"John Morgan" wrote in message
...
Oz wrote in message
...
John Morgan writes

As I'm sure you're
aware, it's not your land you are farming, it belongs to your
children and mine.

Er, no, actually it belongs to Jim.
It belongs to anyone else about as much as your house belongs
to someone
else. Jim may, or may not, run it with children in mind (or
even the
rest of the population), but that's another matter.

He no doubt has a Land Certificate that guarantees ownership of
the land. I had one for a parcel of land that the government
wanted to build a road on. It turned out not to be worth the
paper it was printed on. If the state wants your land, for any
reason whatsoever, it's as good as gone. THAT'S how much it
belongs to him.

that has always happened, but even states are not eternal. There has been
trouble caused by the collapse of states in Eastern Europe and the land
being returned to its previous owners.
In any argument between the citizen and the state, the rights or the citizen
are easily over ridden, but the ease of over riding them doesn't in itself
nullify the rights, it merely shows that without power, rights aren't worth
a great deal

But then we always knew that

[...]
No realistic amount of money would make me plant any more
trees, for
example. Simply because once planted they can in effect never
be removed
due to legislation.

I find that difficult to believe. Plantation trees are a crop as
much as wheat or sheep. Seems your government has screwed up
somewhere and needs to have the error of its ways pointed out to
it.

It is absolutely true. Indeed I know of cases where farmers have loaned
fields to local cricket clubs etc on a casual, rent free basis, only to have
them suddenly taken using compulsory purchase powers by the local authority
who were worried that the local people might lose 'a significant amenity' if
the farmer changed his mind

Jim Webster

Oz wrote:

Trees that have been inadvertently been left to grow to a significant
size in a garden in a conservation area, are definitely there for
good. The examples of this I could give would make your hair curl.

Not in a conservation area so perhaps it is different, but planning
conditions requiring the retention of hedges, shrubs and trees seem to be
ineffective in keeping same around here.

Bungalow opposite me was demolished and replaced with a large pair of semis.
The plot had substantial hedges containing a number of moderate size trees
on two sides, along the road frontage and down the side adjacent to a
bridleway. There was a planning requirement to retain existing trees,
shrubs and hedges within the site. The front hedge was completely removed,
the side hedge was thinned substantially and some trees removed. The
purchaser of the semi alongside the bridleway immediately altered the house
and applied for planning permission to build a double garage in the front
garden with a wall right against what remained of the hedge. I objected,
pointing out that the hedge would have to be removed to prevent the roots
causing subsidence. Plans were passed, garage is now built and all the
remaining hedge and the few remaining trees removed (apart from a sickly old
oak). I looked at the planning report. It gave the impression that
planning permission was a foregone conclusion and they just looked for words
to placate the objectors. Wrote to my councillor and, eventually, received
a reply from the planning department that included the following paragraph:

"In approving the application the council took the view that the garage
would not undermine the health and wellbeing of any visually important
trees. Furthermore, a condition has been imposed seeking the retention of
trees, shrubs and hedges within the site. We are also hopeful that in the
next planting season, new planting will take place within the bridleway to
replace hedging that was previously lost. Concerns about how this planting
might undermine the stability of the garage in the future are speculative at
this stage."

As I said in my response to my councillor, "A requirement to retain trees,
shrubs and hedges seems to have become a hope that they might be replaced."

Why do they impose conditions that they have no intention of enforcing?

--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make people
believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

Old Codger writes
Not in a conservation area so perhaps it is different, but planning
conditions requiring the retention of hedges, shrubs and trees seem to be
ineffective in keeping same around here.

There are planning departments and planning departments.....

You know which sort I have.....

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

BTOPENWORLD address about to cease. DEMON address no longer in use.
Use
still functions.

"Old Codger" wrote in message
...

[snip]


"In approving the application the council took the view that the garage
would not undermine the health and wellbeing of any visually important
trees. Furthermore, a condition has been imposed seeking the retention
of
trees, shrubs and hedges within the site. We are also hopeful that in
the
next planting season, new planting will take place within the bridleway
to
replace hedging that was previously lost. Concerns about how this
planting
might undermine the stability of the garage in the future are speculative
at
this stage."

As I said in my response to my councillor, "A requirement to retain
trees,
shrubs and hedges seems to have become a hope that they might be
replaced."

Why do they impose conditions that they have no intention of enforcing?


I reckon the key to this is in the "visually important" phrase. Our house
is listed, largely because of its age rather than any particular
architectural significance, it's just a typical rectangular block of a
farmhouse with a thatched roof on top. Around it are ancient hedges, older
than the house no doubt, and a few very old oaks, the two pollards near the
house may well be as old as the house, if not older. If these trees were
in the village, or the edge of the nearest town they would have
preservation orders on them, and some might assume that this was beacuse of
their age or ecological importance, but that wouldn'd really be the case,
it would be because they would form part of the view. Where they are they
simply form part of the landscape, it's just "trees".

It's only when trees are close to settlements that they become important as
individuals. At least that's how it seems under the present planing
regime. Oh, unless that is you want to build something, and then they
might, sometimes, become an argument against - so of course many are
destroyed before applications are even made - just in case.

Michael Saunby