Bristol City Council served notice on the landowner to remove the portacabin from Grove Woods on 24th September. Snuff Mills Action Group have been fighting for this to happen for a long time and we would like to congratulate the Council on taking this action. The legal notice is reproduced below (click the image to read it).
The container should have gone by the 22nd October at the latest but is still there. We understand that Bristol City Council are now taking action because of the landowner's refusal to comply with the notice to remove it. However, a large section of the Heras fencing has been removed from the stretch along the footpath and the section by the steps. This is a definite improvement.
Unfortunately some damage has been done to saplings by indiscriminate strimming of the river bank.
13 comments:
The notice requires the cabin to removed within 28 days of serving. This means it should be taken away by Wednesday 21st October. There is no sign of it going so far...
It was still there this afternoon (20th October), but could this be its last 24 hours in Grove Wood? I hope so.
Still there this morning...a bit of brinkmanship perhaps?
Strimming activity around entrance at 8am this morning.
The portacabin's still there this evening (Thurs 22nd). Strimming? What for? Is the grass in the way?
Yes it's still there. Presumably he's saying that he needs the cabin so that the workman can store his strimmer.
Well it proves one thing, John Mair has more front than Jordan and everything he said at the open meeting was just an attempt to soft soap the local community. And any one who was taken in by him must see that this (in)action over the container speaks louder than his words.
Actions speak louder than words (or lack of)
Are people really surprised? In a word 'NO'
Interesting photo of saplings that have been strimmed. I wonder if this is a contravention of the woodland Tree Preservation Order? If so, another fine could be coming the landowner's way!
Yes, indeed, saplings and all future trees have already been confirmed by the high court as being covered by a woodland TPO. This protects the natural process of saplings being allowed to replace existing mature trees, which will inevitably die at some time. Of course, any essential tree works can be applied for but I don't think that has happened at Grove Wood. I would urge people to gather evidence of the actually activity of any strimming, if they can.
http://www.tree-care.info/cms/index.php?action=view&id=30&module=newsmodule&src=%40random4633c798804da§ion=24
"As for the temporal reach of woodland orders, I see nothing illogical in tree preservation orders applying to future trees. The tree preservation order for the one tree, or for a group of trees, may be intended to apply to specific trees only, but a woodland order would seem designed to protect the undifferentiated mass of trees in the specified area. The order would not achieve its purpose if it applied only to the trees existing at the date it was made. Since those trees would die it would be necessary if the woodland were to be protected to make new orders, on an uncertain but periodic basis, to continue to protect the trees in the area. That cannot be a sensible construction of the legislation"
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/220.html
"What is a tree? In particular does it include a young tree, a sapling? On one occasion Lord Denning MR said emphatically that many saplings were not trees and that in woodland a tree was something over seven or eight inches, 180 to 200mm, in diameter. As in the present case the issue arises because section 198 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 enables the making of tree preservation orders (TPOs) to preserve trees, groups of trees and woodlands. There is no statutory definition of a tree. I conclude that with tree preservation orders there are no limitations in terms of size for what is to be treated as a tree. In other words, saplings are trees. Moreover, a tree preservation order for a woodland extends to all trees in the woodland, even if not in existence at the time the order is made"
When is a tree not a tree?
When it is owned by someone who doesn't care about nature and the environment and just sees them as something that gets in the way of their plans to make money.
The container is still there more than 2 weeks after the deadline to remove it.
The container is still there more than 8 weeks after the deadline to remove it. I hope the council will remove it and send the bill to Jafari (or whichever company of his the land is currently registered to). This is beyond the ridiculous!
p.s. Sorry, previous comment should have said more than 8 weeks since the notice was served, not the deadline.
Post a Comment