Edited by joiner, 04 July 2014 - 07:26 AM.
Lime Tree Preventing New Build
Posted 29 June 2014 - 10:37 PM
Edited by joiner, 04 July 2014 - 07:26 AM.
Posted 30 June 2014 - 05:52 AM
That way they have to factor in the cost of that process into their decision, and with some councils only the fear of that cost, and the embarrassment of having their decisions investigated by a third party, causes them to stick to the rules.
It's always a political fight, and that means sometimes you need somebody on your side who knows how to fight the corner in the correct political fashion. That's when planning specialists are worth talking to.
Posted 30 June 2014 - 05:56 AM
If the committee reject the application the planners will have to give you a valid planning reason. It sounds like you would have good grounds for appeal if they reject it due to the impact on the tree.
Is the revised application due to be discussed by the PC? Go to the meeting. The vice chairman/neighbour probably should declare an interest and not speak on your application.
What diameter is the tree crown?
Posted 30 June 2014 - 07:15 AM
Mine has a poplar on it with a RPZ of 15m radius - fortunately non-material.
I'm not sure what the status in Planning Law is of a *future* size of a tree. Can that be a factor? You could propose a pollard and future cyclic pruning as a way of preserving the public amenity of the tree.
Can you move your bungalow back or sideways and have permeable parking on a surface made from Terram or equivalent on the part of the RPZ you impact?
It is possible to make an extension agreement to the time for consideration with the Planners. We had that twice while they twiddled their thumbs.
Edited by ferdinand, 30 June 2014 - 07:17 AM.
Posted 30 June 2014 - 10:20 AM
Edited by joiner, 04 July 2014 - 07:29 AM.
Posted 30 June 2014 - 10:48 AM
I can't see anything here that's a valid reason for refusal. We're building right up to the RPZ of several trees on our block - one of the RPZs extends around the foundations of the existing house, and we're building on the same footprint. Being 5m outside the RPZ should leave you plenty of room - unless it's a very immature tree, 5m is a lot to add.
Our arb guy said that future pressure to prune largely related to light levels. So if it's conceivable that the tree could grow to shade your house unduly, they might say that there's that potential.
But what did your arboricultural report say? Do you have reason to suspect that the council's tree officer will ignore or disagree with its contents? I suspect that's the person you'll need to convince, as whoever makes the planning decision must rely on their advice.
Good luck, whatever the outcome. Trees were a bit of a nightmare on our block (including 10 TPO's slapped on shortly before we exchanged contracts when buying the house) but we seem to have got there in the end.
Edited by notnickclegg, 30 June 2014 - 11:15 AM.
Posted 30 June 2014 - 03:51 PM
What was the exact reason given for refusal the first time? Can you post the words from the decision letter?
I don't believe that would be a valid planning reason for refusal. In which case it should be rejected at appeal. I suspect that's why the planning officer recommended approval. He knows it.
It's not uncommon for the committee to find emotional reasons for rejection. The poor planning officer has to turn these into valid planning reasons for the decision letter and it that you have to look at and appeal not what the committee say.
It's worth finding out for certain who owns the verge. "My" wide verge is considered highway verge. Because of that I wasn't able to stop a neighbour moving a telephone pole from their land onto the grass in front of my house. Bit of a pain because highways only cut the grass a few times a year so I have to do it if I want it kept looking nice.
The TPO stops you doing any work on the tree (even cutting overhanging branches) without getting permission from the tree officer (perhaps via a "Notification of Tree Works" form). The tree officer might request that you get an Arboriculturist to justify and detail the exact work planned. Don't worry too much about that. If it's a big tree chances are you will need a tree surgeon anyway and a good ones should also be able to write up a something that you can submit with the application.
The exception to this is if the tree (or rather the bit that's overhanging) is dead or dangerous to people or property. In that case you can get it cut/pruned without prior approval from the council BUT you must be prepared to prove its dead of immediately dangerous later - best get a tree surgeon to do a write up before he does any actual cutting.
The council may have a list of Arboriculturists/tree surgeons that they use. May help to pick one from their list if you do need to prune back overhanging branches.
