From: Ron Harvey [mailto:ron.harvey@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 08 June 2004 17:14
To: 'G.Norton@richmond.gov.uk'
Cc: 'cllr.jcoombs@richmond.gov.uk'; 'cllr.jmumford@richmond.gov.uk'; 'D.Barnes@richmond.gov.uk'
Subject: RE: Gratuitous Vandalism.
OK.
Thanks.
I was already going to write to Mr. Barnes with something not so succinct but I suppose that this may as well do.
Please note than when a police officer (TW 556) visited today the development site manager told him categorically that permission is granted to fell the trees.
If nothing more is then available to prove the permission some other obvious questions arise.
Ron Harvey,
020 8755 3587
From: M.Waygood@richmond.gov.uk [mailto:M.Waygood@richmond.gov.uk] On
Behalf Of G.Norton@richmond.gov.uk
Sent: 08 June 2004 16:35
To: ron.harvey@blueyonder.co.uk
Subject: RE: Gratuitous Vandalism.
Dear Mr Harvey
The Chief Executive has asked me to write to thank you for your email. The Chief Executive has asked me to forward a copy to David Barnes, Principal Planning Officer, has he has responsibility for this area and he has been asked to respond to you direct, with a copy to the Chief Executive.
Maureen Waygood
PA to the Chief Executive
(: 020 8891 7167
Ê: 020 8891 7703
?: M.Waygood@richmond.gov.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Harvey [mailto:ron.harvey@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 08 June 2004 13:39
To: ed@twickenham-online.co.uk; jadlam@london.newsquest.co.uk
Cc: cllr.jcoombs@richmond.gov.uk; cllr.jmumford@richmond.gov.uk; G.Norton@richmond.gov.uk
Subject: Gratuitous Vandalism.Stop Press
This photo:
http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/local/mf_080604_3.jpg
Shows the demolition of a tree in progress about one hour ago.
Nevertheless, to the best of my knowledge, a planning condition, LA04A "PROTECT TREES SHOWN ON PLAN" continues to apply
c.f.
http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/local/trees_.htm
The tree is clearly marked on the approved plan at the corner of the site:
http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/local/3562_plan_2.htm
Also felled today was one of the four large trees clearly marked at the other end of the boundary wall, next to the Farm Road flats.
http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/local/mf_080604_4.jpg
Two of those large trees are now gone.
Here is a letter delivered to us last Saturday.
http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/local/mf_060604_letter1.jpg
http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/local/mf_060604_letter2.jpg
It appears to propose to begin work yesterday albeit that the work had actually been in progress for some weeks already.
This photo was taken when they began:
http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/local/mf_04_1.jpg
To the right of that shot you can see another tree designated to be protected but already gone when LBRut planning officers visited the site last Thursday 3rd June.
The following persons may possibly assist with further enquiries:
Roy Summers, LBRuT
http://cabnet.richmond.gov.uk/mgUserInfo.asp?UID=244
Mr. Lawrence Huntingford, c/o RuTCHT, 020 8481 7277
http://www.marblearch.co.uk/listings/Clive-Chapman.htm
Is the planning condition still in place?
What are the Council Officers' duties in this respect?
Has there been any other change of permission or authoritative correspondence?
When I spoke to the Duty Planning Officer at the Civic Centre yesterday he had none to show me.
Some considerable time ago the architect did warn me of an intention to remove trees, hence a subsequent planning application to be lodged but I know of none yet to have been announced.
The intention would rather seem to be to seek retrospective planning permission when the work is already complete, and with the full connivance of the local authority when they ought to be enforcing their own conditions.
Given that drainage is a site issue why remove trees? Trees help to drain the soil.
Ron Harvey, local resident.
75 Farm Road
Hounslow
(LB Richmond)
TW45PH
Please be welcome to call me: 020 8755 3587
http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/local/index_.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Harvey [mailto:ron.harvey@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 07 June 2004 17:24
To: 'N.Vasilev@richmond.gov.uk'
Cc: 'cllr.jcoombs@richmond.gov.uk'; 'G.Norton@richmond.gov.uk'; 'cllr.AButler@richmond.gov.uk'; 'cllr.JMumford@richmond.gov.uk'; 'cllr.BKing@richmond.gov.uk'; 'cllr.WTreble@richmond.gov.uk'
Subject: RE: Mill Farm Road, Hanworth Site.
