westernind | Evil Property Developer loses the latest round

Due to extreme busyness I don't think I had a rant on here about the Evil Property Developer's latest move. He put in an application to build two three-bedroom houses on the land. The plans showed the trees marked far too small - about the size of saplings - and no way could you get those two houses on the site without bisecting the oak and throwing away half of it.

Thus followed the usual round of letter-writing and mobilisation of local residents, putting together protest packs, contacting local councillors and the like.

Now Redbridge Council have responded: DECISION:- Refused Permission/Consent

The reasons, in the letter to

forbinproject and me, are reproduced here in tedious detail for my own pleasure because I love reading it so much:

"1. The proposal notwithstanding the inaccurate representation of trees on the submitted plans and the lack of construction details, given the extent and form of likely excavations, level changes and foundations would be seriously detrimental to the health, safety and life expectancy of the preserved trees (Tree Preservation Order No. 21/02 - G1). This, together with the extent of the reduction surgery proposed (no details given), especially to the oak, would be seriously detrimental to visual amenity of the locality and give rise to a marked reduction in natural screening and therefore privacy levels to adjoining gardens and would be contrary to Policies LP.EN.6, LP.EN.7 and SP.EN.8 of this Council's Adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policies ES 13 and ES 14 of this Council's Modified Unitary Development Plan.

2. The proposal by reason of the undersized nature of the parking spaces provided, would lead to an unsatisfactory development of the site, with inadequate car parking arrangements and so would be likely to give rise to additional indiscriminate kerbside car parking at and within the vicinity of the site, which in turn would be detrimental to the safety of both vehicles and pedestrians and would also be contrary to Policy Lp.TR.9 of this Council's Adopted Unitary Development Plan and Policy ES 8 of this Council's Modified Unitary Development Plan."

(I did warn you it was tedious.)

------------------
Translated from Officialese I reckon that's Sod off and stop breaking Rule 7. Dunno what an Adopted Unitary Development Plan is but it seems to be working in our favour.

The war's not won yet. He'll now appeal - he has to - so then it'll be another trip to the Area Planning Committee, not as scary after last time when I spoke, and the time before when

forbinproject spoke, because now we know the drill. I think he'll lose that battle too, then there are two choices - either he'll appeal to the Government or he'll put in an application for a single house and we'll have to do the whole thing again. But I should have more time then. :-)