Friday, 7 February 2014
Trees
I was saddened to hear that in view of the threat to public safety action was taken to fell trees immediately adjacent to a building site. Developers do have a responsibility in respect of trees that are protected but should as a result of development trees become a public safety issue Council officers have no option but to take action to protect the public. These weather conditions are also not helpful with tree casualties all over the County. The only encouragement I can take is that the developer has contracted to planting 50 semi mature trees in the public space and I intend to see that happens over the development period.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
Sorry Mr Nottage, that is baloney.
For an "archaeological dig" to sever one trees roots is careless, to cut through four is blatant vandalism and contrary to the TPOs placed on the trees.
Surely now "Council officers have no option" but to fine the developer as any member of the public would have been?
Ensuring that they stick to their original contract is hardly going to protect the remaining trees.
I think you will find that with planning permission given the developer can proceed with development despite adjacent trees. What he did destabilised the trees making them a public safety issue. Officers had no alternative but to react to this public safety issue. All very messy I know and not something I am happy about .
In respect of legal action my view is that public money should only be used if there is a certainty that we should win.
If the developer or "archaeological dig" has contravened a TPO by destabalising the trees why would legal action not be successful?
I think you will find many residents wouldn't mind the Council spending our money having a go at deterring developers such as this.
A developer should not be diggintg anywhere within the protected zone around a tree under a TPO. The protection zone should be clearly fenced off with secure fencing over 1.2m high. Hand tools only should be used in these areas.
If the developer has contravened these rules then they can be prosecuted. It may well be that the trees were so damaged that they had to be removed for safety. But the developer can still be prosecuted for contravening the TPO and still has the legal obligation to replace any protected trees that are under a TPO as soon as reasonably practicable.
The council would not be wasting public money on pursuing a prosecution as the developer have clearly breached the conditions of the TPO. The protection zone eliminates any risk that the roots of the tree would be damaged. It is an open and shut case.
Planning consent is entirely immaterial to TPOs. They may have been doing works on their site but they still have to comply with the law.
My understanding is that the developer has the permission to develop on his site this would include dealing with tree roots....on his site. So might think as I do there is an injustice here because our Councillors tried to protect the tree but it is apparently his right to deal with the foundations etc as he sees fit.
Cornfactor planning condition 8 is to 'secure the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to, and approved by, the LPA . . . '
Could you provide the residents the details of the written scheme that has been approved for the archeological work please.
You can obtain this information from the planning department at CBC. All those who are blaming Councillors miss the fact that it was the Councillors who tried to protect the trees through our planning system.
Rip these developers a new one, stop making excuses and do the job everyone in Christchurch expects you to do.
>All those who are blaming Councillors miss the fact that it was the Councillors who tried to protect the trees through our planning system.
Which you have singularly failed to do. See previous comment.
No the Councillors made a decision to protect the tree. Their decision based democratic debate. What has happened subsequently is outside the control or responsibility of Councillors. Talk to you local ward Councillors and they will explain the frustrations of the system they operate in. Your view is far too simplistic, it might suit you to blame Councillors but in this case they are not repeat not at fault. Also please see story in the Echo about the tree that nearly killed a pedestrian. Officers have that responsibility....you do not.
Twynham it doesn't look as if anyone is taking you up, I thought you were at a different level to those making outrageous claims against Councillors. Hope you don't let me down Leslie!
Let's face it, the council were hellbent on seeing this development go ahead in the teeth of public opposition. Is anyone really surprised to find them looking the other way when rules are being broken?
When I know Councillors are doing a good job, i.e. protecting Christchurch, I will defend them to the hilt.
In this case, and as I have said, I will wait until I know the full facts, but at the moment you are making excuses for the developer instead of lambasting them.
I am surprised Ms Newman didn't rise to the bait though!
Look, you've obviously been reading the echo comments, and you know what echo commentards are like, but it doesn't mean that they are wrong!
The basic feeling is that this is terrible and what we want to hear from our councilors, our representatives, is that it is terrible and they are going to do all they can to "rip the developers a new one"...
What we're actually getting is "oh well, we tried with a TPO, but it didn't work"
To compound matters by then trying to conflate trees being felled by developers cutting through roots with trees down due to the weather conditions is also down right disingenuous and sounds like you are an apologist for the developer rather than a guardian of Christchurch.
Be angry that your decision to protect the tree was for naught; be angry that democratic debate has been run over roughshod by the developers; be angry that this has happened at all; let us know that you are angry and what you are actually going to do.
Oh what a tangled web we weave....
Mr Nottage - whilst I grudgingly accept that with planning permission given the developer can proceed with development despite adjacent trees. I have to ask the following question. Assuming a Topological survey of the proposed development area has been carried out, has any attention been paid to the RPA as specified by - British Standards Institution BS 5837: 2012Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – Recommendations?
"Twynham it doesn't look as if anyone is taking you up"
Those that have make some very succinct points don't you think?
Let down again by XBC. Roll on 2015!
Thanks Leslie all good points apart from the silly political asides. I will be convening a meeting on Monday with Officers and all the reasonable issues will be discussed. But I am of the opinion that Councillors did nothing wrong in applying TPO's and beyond that officers would have no alternative if the report from the qualified tree officer was that the trees were unsafe. That decision would be taken in the interest of public safety.
Thanks Ray but I and others don’t have a beef with the tree officer, if he/she is presented with severed roots and considers the tree is unsafe they have no option but to recommend felling to Council officers.
Not having studied Tree Preservation Orders, which I have no doubt are complex, but surely the roots are part of any Order irrespective of development boundaries?
It is what action is to be taken against the developer for severing the roots in what at the very least appears to be underhand that is of greatest concern.
If you look at any of the recent planning applications by your friend at Kings, you will see extremely long extensive Arboricultural reports of methods to protect trees which are both internal and external to the development. The failing of the Cornfactor site was the lack of any such report and the permitted development was virtually on the boundary of Druitt Gardens. Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 the council are required that existing trees to be taken into account as a fundamental consideration in the layout of development. This is where your council have failed. And sometimes you would look the bigger man if you held your hands up and admit it, rather than continually say you are not at fault. Even the first application to fell the trees submitted by the development referenced made up documents and then somehow ended up, four revisions later, as a TPO application. This along with the recent supermarkets fiasco has left me very little confidence in your council.
I do hope your meeting goes well on Monday as we want answers. The council had a duty to protect this community asset which it failed to do during the planning stage, and after. It didn't happen once it happened twice. By Monday it will probably happen a third time. It should be shut down immediately and a full investigation held. I hate to think what will happen down there on Monday between the demonstrators and the developers. Swampy may even turn up!
I do not condone the action taken by the developers, my point is that in this case the Council were placed in position whereby they had no alternative but to remove the trees in the interest of public safety. This decision is operational and would not involve Councillors in that decision making process.
You seem to forget that the planning permission for this site was given in early 2007.
What we have to do now is establish a process whereby this disaster cannot be repeated and that will be the basis of our meetings next week.
If the developer has broken the law which appears to be the case then PROSECUTE THEM. Christchurch Borough Counncil needs to send out a very clear message that such wanton vandalism of the towns heritage will not be tolerated.
Post a Comment