On 17/03/2012 02:37, Christina Websell wrote:
"stuart wrote in message
...
Anyone fancy putting a name to this line of trees?

http://i43.tinypic.com/majyas.jpg

We're hoping they may be worthy of a tree preservation order to prevent
the house behind them being demolished, so we'd like to emphasise any
merits. How old might they be? Looking a bit sorry for them selves right
now, but sprouting nicely from the trunk, and . Any help appreciated.

As others have said, no chance. why do you think preserving trees will
prevent a house from being demolished?

I think that because.... preserving trees reduces what the developers
can put in its place, hopefully to the point where it isn't worthwhile
proceeding.

Let me guess, it's near you, in a good bit of ground and the developers are
after it?


Of course, what else is planning all about? It also happens to be
council owned park land (Park Keeper's Lodge), so by no means ethically
straightforward.
Do I detect a slightly patronising tone? Why would that be?

"stuart noble" wrote in message
...
On 17/03/2012 02:37, Christina Websell wrote:
"stuart wrote in message
...
Anyone fancy putting a name to this line of trees?

http://i43.tinypic.com/majyas.jpg

We're hoping they may be worthy of a tree preservation order to prevent
the house behind them being demolished, so we'd like to emphasise any
merits. How old might they be? Looking a bit sorry for them selves right
now, but sprouting nicely from the trunk, and . Any help appreciated.

As others have said, no chance. why do you think preserving trees will
prevent a house from being demolished?

I think that because.... preserving trees reduces what the developers can
put in its place, hopefully to the point where it isn't worthwhile
proceeding.

Let me guess, it's near you, in a good bit of ground and the developers
are
after it?


Of course, what else is planning all about? It also happens to be council
owned park land (Park Keeper's Lodge), so by no means ethically
straightforward.
Do I detect a slightly patronising tone? Why would that be?

Are you doing this on your own?
Do you have any past experience with this sort of opposition?
Are you acting with others?

I have a fair amount of experience of fighting of both having Planning
Permission applied AND opposed

A few tips. (Without knowing where or how much land is involved)

Worth looking into ..................

If it is Council Owned Park there may be a Covenant on the land 'For the
Benefit of the locals' sort of application.
The Park may have been given to the local community by a Landed Gentry years
ago with restrictions.
The House itself may have a Covenant on for the same reason
There is the possibility of slapping 'Listed Building' on it because of its
past use.

The local Council owned a piece of land near me and applied to themselves
for planning permission for a development of Bungalows. I opposed it because
of the lack of sewerage facilities and the capability of coping with more
houses. I put a sting in the tail of the letter, to the effect that should
they grant planning permission and build, 'and if as a result numbers XX,
YY, and ZZ get flooded they will have the right to sue the Council for
neglect" (Neighbours HAD been flooded because of the surface water problem
and XX, YY, and ZZ would be the next in line) The Chief Exec was not very
pleased with me, the near neighbours were :-)

The latest I have been involved with, along with A LOT of people, is again
with the possibility of a development, is saving our local Theatre
www.shanklintheatre.com . That involved having a Grade II Listed Building
slapped on it at the last minute. Don't know who did it, but it worked.

There are some ideas for you, BUT, they are ideas which might not apply or
have a wax cats chance in hell, but if you and a group of people are
determined, crack on.

One SURE way of stopping it, is buy it. Not as daft as it may seem. I had a
piece of land and got planning permission for two pairs of houses, but I had
to buy a house with a wide side garden to drive a road in. The house was on
the open market when I bought it. People opposed the planning application.
It was flung out, "You could have stopped it by buying the house and land"

Mike


--

....................................

I'm an Angel, honest ! The horns are there just to keep the halo straight.

....................................

In article ,
says...


I think that because.... preserving trees reduces what the developers
can put in its place, hopefully to the point where it isn't worthwhile
proceeding.

Your own sequence of photos clearly shows the trunks are dying and or
dead, so even if they already had a TPO, their condition would provide the
owner with an exemption from the felling ban.


Janet.

Are you doing this on your own?
Do you have any past experience with this sort of opposition?
Are you acting with others?

