-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Harvey [mailto:ron.harvey@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 15 June 2004 11:51
To: 'm.esom@richmond.gov.uk'
Cc: 'M.Waygood@richmond.gov.uk'; 'D.Barnes@richmond.gov.uk';
'cllr.JMumford@richmond.gov.uk'; 'cllr.jcoombs@richmond.gov.uk';
'trees@richmond.gov.uk'; 'N.Vasilev@richmond.gov.uk';
'ed@twickenham-online.co.uk'
Subject: RE: Mill Farm Site // conduct
Dear Mr. Esom, Head of Department, Environmental Protection,
further to the original message below from Planning Manager David Barnes I write to you, understanding that it is for you rather than him to be altogether responsible for the officers concerned, i.e. your Tree Officer, your Contamination Officer, your Planning Officers and your Enforcement Officer, with regard to development on the Mill Farm Site.
The present cause is essentially that a standard planning condition LA04A especially to protect trees on the development site is in force albeit that there are now no trees actually left on the site to protect.
According to the developers they had permission to fell trees now destroyed. This assurance was expressly given to a policeman TW556 called to visit the site last week.
I therefore took the trouble to immediately visit your Civic Centre, with the said planning condition in mind, to ask to see exactly what was permitted, only to find that no such permission, plan, document or other correspondence was available, nor had the enforcement officer any prior knowledge of the site before I telephoned him, nor even was he immediately able to tell if the condition was still in force.
According then to David Barnes "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."
Several anxieties thus arise:
To begin with we, as neighbouring residents, were never given any warning nor any other advice of such a safety hazard.
Assuming nevertheless that the David Barnes version is reliable, we believe that under the circumstances the officers involved were wrong to give that advice and not just in terms of the material situation. With regard to their proper powers and duties, as a simple matter of common sense it is not satisfactory to negate a published planning condition approved by committee except with something of an equivalent force. At the very least one would expect to see a document to prove the responsibility!
I must therefore urge you to please to ensure, at the very least, these two immediate actions:
1. because trees not actually on the site may yet be in danger, a caution notice to the developers designed to prevent any further removal of the roots of trees and bushes adjacent to the site owned by Richmond Housing Partnership.
2. with particular reference to any legal instrument or sundry directive please explain your understanding of your officers' prescribed powers and duties with respect to the matter described.
Your sincerely,
Mr. Ron Harvey,
75 Farm Road, Hounslow, (LB Richmond), TW45PH
020 8755 3587
> -----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
> =======================================================================