Thank you for your prompt reply, Mr. Vasilev.
For the record please note that a man apparently in charge of the site this morning told me that circumstances had changed; there has recently been a soil contamination report and because of the report it is now necessary to fell trees that were protected.
However, when we spoke on the telephone today you seemed to be unable to help to make sense of this. On the contrary you seemed to be under the impression that a recent report was to do with water drainage.
If you now feel able to supply a better response I should be grateful.
According to a conversation today with the Duty Planning Officer I gather that you visited the site last Thursday with Mr. Summers. If that is correct I should therefore be interested to know what advice you then gave with respect to trees and land contamination, and what your understanding was of any permission to fell trees on the site.
As to whether or not the Council's policy is firm and positive, I shall otherwise continue to rely for instance upon the following facts:
1. The tree evidently missing in my recent photo was already gone last week when you visited the site.
2. The tree was within the development site.
3. Prior to the recent letter we have from Mr.Huntingford there was no sign of any approval to remove that tree, nor any other tree designated to be preserved.
4. On the contrary, Planning Condition LA04A was imposed especially to PROTECT TREES SHOWN ON PLAN.
5. Trees to be protected were marked on the said plan adjacent to the southern concrete boundary fence, along an area where no trees presently remain.
6. Trees to be protected were already felled when in November 2002 the LBRuT planning department categorically assured Cllr. Butler that none of the trees designated to be preserved have been taken away.
7. Mr.Huntingford's letter to us proposes that work already completed begins today.
If you do not concur please take the opportunity to state any particular objection or correction.
Sincerely, Ron Harvey
75 Farm Road
Hounslow
(LB Richmond)
TW4 5PH
020 8755 3587
> -----Original Message-----
> From: N.Vasilev@richmond.gov.uk [mailto:N.Vasilev@richmond.gov.uk]
> Sent: 07 June 2004 11:07
> To: ron.harvey@blueyonder.co.uk; cllr.jcoombs@richmond.gov.uk
> Cc: G.Norton@richmond.gov.uk; cllr.AButler@richmond.gov.uk;
> cllr.JMumford@richmond.gov.uk; cllr.BKing@richmond.gov.uk;
> cllr.WTreble@richmond.gov.uk
> Subject: RE: Mill Farm Road, Hanworth Site.
>
> Dear Mr Harvey
>
> Thank you for being concerned about tree preservation and for bringing to
> our attention two photographs showing some progress of the site cleaning
> work.
>
> Although the policy of LBRuT is very firm and positive in respect of tree
> retention within the borough, in some circumstances, as in this case, the
> removal of trees is unavoidable in order to allow soil decontamination
> work
> to be carried out and thus bringing the ground to its safe state.
>
> I hope this answers your query, however, if you need more clarification
> please let us know.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Nikolay Vasilev
> Contaminated Land Officer
> Environment Planning & Review
> Special Projects Team
> LBRUT
> Tel: 020 8831 6453
> Fax: 020 8891 7448
> e-mail: n.vasilev@richmond.gov.uk
> www.richmond.gov.uk
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Harvey [mailto:ron.harvey@blueyonder.co.uk]
> Sent: 05 June 2004 18:15
> To: cllr.jcoombs@richmond.gov.uk
> Cc: N.Vasilev@richmond.gov.uk; G.Norton@richmond.gov.uk;
> cllr.AButler@richmond.gov.uk; cllr.jmumford@richmond.gov.uk;
> cllr.bking@richmond.gov.uk; cllr.wtreble@richmond.gov.uk
> Subject: RE: Mil Farm Site.
>
>
>
>
> Hello again.
>
> Did anybody ever see any answers to my 14 questions?
> (05 December 2002, below)
>
> Did anybody actually bother to compare the drawings at the library?
>
> Lest there be any argument at a later date as to when it was taken I take
> the opportunity now to send the attached photo, 60_50_farm_road.jpg.