I'm just a bit player in this although I am probably the most affected.
The Friends of the park in question is a well established group, and
includes a surveyor experienced in this kind of thing.
The initial plan has been slung out, but it was hinted that a reduced
density version might get through. I could live with that, but The
Friends are going for the jugular and trying to dream up some kind of
park related use for the building.

I have a fair amount of experience of fighting of both having Planning
Permission applied AND opposed

A few tips. (Without knowing where or how much land is involved)

Worth looking into ..................

If it is Council Owned Park there may be a Covenant on the land 'For the
Benefit of the locals' sort of application.
The Park may have been given to the local community by a Landed Gentry
years ago with restrictions.
The House itself may have a Covenant on for the same reason
There is the possibility of slapping 'Listed Building' on it because of
its past use.

According to the local paper the land was transferred to the council
from The Charity Commissioners in 1904 and there were plans for a
keeper's lodge. However, this does not appear in Kelly's Directory until
1916, so one assumes it was built some 10 years later. I guess I could
verify this with The Land Registry.

The local Council owned a piece of land near me and applied to
themselves for planning permission for a development of Bungalows. I
opposed it because of the lack of sewerage facilities and the capability
of coping with more houses. I put a sting in the tail of the letter, to
the effect that should they grant planning permission and build, 'and if
as a result numbers XX, YY, and ZZ get flooded they will have the right
to sue the Council for neglect" (Neighbours HAD been flooded because of
the surface water problem and XX, YY, and ZZ would be the next in line)
The Chief Exec was not very pleased with me, the near neighbours were :-)

The latest I have been involved with, along with A LOT of people, is
again with the possibility of a development, is saving our local Theatre
www.shanklintheatre.com . That involved having a Grade II Listed
Building slapped on it at the last minute. Don't know who did it, but it
worked.

Yes, strange that. We have a civic society and I believe their advice
was to try and get it put on the council's "buildings of architectural
or historic interest" list. Not a cat in hell's chance of getting it
listed apparently. I don't see it's of any interest to anyone, but I'll
keep that to myself.

There are some ideas for you, BUT, they are ideas which might not apply
or have a wax cats chance in hell, but if you and a group of people are
determined, crack on.

One SURE way of stopping it, is buy it. Not as daft as it may seem. I
had a piece of land and got planning permission for two pairs of houses,
but I had to buy a house with a wide side garden to drive a road in. The
house was on the open market when I bought it. People opposed the
planning application. It was flung out, "You could have stopped it by
buying the house and land"

Mike


Thanks for the tips. My impression is that the planners are universally
opposed to the scheme but that their decisions must be robust enough not
to be overturned on appeal. Same everywhere I imagine.

"stuart noble" wrote in message
...

Are you doing this on your own?
Do you have any past experience with this sort of opposition?
Are you acting with others?

I'm just a bit player in this although I am probably the most affected.
The Friends of the park in question is a well established group, and
includes a surveyor experienced in this kind of thing.
The initial plan has been slung out, but it was hinted that a reduced
density version might get through. I could live with that, but The Friends
are going for the jugular and trying to dream up some kind of park related
use for the building.

I have a fair amount of experience of fighting of both having Planning
Permission applied AND opposed

A few tips. (Without knowing where or how much land is involved)

Worth looking into ..................

If it is Council Owned Park there may be a Covenant on the land 'For the
Benefit of the locals' sort of application.
The Park may have been given to the local community by a Landed Gentry
years ago with restrictions.
The House itself may have a Covenant on for the same reason
There is the possibility of slapping 'Listed Building' on it because of
its past use.

According to the local paper the land was transferred to the council from
The Charity Commissioners in 1904 and there were plans for a keeper's
lodge. However, this does not appear in Kelly's Directory until 1916, so
one assumes it was built some 10 years later. I guess I could verify this
with The Land Registry.