Posted 30 June 2014 - 04:13 PM
Posted 30 June 2014 - 05:38 PM
Posted 30 June 2014 - 08:48 PM
That doesn't even sound like a formal decision letter.
That could be good and bad news. Someone almost certainly still owns the land - could be a creditor of the business. Do you need access over this verge to get to your plot?
If you have access rights or don't need to cross the verge it could be worth tracking down the creditors of the builder and making them an offer.
If the real owner cannot be traced you could consider fencing it off and claiming it yourself. The PC would not be able to "evict" you because only the land owner can do that. If the builder or his heirs can't be traced then there might not be anyone who can legally evict you. Then after 10-12 years you could claim the land under the laws on adverse possession. The rules on this changes recently but all that did was add a requirement that the land registry try and contact the owner and give them the right to object to your claim. Again if they can't be traced or fail to respond you could end up owning that land.
Be aware that if you don't fence it off and claim it then a neighbour, the PC or a group of travellers could do so and nobody could evict them either. By the way when I say "evict" there are two issues here... Clearly if someone moved a caravan onto the verge or tried to build a house on it then the planners could get that removed as it would be a breech of planning law. However they would not be able to stop a claim of ownership or get your fences removed unless the fence breeches planning law.
The land registry rules are quite strict. You would have to fence it off "to the exclusion of all others" so pretty good fencing would be needed, and as I said above the fencing would also need to meet planning law. Fortunately you don't normally need planning permission to erect a 6ft fence on your boundary (3ft boundary with highway).
If you decide to go down this route you should seek out a solicitor that specialises in this branch of the law because it is easy to make a mistake and loose an otherwise valid claim of ownership that's taken a decade to acquire.
Edited by temp, 30 June 2014 - 08:50 PM.
Posted 30 June 2014 - 09:23 PM
Edited by joiner, 04 July 2014 - 07:33 AM.
Posted 03 July 2014 - 07:50 PM
Edited by gray, 03 July 2014 - 07:54 PM.
Posted 03 July 2014 - 10:12 PM
Some things like the impact of a development on the value of your house or the loss of a view may seem important but aren't legal grounds for refusal either. Even members of planning committees get it wrong. They come up will all sorts of reasons for refusal and the poor planning officer has to point out that they aren't valid/legal and then come up with some that are.
If there is no impact on the tree now I doubt they can use the tree as a reason for refusal. If they didn't raise any other possible reasons for refusal I would press on.
Edited by temp, 03 July 2014 - 10:13 PM.
Posted 04 July 2014 - 07:44 AM
Whilst "planning", whether at officer or committee level, can only consider what's in front of them on the day, within the application, they do take note of consultee comments and the tree officer will be amongst that number and it's his or her job to comment on what is likely to happen.
Posted 04 July 2014 - 08:31 AM
I'd let them make a decision and see what reasons they give. Only then can you appeal, if you withdraw and resubmit you are continually dancing to the tune they want as until you have a decision you can't escalate to the Planning Inspectorate
It sounds like you have already got a refusal giving the reason of just "impact on Tree" if this wasn't properly explained I would have thought your planning consultant would have said to appeal that decision.
But as you have applied again, this time with a tree report, I'd let them make a decision, if it is a rejection then look to appeal and if they have acted unreasonable tell you planning consultant you want to ask for costs as well.
Posted 04 July 2014 - 10:29 AM
Posted 04 July 2014 - 11:53 AM
Everyone else has said it doesn't seem a valid planning issue, but that was for the previous application and as far as you have said you haven't had a decision yet.
My opinion (not that it really matters that much as I'm no expert) is that worrying about future impact on the tree in not a valid planning reason. The tree could die in ten years time and then the reason is gone. (copper nails anyone)
Wait until the decision is made and talk to your consultant. It all depends on the reasons for the refusal - until we know that it's hard to say if the reasons are valid or not.
Edited by Calvinmiddle, 04 July 2014 - 10:29 PM.
Posted 04 July 2014 - 12:49 PM
Posted 04 July 2014 - 12:57 PM
Posted 04 July 2014 - 01:02 PM