>
> Please note that the tree that had stood in the middle of the shot,
> clearly
> within the planning site, is already gone. For the sake of comparison I
> also
> attach 50_20_farm_road.jpg. It was taken when the recent spate of work on
> the site began a couple of weeks ago.
>
> According to a formal letter we received today, dated 3rd June, from the
> Acting Development Manager, Laurence Huntingford, the same work is agreed
> with LBRuT and RHP to begin next week, June 7th.
>
> Does he know no shame? Or is it just too easy to be sure that LBRuT is far
> too feeble, far too corrupt or far too stupid to do anything about it?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Ron Harvey
>
> 75 Farm Road
> Hounslow
> LB Richmond)
> TW45PH
> 020 8755 3587
>
> http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/local/index.htm
>
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cllr.jcoombs@richmond.gov.uk [mailto:cllr.jcoombs@richmond.gov.uk]
> > Sent: 17 March 2003 17:53
> > To: ron.harvey@blueyonder.co.uk
> > Subject: RE: Mil Farm Site.
> >
> > Ron
> > It seems that the trees in question fall outside the planning site. As
> > they
> > don't have orders on them they can be felled. I will go and look at the
> > drawings in the library myself
> > Regards, John
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ron Harvey [mailto:ron.harvey@blueyonder.co.uk]
> > Sent: 11 March 2003 21:48
> > To: cllr.jcoombs@richmond.gov.uk
> > Subject: RE: Mil Farm Site.
> >
> >
> >
> > So am I ever to get a proper reply, or what?
> >
> > R H
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cllr.jcoombs@richmond.gov.uk [mailto:cllr.jcoombs@richmond.gov.uk]
> >
> > Sent: 06 March 2003 17:15
> > To: ron.harvey@blueyonder.co.uk
> > Subject: RE: Mil Farm Site.
> >
> >
> > Dear Ron,
> > my contact at the council is away until Monday so I will give you a
> > reply after that Regards, John
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ron Harvey [mailto:ron.harvey@blueyonder.co.uk]
> > Sent: 06 March 2003 15:48
> > To: cllr.jcoombs@richmond.gov.uk
> > Subject: RE: Mil Farm Site.
> >
> >
> >
> > Sorry to have to drag this up again, but in view of more "details
> > pursuant" drawings, (presently available at Heathfield library) did you
> > ever see any answers to my 14 questions?
> >
> > The new drawings show trees to be felled, the very same trees that I
> > has especially fussed about, albeit that your Council's present letter
> > to residents makes no mention of any such intention.
> >
> > With best wishes,
> >
> > Ron Harvey
> >
> > 75 Farm Road, Hounslow, (LB Richmond), TW45PH.
> >
> > 020 8755 3587
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cllr.jcoombs@richmond.gov.uk [mailto:cllr.jcoombs@richmond.gov.uk]
> >
> > Sent: 05 December 2002 16:41
> > To: ron.harvey@blueyonder.co.uk
> > Subject: RE: Mil Farm Site.
> >
> >
> > I await their reply to you with interes
> > Regards John coombs
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ron Harvey
> > To: Phillip Wealthy
> > Cc: cllr.jcoombs@richmond.gov.uk
> > Sent: 05/12/02 14:41
> > Subject: FW: Mil Farm Site.
> >
> >
> > I forward this in view of an 'out of office' reply from
> > 'h.cornforth@richmond.gov.uk'.
> >
> > I am prepared to forgive if some honest answers appear but I am not
> > otherwise inclined to go away.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ron Harvey [mailto:ron.harvey@blueyonder.co.uk]
> > Sent: 05 December 2002 14:03
> > To: 'h.cornforth@richmond.gov.uk'
> > Cc: cllr.jcoombs@richmond.gov.uk; cc@ccar.co.uk; Anne Harvey;
> > alex.wilson@richmond.gov.uk; trees@richmond.gov.uk; David Dawson
> > (dave.dawson@london.gov.uk); cc@ccar.co.uk; n.vasilev@richmond.gov.uk;
> > Gina MacKinney (cllr.gmackinney@richmond.gov.uk); Anne Harvey
> > Subject: Mil Farm Site.