The local Council owned a piece of land near me and applied to
themselves for planning permission for a development of Bungalows. I
opposed it because of the lack of sewerage facilities and the capability
of coping with more houses. I put a sting in the tail of the letter, to
the effect that should they grant planning permission and build, 'and if
as a result numbers XX, YY, and ZZ get flooded they will have the right
to sue the Council for neglect" (Neighbours HAD been flooded because of
the surface water problem and XX, YY, and ZZ would be the next in line)
The Chief Exec was not very pleased with me, the near neighbours were :-)

The latest I have been involved with, along with A LOT of people, is
again with the possibility of a development, is saving our local Theatre
www.shanklintheatre.com . That involved having a Grade II Listed
Building slapped on it at the last minute. Don't know who did it, but it
worked.

Yes, strange that. We have a civic society and I believe their advice was
to try and get it put on the council's "buildings of architectural or
historic interest" list. Not a cat in hell's chance of getting it listed
apparently. I don't see it's of any interest to anyone, but I'll keep that
to myself.

There are some ideas for you, BUT, they are ideas which might not apply
or have a wax cats chance in hell, but if you and a group of people are
determined, crack on.

One SURE way of stopping it, is buy it. Not as daft as it may seem. I
had a piece of land and got planning permission for two pairs of houses,
but I had to buy a house with a wide side garden to drive a road in. The
house was on the open market when I bought it. People opposed the
planning application. It was flung out, "You could have stopped it by
buying the house and land"

Mike


Thanks for the tips. My impression is that the planners are universally
opposed to the scheme but that their decisions must be robust enough not
to be overturned on appeal. Same everywhere I imagine.

""" According to the local paper the land was transferred to the council
from The Charity Commissioners in 1904 and there were plans for a keeper's
lodge. However, this does not appear in Kelly's Directory until 1916, """

I would put money on the fact that a covenant would have been slapped on it
by the Charity Commissioners. I was involved many years ago with a Theatre
which had been converted from a Methodist Chapel. The Methodists had slapped
a proviso .... 'No Alcohol', so for a long time, no bar. Eventually the
restriction was lifted and they built one. Been very successful ever since.
I am just a member of that Theatre and don't have much to do with it.

BTW. A covenant can be applied to a piece of land without any clauses and,
this is the nasty bit in your case, not registered. If your house/park has a
covenant 'for the benefits of the locals' and HAS been registered, ALL
locals would have to sign their permission to have it removed.

Mike

--

....................................

I'm an Angel, honest ! The horns are there just to keep the halo straight.

....................................

On 17/03/2012 10:31, 'Mike' wrote:

"stuart noble" wrote in message
...

Are you doing this on your own?
Do you have any past experience with this sort of opposition?
Are you acting with others?

I'm just a bit player in this although I am probably the most
affected. The Friends of the park in question is a well established
group, and includes a surveyor experienced in this kind of thing.
The initial plan has been slung out, but it was hinted that a reduced
density version might get through. I could live with that, but The
Friends are going for the jugular and trying to dream up some kind of
park related use for the building.

I have a fair amount of experience of fighting of both having Planning
Permission applied AND opposed

A few tips. (Without knowing where or how much land is involved)

Worth looking into ..................

If it is Council Owned Park there may be a Covenant on the land 'For the
Benefit of the locals' sort of application.
The Park may have been given to the local community by a Landed Gentry
years ago with restrictions.
The House itself may have a Covenant on for the same reason
There is the possibility of slapping 'Listed Building' on it because of
its past use.

According to the local paper the land was transferred to the council
from The Charity Commissioners in 1904 and there were plans for a
keeper's lodge. However, this does not appear in Kelly's Directory
until 1916, so one assumes it was built some 10 years later. I guess I
could verify this with The Land Registry.

The local Council owned a piece of land near me and applied to
themselves for planning permission for a development of Bungalows. I
opposed it because of the lack of sewerage facilities and the capability
of coping with more houses. I put a sting in the tail of the letter, to
the effect that should they grant planning permission and build, 'and if
as a result numbers XX, YY, and ZZ get flooded they will have the right
to sue the Council for neglect" (Neighbours HAD been flooded because of
the surface water problem and XX, YY, and ZZ would be the next in line)
The Chief Exec was not very pleased with me, the near neighbours were
:-)

The latest I have been involved with, along with A LOT of people, is
again with the possibility of a development, is saving our local Theatre
www.shanklintheatre.com . That involved having a Grade II Listed
Building slapped on it at the last minute. Don't know who did it, but it
worked.

