Planning expert please???

cyclonebri1

My family have a planning issue. They were granted a change of use permission for land to the rear of their garden but permitted developement rights were removed as the land partly bordered the rear of the neighbours land.

In effect we have to apply for permission for every thing, ie garden shed etc.

The word structure is the key to this, all structures have to be applied for.

My question is is there any constraint on trees and hedges on the site?????


It's not green belt, SSSI, national park etc, simply a garden bordering onto open farmland.
I have asked the involved planning dept of course but the words "in my view" where used when I asked so I am looking for collaboration ie confirmation of what they said.

Any qualified help greatly appreciated.:beer:

cyclonebri1

Got Ya, thought it may do.:A:A

Hoploz

Trees and hedges are not built structures so they wouldn't be controlled.

What was the change of use ... From what to what?

I suppose they don't want something built then used as a separate dwelling?

cyclonebri1

Hi, they got planning permission to erect a stable block and m!nage on farmland they own to the rear of their property and also gained a extension of their garden of about 40mtrs.


The condition was stated as to prevent urbanisation of the countryside. This came about as a result of a group of neighbours with strong connections and they took us to planning council level, all very suspect but I'm sure you know I can't explain further.


As said we won but with this condition that free of charge they have to get consent for any "structures" they want to erect, inconvenient but acceptable.
The problem I'm absolutely trying to avoid is that of trees eventually being classed as structure. I know it's common sense but common sense doesn't always prevail when dealing with planning.
It's just the fact that I've now spoken to planning enforcement officers from 2 neighbouring councils both of whom stated that "in their opinion" it's not structure. Just looking for concrete evidence of this for obvious reasons and having trawled over the Town and Country Planning Act I can't find anything to point either way?????

Doozergirl

I think if it becomes a nuisance, that people could complain and the council might try and use planning legislation if it were deemed as being a deliberate placement of fast growing trees, perhaps.

The whole problem with planning legislation is that it is really quite subjective and you can attempt to turn almost any policy to your favour, as can the planning officers.

It's how planning consultants make their entire living! I read a planning consultant's statement this week that used the same argument to build on greenbelt as I used to build on concrete brownfield. I was staggered by the audacity of it.

Planning talk is often about 'weight' attached to an argument. Someone has to decide whether something carries more weight than another and you balance it up like apples on a market stall. Ridiculous, of course as the weight is attached by personal opinions on all sides.

brightontraveller

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Hi, they got planning permission to erect a stable block and m!nage on farmland they own to the rear of their property and also gained a extension of their garden of about 40mtrs.


The condition was stated as to prevent urbanisation of the countryside. This came about as a result of a group of neighbours with strong connections and they took us to planning council level, all very suspect but I'm sure you know I can't explain further.


As said we won but with this condition that free of charge they have to get consent for any "structures" they want to erect, inconvenient but acceptable.
The problem I'm absolutely trying to avoid is that of trees eventually being classed as structure. I know it's common sense but common sense doesn't always prevail when dealing with planning.
It's just the fact that I've now spoken to planning enforcement officers from 2 neighbouring councils both of whom stated that "in their opinion" it's not structure. Just looking for concrete evidence of this for obvious reasons and having trawled over the Town and Country Planning Act I can't find anything to point either way?????

Depends on definitions for some a structure would normally be man made not a naturally occurring one? You‘ll need to speak to a solicitor and let them sort it its normally all in the small print as they say ?

Is a tree planted same as one that comes from a seeds blown in from a neighbour’s garden? New tree in a preservation area does it naturally acquire status or does it differ if planted? What size before it becomes a tree inch, meter, 10 meters .Is it same potted ?

Can you say it’s a “micro nature reserve” can you let it all over grow? You plant tree they don’t complain five years later they do? Or some endangered/protected species decides to make it there home ( Great crested newts seam to appear alot )Neighbors decide they don’t want the tree and complain ask for its removal can the tree stay as long as the said wildlife is in it or do you have to relocate wildlife if so what time constraint weeks, mth, years.

There are so many bits of fun you can have with neighbors? Only thing that’s for sure is it’s a minefield better to get on with them or know exactly where you stand legally if your not intending to do so

cyclonebri1

Doozergirl wrote: »

The whole problem with planning legislation is that it is really quite subjective and you can attempt to turn almost any policy to your favour, as can the planning officers.

It's how planning consultants make their entire living! I read a planning consultant's statement this week that used the same argument to build on greenbelt as I used to build on concrete brownfield. I was staggered by the audacity of it.

Planning talk is often about 'weight' attached to an argument. Someone has to decide whether something carries more weight than another and you balance it up like apples on a market stall. Ridiculous, of course as the weight is attached by personal opinions on all sides.

Tell me about it, this was a simple private family application, nothing commercial but the neighbour is well connected including into the district and parish councils, the weight of argument against what was simply the loss of view entailed a 70 signature petition etc but the application was genuine and fell within planning acceptance so we passed, but with the said condition.

You use the word opinion, this is the word I'm having trouble with as explained above, a change of planning enforcement officer and views/opinions can change.

Thank you

cyclonebri1

brightontraveller wrote: »

Depends on definitions for some a structure would normally be man made not a naturally occurring one? You‘ll need to speak to a solicitor and let them sort it its normally all in the small print as they say ?




There are so many bits of fun you can have with neighbors? Only thing that’s for sure is it’s a minefield better to get on with them or know exactly where you stand legally if your not intending to do so

Believe me getting on with this person is not an option she is the most vindictive individual I've come accross in recent years. The chip on her shoulder comes about as she failed to raise the finance to purchase the land herself and is now playing every trick in the book to be awkward. The "getting on with bridge" has well and trully collapsed I'm afraid.

We have behaved perfectly throughout this application, did our own research during the 5 months it took to be passed, even dealt with the planning consultant she employed to opose us so know it's time to "have some fun" as you say.

The next set of plans to go in, and this is all free of charge for an idefinite period as it falls within the original application will include a 20 metre block store straight behind her property.

She'll be given the oportunity to cease hostilities at any point but neither myself or my family will stand anymore vindictiveness from her.

Reasonable planting schemes will happen shortly and she will gain the privacy she claimed she would lose. One good thing that did get written into the decision notice was that the planning committee stated that we should erect screening to the rear of her property to protect her privacy.
As the enforcement officer said to me, "sometimes you have to be careful what you ask for":D:D

Davesnave

Surely anyone looking for a definition of 'structures' would go to the Planning Portal and see how they encompass the term, simple as that. I don't think any local authority could ride roughshod over that with their own definition.

As for trees, they have their own, quite complicated laws via TPOs, conservation areas and high hedges legislation.

On the whole, trees tend to be seen as a Good Thing, sometimes even when common sense shows they are far from benign.

cyclonebri1

Davesnave wrote: »

Surely anyone looking for a definition of 'structures' would go to the Planning Portal and see how they encompass the term, simple as that. I don't think any local authority could ride roughshod over that with their own definition.

As for trees, they have their own, quite complicated laws via TPOs, conservation areas and high hedges legislation.

On the whole, trees tend to be seen as a Good Thing, sometimes even when common sense shows they are far from benign.

dave, "anyone looking fo" in your context means me?
i have gone over this and still cannot find the councils/gov definition of structure.
if you are more enlightend than me then please contribute further, but all tpo's, conservation orders etc are about protecting existing, it's a given, but show me anything that permits/controls/outlaws planting schemes

Silver-Surfer_2

Has anyone tried calling the local planning office to ask their definition of a structure?