> >
> >
> >
> > To LBRuT Principal Policy and Research Planning Policy Officer Helen
> > Cornforth, and whosoever it may concern:
> >
> >
> > I thank you for your recent letter. For your convenience I transcribe it
> > below.
> >
> > I had already taken part in the UDP process. It is not therefore so easy
> > to appreciate your reiteration of what was already officially recorded.
> > It would be more interesting to me to see answers to particular concerns
> > exactly because the nature of your Council's dealings with them are
> > anything but clear and because of the implications of maladministration
> > that thus arise.
> >
> > For instance, please:
> >
> > 1. With due regard to the planning application [00/3562/OUT] and to Mr.
> > Summers' two reports to Committees last year (25th Oct & 6th Dec) what
> > within them, please, would reasonably lead an innocent observer to
> > expect the complete clearance of the development site, including the
> > western margin?
> >
> > 2. With due regard to trees to be preserved, how many were marked as
> > such along the border of the site immediately opposite to the Farm Road
> > Flats, between the newly created entrance gate and the south eastern
> > corner of the development site?
> >
> > 3. With due regard to the UDP Inspector's reliance upon UDP policies ENV
> > 19 and ENV 9, am I correct to understand that Mr. Fuller, your Council's
> > Tree Officer, prior to the destruction of trees on the site, was never
> > in any sense instructed to be aware of the site?
> >
> > 4. Presuming that I am correct to discern that your council, during the
> > Unitary Development Plan deliberations, made no mention whatsoever of
> > soil contamination as a factor in effect opposed to conservation
> > interests, did anybody involved ever actually bother to read the soil
> > report cited as a background paper to the moot application
> > (00/3562/OUT)?
> >
> > 5. With due respect to my previous raising of the issue, e.g. at a
> > public meeting chaired by Councillor Lourie, Dec 11th 1997, and in
> > subsequent letters to the local press, why was there never any
> > subsequent attempt to intelligently compare the previous soil
> > contamination survey for the adjacent Farm Road flats?
> >
> > 6. With due regard to any pertinent policy or whatever other intelligent
> > consideration, should or should not the details of Planning Condition
> > NS01U (Land Contamination) properly and sensibly be submitted before or
> > after a significant and irreversible part of that work (i.e. the
> > complete clearance of the land) is already complete?
> >
> > 7. Given that (according to the developer) the vegetation has to be all
> > but completely cleared because the soil is contaminated and thus
> > presents an unacceptable health risk, notwithstanding the covering
> > vegetation, why then was it never previously or presently deemed to be
> > immediately necessary to clear the entire site?
> >
> > 8. Further to the previous question and with due regard to the present
> > situation, has it yet crossed anybody's mind that the exposure of
> > unvegetated but contaminated soil, but without the removal of the same
> > would possibly constitute an increased health risk?
> >
> > 9. Further to both of the previous questions, hence to the reasons for
> > the stipulated Planning Condition NSO1U, would you or would you not
> > concur as a principle of policy, that the clearance of the site, hence
> > the felling of mature trees, is especially a protection of amenity
> > issue?
> >
> > 10. With due respect to Condition LA04A (Tree Protection), and with
> > heavy machinery on site, is it not reasonable enough to suppose that the
> > trees were obviously enough as much in any danger of harm during the
> > recent clearance work, and therefore as much in need of protection as at
> > any later stage?
> >
> > 11. Further to the previous question, and given that for the past thirty
> > years or so, with no development imminent, no such clearance had ever
> > taken place, nor would it now have taken place if no development were
> > intended, is it not reasonable enough to construe that the recent work
> > was "for the purpose of the development"?
> >
> > 12. Further to both of the previous questions, and in view of the letter
> > to your Mr. Summers, dated 30th October and registered as '00/3562/DD01'
> > is it not indisputably clear that the same understanding was indeed
> > accepted by the developer?
> >
> > 13. Has there yet been or would there otherwise (apart from my own
> > interest) be any attempt on your Council's part to verify by examination
> > the information and the promises as supplied within the Jaquelin Fisher
> > Associates Reptile Capture & Translocation Report?
