Reply to THIS thread
Start a NEW Talkback Thread
Talkback Home

Tree preservation orders - liz (4th Nov 2014 - 11:22:52) What is the point of them? There is (was) a mature tree in Limes Close in Bramshott that has been a feature of the close for over 50 years and I have the photographs to prove it. (It was not, as some have suggested, part of a hedge) A recent previous attempt to have it cut down was rejected due to local objections and the fact that it was a 'feature' of the Close (and still was as of this morning!) but apparently permission was given in September on a second attempt. This tree has never been a problem - its just that people are lazy and don't like leaves and bits in their garden or worry that the tree might fall. If we cut down every tree close to a building the area would be pretty dismal. Very upset and despair at whoever gave permission for this tree to be cut down. Rant over, but perhaps the planners will be a bit more careful in future.

Re: Tree preservation orders - bdavies (4th Nov 2014 - 11:52:32) Liz, you can check this with EHDC. Appeals often go unnoticed and this is how people get away with things that they shouldn't.

Re: Tree preservation orders - liz (4th Nov 2014 - 13:26:11) bdavies Thank you but permission was definitely granted, I checked. I think we should have been consulted regarding the appeal but perhaps its only next door neighbours. However its too late for that tree now sadly.

Re: Tree preservation orders - Peter R (4th Nov 2014 - 13:35:57) I copy below the comments regarding this application which is number 36086/003 for information. "T1 - Fell one Lawson Cypress tree T2 - Fell one Lawson Cypress tree Replant in same bed with one Field Maple Comment submitted Mon 15 Sep 2014 We are in full support of having these trees cut down. They are two trees that were originally part of a hedge .We live next door and they have blighted our lives for years.In high winds we worry about them falling on our house.Our gutters are allways overflowing as the bits off the trees block them.Nothing grows underneath them as they take all the water from the soil.They threaten our telephone line when they blow about. They are not an an asset to the road. Yes please, take them down and replace with 2 Cherry Trees which would be an asset to our road. Comment submitted Mon 06 Oct 2014 Further to my previous comment, I have heard that the parish council object to the felling of these trees. They are a non native species which are causing problems for the NATIVE YEW tree in my garden. I repeat they are trees that were planted as a hedge. The Parish Council I am told consider them to be a landmark (to whom may I ask?) only to the people in the road who actually know where they live.All the residents I have spoken to would prefer the trees down and Cherry trees as a replacement Comment submitted Wed 10 Sep 2014 we are in favour of the application to remove the unsightly non-natve trees that presently ?are not only unsightly but are a potential danger should high winds come from the right (wrong)direction." Hope this helps.

Re: Tree preservation orders - Patricia Bell (4th Nov 2014 - 14:00:42) There was a covenant put on this tree when planning permission was given for the building of the two properties on the Land was given. My Husband built the house and the tree caused no end of problems the needles would block the drains in front of garages and flood them. I layed awake many nights in high winds hoping it would not fall it only had shallow rooting. I know the neighbours will be relieved it is going.

Re: Tree preservation orders - liz (4th Nov 2014 - 14:05:04) Peter R I did see these comments. You will see the various comments about leaf fall etc. and the tree (it is two trees close together) being part of a hedge (it wasn't) which I referred to! Basically the tree was regarded as a nuisance by a couple of people and all the usual excuses were brought into play. Also the tree has been rejected as being non-native - which is a nonsense as a reason for removal. It could rule out a number of trees including the flowering cherries (put forward as an alternative) I suspect, not to mention the specimen trees in many gardens! Basically I cannot see one substantial why this tree should have been cut down. I don't think many people in the Close were consulted on the second application - just in case they agreed that the tree was a landmark!

Re: Tree preservation orders - liz (4th Nov 2014 - 14:19:15) Patricia Needles and leaves clogging drains (and gutters) is a fact of life in the countryside - and in many areas in towns as well. It just requires a bit of maintenance. The covenant was no doubt put on the trees for a reason - they were considered by many, even several years ago, to have some merit and be a feature of the Close.

Re: Tree preservation orders - Patricia (4th Nov 2014 - 19:29:53) Needles were cleared every week as soon as wind and rain came needles fell and washed into drain so maintenance was carried out all the time. Of course we could have stood in rain clearing needles all the time.

