favour of retaining the order to ensure that the trees were protected in any eventuality.
One point that did emerge was that ownership of some of the trees on the northern boundary of the site is unclear. After considerable deliberation, the panel decided to postpone their decision until ownership has been established.
So there you have it. Or not, as the case might be. The saga is obviously going to go on for some time yet. As ever, we'll keep you up-to-date as and when we hear anything.
Wednesday 20 July 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that we can assume that some hidden reason exists that the developer hasn`t disclosed to SBC....we can presume that costs are associated with such an approach to the council and they wouldn`t have incurred them without some potential financial gain.
ReplyDeleteWouldn`t breach of a TPO be a criminal offence and breach of planning permission only a civil one ?
The former being punishable,the latter just involving a wristslap and a few £`s compensation ?
Anyway seemingly SBC was actually not sideing with the developer from what you say....at least that is a change !
If they cut trees down that have a TPO they will be in serious trouble, but, if they cut them down & it treated as only minor breach of the planning permission, then they will have got one over on us, the trees officer & SBC. They must not win the appeal.
ReplyDeleteI have this morning (30th) received a letter from SBC telling me of the judgement in the TPO meeting of the 18th.
ReplyDeleteIt tells me that they will write to me again once the adjourned meeting has been rearranged.
It wouldn`t be quite so bizarre had they bothered to inform me of the initial meeting to discuss the TPO in the first place!!