"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