Yes, strange that. We have a civic society and I believe their advice
was to try and get it put on the council's "buildings of architectural
or historic interest" list. Not a cat in hell's chance of getting it
listed apparently. I don't see it's of any interest to anyone, but
I'll keep that to myself.

There are some ideas for you, BUT, they are ideas which might not apply
or have a wax cats chance in hell, but if you and a group of people are
determined, crack on.

One SURE way of stopping it, is buy it. Not as daft as it may seem. I
had a piece of land and got planning permission for two pairs of houses,
but I had to buy a house with a wide side garden to drive a road in. The
house was on the open market when I bought it. People opposed the
planning application. It was flung out, "You could have stopped it by
buying the house and land"

Mike


Thanks for the tips. My impression is that the planners are
universally opposed to the scheme but that their decisions must be
robust enough not to be overturned on appeal. Same everywhere I imagine.

""" According to the local paper the land was transferred to the council
from The Charity Commissioners in 1904 and there were plans for a
keeper's lodge. However, this does not appear in Kelly's Directory
until 1916, """

I would put money on the fact that a covenant would have been slapped on
it by the Charity Commissioners. I was involved many years ago with a
Theatre which had been converted from a Methodist Chapel. The Methodists
had slapped a proviso .... 'No Alcohol', so for a long time, no bar.
Eventually the restriction was lifted and they built one. Been very
successful ever since. I am just a member of that Theatre and don't have
much to do with it.

BTW. A covenant can be applied to a piece of land without any clauses
and, this is the nasty bit in your case, not registered. If your
house/park has a covenant 'for the benefits of the locals' and HAS been
registered, ALL locals would have to sign their permission to have it
removed.

Mike

Thanks. Interesting stuff. Sounds like I should get the title register
from the Land Registry

On 17/03/2012 09:57, Janet wrote:
In ,
says...


I think that because.... preserving trees reduces what the developers
can put in its place, hopefully to the point where it isn't worthwhile
proceeding.

Your own sequence of photos clearly shows the trunks are dying and or
dead, so even if they already had a TPO, their condition would provide the
owner with an exemption from the felling ban.


Janet.

When it stops raining I'll go and hug them, and perhaps give them some
steroids :-)

"stuart noble" wrote in message
...
On 17/03/2012 10:31, 'Mike' wrote:

"stuart noble" wrote in message
...

Are you doing this on your own?
Do you have any past experience with this sort of opposition?
Are you acting with others?

I'm just a bit player in this although I am probably the most
affected. The Friends of the park in question is a well established
group, and includes a surveyor experienced in this kind of thing.
The initial plan has been slung out, but it was hinted that a reduced
density version might get through. I could live with that, but The
Friends are going for the jugular and trying to dream up some kind of
park related use for the building.

I have a fair amount of experience of fighting of both having Planning
Permission applied AND opposed

A few tips. (Without knowing where or how much land is involved)

Worth looking into ..................

If it is Council Owned Park there may be a Covenant on the land 'For
the
Benefit of the locals' sort of application.
The Park may have been given to the local community by a Landed Gentry
years ago with restrictions.
The House itself may have a Covenant on for the same reason
There is the possibility of slapping 'Listed Building' on it because of
its past use.

According to the local paper the land was transferred to the council
from The Charity Commissioners in 1904 and there were plans for a
keeper's lodge. However, this does not appear in Kelly's Directory
until 1916, so one assumes it was built some 10 years later. I guess I
could verify this with The Land Registry.

The local Council owned a piece of land near me and applied to
themselves for planning permission for a development of Bungalows. I
opposed it because of the lack of sewerage facilities and the
capability
of coping with more houses. I put a sting in the tail of the letter, to
the effect that should they grant planning permission and build, 'and
if
as a result numbers XX, YY, and ZZ get flooded they will have the right
to sue the Council for neglect" (Neighbours HAD been flooded because of
the surface water problem and XX, YY, and ZZ would be the next in line)
The Chief Exec was not very pleased with me, the near neighbours were
:-)

The latest I have been involved with, along with A LOT of people, is
again with the possibility of a development, is saving our local
Theatre
www.shanklintheatre.com . That involved having a Grade II Listed
Building slapped on it at the last minute. Don't know who did it, but
it
worked.

