-----Original Message-----
From: D.Barnes@richmond.gov.uk [mailto:D.Barnes@richmond.gov.uk]
Sent: 11 June 2004 17:22
To: ron.harvey@blueyonder.co.uk
Cc: M.Waygood@richmond.gov.uk
Subject: Mill Farm Site

   Dear Mr Harvey

I refer to your correspondence with the Chief Executive and would advise you

as follows with regard to some of the trees on the site adjacent to your

home.

The applicant contacted this office in May advising that, due to further

comprehensive analysis of soil conditions on the site and experience of

clearing the site of contamination, their consultants had recommended that

some of the trees be felled as the land under and around them needed to be

removed, analysed and fresh soil be introduced. I am advised that the need

to do this was not known until further site clearance had been carried out

recently.

This information was assessed by our contamination expert who advised that,

in his expert opinion, there was a risk of such contamination and

reluctantly recommended that the trees should be felled.

However, this office advised the applicant that the condition you refer to

protects the trees and that if they were proposed to be removed the

applicant should formally apply to this office to vary or waive this

condition, explaining why they had to be removed and provide details of

replacement trees, if proposed.

The applicant requested a joint site visit to assess the trees in the light

of this new information. Experienced officers visited on 3 June to discover

that although the trees were still insitu much of the ground around the

immediate vicinity of their boles had been removed to a depth of

approximately 1 metre. This did not include the 3 silver birches near the

site entrance as the ground did not have to be taken away in that area,

according to the applicant.

It was immediately apparent from my officers' site inspection that the soil

removal so close to the trees, including 2 sycamores on the boundary with

the flats in which you live, had created a situation in which the trees

could be said to be in a dangerous and unrecoverable position due to the

ground excavation. Officers therefore advised the applicant that such

aggressive work so close to the trees had undermined their stability and in

the interests of safety in the area they should be removed. It was made

clear at that time that this work so close to the trees, notwithstanding the

soil issue, was very disappointing given the efforts to retain them during

the planning application stage.

The applicant was recommended to write to neighbours to explain why the tree

work was required and I understand that is what may have alerted you to this

situation.

Earlier this week details were received from the applicant showing

replanting of trees to compensate for the removal of those referred to

above. This will be considered as a formally proposed amendment to the

approved landscaping for the site and your views will be invited on this in

due course.

You will perhaps appreciate that this office was left with a very

unfortunate situation to deal with but I consider that the most sensible

course of action was followed by my officers in the circumstances whereby

they agreed for safety reasons to their removal but pressed for good quality

planting to take the place of those removed.

You will appreciate that this issue did not centre on drainage that you

refer to but soil contamination. I trust the above is of assistance.

David Barnes

Development Control Manager

Environmental Protection & Customer Services Department

=======================================================================

    This email has been scanned for Virus infection by MessageLabs

     For more information please contact messagelabs@atomwide.com

=======================================================================