> >
> > 14. With respect to my publication of material relating to these issues,
> > on this web site:
> > [http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/local/index_.htm]
> > do you find anything therein to be incorrect or objectionable as a
> > matter of fact or policy?
> >
> >
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Mr. Ron Harvey
> >
> > 020 8755 3587
> >
> > 75 Farm Road,
> > Hounslow,
> > (LB Richmond),
> > TW45PH
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---- original letter --------------
> >
> > Dear Mr Harvey
> >
> > Helen Cornforth
> > Ext 7334
> > 28th November 2002
> >
> > Mill Farm
> >
> > I have been asked to respond to your e mail of 14th November referring
> > to
> > discussions at the Whitton and Heathfield Area consultation meeting on
> > the 13th
> > November, about the above site.
> >
> > I confirm that the following is the situation with regard to the UDP;-
> >
> > The proposal site description in the UDP (ref W 13) included reference
> > to the
> > protection of a strip beside the River Crane as follows:-
> > " Any proposal should include a buffer of land of nature conservation
> > importance to
> > link to the area to the west of the site."
> >
> > The site was considered at the UDP Inquiry, and changes added to include
> > a
> > reference to the inclusion of a children's playspace, access changes and
> > the
> > provision of a linking cycle/pedestrian route, but otherwise no other
> > changes were
> > proposed.
> >
> > At the time the Inspector considered the question of whether the whole
> > site should be
> > designated as a site for nature conservation, but concluded that any
> > nature
> > conservation features identified could be protected by UDP policies ENV
> > 19 (Nature
> > Conservation and Development Proposals) and ENV 9 (Trees in town and
> > landscape)
> >
> > The progress of the planning application was as follows:-
> >
> > Outline application No 00/3562 first went to Development Control
> > committee on 25th
> > October 2001, was deferred to seek the written views of the Environment
> > Agency
> > and GLA Biodiversity Manager and re- presented to DC committee on 6th
> > December
> > 2001, when it was given permission, subject to conditions.
> >
> > The permission was for 75 new residential units with parking and
> > associated works.
> > Following advice from both the Environment Agency and GLA, a 10m wide
> > strip by
> > the River Crane widening at the south end to include a pond and the
> > wetland around
> > it with a buffer zone of 2m would be left for nature conservation.
> > Conditions included
> > NS 03 -that a landscape management plan should be submitted and approved
> > by the local authority for the area between the houses and the stream,
> > NS 05 - that a
> > reptile survey should be carried out and appropriate action taken, and
> > NS 01 - That
> > no development should be carried out other than in accordance with the
> > Contamination and Geotechnical Assessment Report dated January 1998.
> >
> > The latter condition refers to the fact that the land had already
> > undergone a
> > contamination survey and that certain conditions and monitoring were
> > required.
> >
> > The site has been subject to a number of contamination surveys, in
> > 1977,1989,
> > 1998,2001 and 2002.
> >
> > It is understood that the developers have recently cleared the site of
> > some
> > vegetation. They have confirmed that no top soil has been removed from
> > the site, no
> > trees shown as "existing" on plan MFS17A have been removed, and the
> > vegetation
> > clearance has amounted to pre-development works in accordance with the
> > conditions. The clearance was done as part of the extensive "Reptile
> > Capture and
> > Translocation Exercise", and remediation works necessary for the safety
> > of future
> > and neighbouring residents.
> >
> > It is understood that the developers propose to restore the riverside
> > strip for nature
> > conservation, and will be submitting a detailed landscaping scheme for
> > the Planning
> > Authority's approval shortly, which will be in consultation with the GLA
> > Biodiversity
> > Manager. Once implemented this will introduce extensive and appropriate
> > indigenous
> > planting to foster wildlife along the riverside.
> >
> > I hope that the above clarifies the situation.
> >
> > Yours sincerely
> >
> > .....
> >
=======================================================================
Scanned for virus infection by Messagelabs
=======================================================================
=======================================================================
This email has been scanned for Virus infection by MessageLabs
For more information please contact messagelabs@atomwide.com
=======================================================================