Yes, strange that. We have a civic society and I believe their advice
was to try and get it put on the council's "buildings of architectural
or historic interest" list. Not a cat in hell's chance of getting it
listed apparently. I don't see it's of any interest to anyone, but
I'll keep that to myself.

There are some ideas for you, BUT, they are ideas which might not apply
or have a wax cats chance in hell, but if you and a group of people are
determined, crack on.

One SURE way of stopping it, is buy it. Not as daft as it may seem. I
had a piece of land and got planning permission for two pairs of
houses,
but I had to buy a house with a wide side garden to drive a road in.
The
house was on the open market when I bought it. People opposed the
planning application. It was flung out, "You could have stopped it by
buying the house and land"

Mike


Thanks for the tips. My impression is that the planners are
universally opposed to the scheme but that their decisions must be
robust enough not to be overturned on appeal. Same everywhere I imagine.

""" According to the local paper the land was transferred to the council
from The Charity Commissioners in 1904 and there were plans for a
keeper's lodge. However, this does not appear in Kelly's Directory
until 1916, """

I would put money on the fact that a covenant would have been slapped on
it by the Charity Commissioners. I was involved many years ago with a
Theatre which had been converted from a Methodist Chapel. The Methodists
had slapped a proviso .... 'No Alcohol', so for a long time, no bar.
Eventually the restriction was lifted and they built one. Been very
successful ever since. I am just a member of that Theatre and don't have
much to do with it.

BTW. A covenant can be applied to a piece of land without any clauses
and, this is the nasty bit in your case, not registered. If your
house/park has a covenant 'for the benefits of the locals' and HAS been
registered, ALL locals would have to sign their permission to have it
removed.

Mike

Thanks. Interesting stuff. Sounds like I should get the title register
from the Land Registry

The whole thing is a can of worms and you/your group, really need a sting in
the tail of your objection, such as ......

Our road was always being dug up by the Gas Board to repair leaks. "Why
don't you put a new main in and be done with it?" I asked one of the men. He
explained that installation and maintenance were two different departments.
"The trouble is" he said "that it's an old cast main and wrapped in this wax
tape. A leak can occur anywhere, creep under the tape to come out yards down
the pipe. It can also get into the drains and come up elsewhere"

:-)))))))

Our bit of road is 140 metres long, terminating with a pedestrian underpass
under the electric train line. New drains had been installed to stop the
underpass flooding.

Letter to Gas Board explaining that we understood that gas leaking from the
old gas pipe could get into the new drains and that in the underpass, these
were 7 ft under the Electric Train Pick Up Shoe. "Is this not a disaster
waiting to happen?" Copied to the Train Company.

That letter would have arrived just before a weekend. Contractors arrived on
the following Wednesday to put a new Gas Main the length of the road


Mike

--

....................................

I'm an Angel, honest ! The horns are there just to keep the halo straight.

....................................

"stuart noble" wrote in message
...
On 17/03/2012 02:37, Christina Websell wrote:
"stuart wrote in message
...
Anyone fancy putting a name to this line of trees?

http://i43.tinypic.com/majyas.jpg

We're hoping they may be worthy of a tree preservation order to prevent
the house behind them being demolished, so we'd like to emphasise any
merits. How old might they be? Looking a bit sorry for them selves right
now, but sprouting nicely from the trunk, and . Any help appreciated.

As others have said, no chance. why do you think preserving trees will
prevent a house from being demolished?

I think that because.... preserving trees reduces what the developers can
put in its place, hopefully to the point where it isn't worthwhile
proceeding.

Let me guess, it's near you, in a good bit of ground and the developers
are
after it?


Of course, what else is planning all about? It also happens to be council
owned park land (Park Keeper's Lodge), so by no means ethically
straightforward.
Do I detect a slightly patronising tone? Why would that be?

No you do not detect any kind of patronising tone, sometimes what we say
does not come over well in in plain text.