Re: Tree preservation orders - liz (5th Nov 2014 - 10:02:23) People generally seem to cope with leaf and needle fall. Perhaps it was more a problem with the drainage set up.

Re: Tree preservation orders - helen (5th Nov 2014 - 11:31:20) usually when a new house is built the significant trees are protected, and usually because, if trees are taken when a new house is built, andit makes a bigger plot, a second house could be squeezed in! think in the case of tree applications, that only the imediate neighbours are consulted, regardless of whether they made a first objection. There is no charge I believe to apply to take down a listed tree. EHDC produced a booklet some years ago, "have you bought a tree with a house in the garden?"

Re: Tree preservation orders - liz (5th Nov 2014 - 13:10:54) So people can continue to apply to have a tree removed but the local authority cannot afford to keep defending it! In this case it was not to prevent housebuilding as the tree(s) were close to the boundary. The tree was quite a feature hence the covenant, TPO and initial rejection. All this counts for nothing! Very sad and makes a bit of a nonsense of the whole process.

Re: Tree preservation orders - Patricia (5th Nov 2014 - 23:21:42) Helen is correct this is exactly what happened and if you care to ask people who were neighbours at the time they will uphold it.

Re: Tree preservation orders - liz (6th Nov 2014 - 08:19:52) Neighbours were not generally aware of the Covenent at the time unless interested in the property. Specimen trees were removed when the original bungerlow was demolished including an impressive 'Monkey Puzzle'. Still not sure how the removal of these latest trees would allow another property to be built but perhaps that is what is going on!

Re: Tree preservation orders - D (6th Nov 2014 - 15:19:44) To all of you who have made comments about having these trees Felled I assume you do not actually live in Limes Close. You do not live with or next to them.If you have large trees blocking light, filling gutters, which someone has to get a ladder out to unblock, taking all the water from borders and lawns, and causing a lot of work, then you would understand. A elderly lady who used to live in the road remembered that they were remnants of a hedge planted when there were wooden houses in the road. The TPO's we were told were put on by residents who did not want any building on the land as they used it to dump their rubbish and exercise their dogs (I dont know if this is true.) The tree is to be replaced by a Field Maple.If you care to come and look you would see that even with the trees down there is and would not have been any room to build other houses. I am sorry you are all so unhappy about it but most of the residents of Limes Close are not.

Re: Tree preservation orders - James (6th Nov 2014 - 16:44:41) So can anyone apply for a TPO? Or does the person applying have to own the land and the tree at the time?

Re: Tree preservation orders - liz (6th Nov 2014 - 16:45:37) D - you have made a lot of assumptions. I can't speak for everyone else but I do live in Limes Close - only a few yards from the ex-trees - where there is now a big gap. I have similar trees in my garden (as well as others) and, yes, we have to clean the gutters and drains regularly! I also grew up in Limes Close and remember those trees from my childhood - hence I was so pleased when I heard initially that they were to be kept. The story about rubbish dumping is not true (I've a fair idea where it came from but that's another story!). There was previously a substantial 1920/30's detached, rendered bungalow on the site, one of three in the Close at the time. There was a hedge but it was laurel. My comment on potential further building was tongue in cheek as I had said in a previous post that this was unlikely to be the reason for the covenant despite others' insistence. The main reason for the post was to express despair that a TPO could be so easily overturned, as it is too late for these trees. I can remember the huge oak tree in Limes Close being cut down to widen the road and provide footpaths despite all the residents objections. I thought times had changed!

Re: Tree preservation orders - Ian (6th Nov 2014 - 17:54:23) I'm sure the owners of the Edwardian house on the Headley Road that lost the corner of its roof earlier this year from a falling branch from the oak next door must really appreciate the TPO that was placed on it. Yes it is important that native species are protected where possible but public safety is way more important as is the structural integrity of homes. Too may people whose lives are not blighted by trees with TPOs get too sanctimonious and judgemental over the issue and often do not know the real issues facing those individuals who chose to try a get these orders lifted.

Re: Tree preservation orders - Tracy (6th Nov 2014 - 21:22:04) The TPO was overturned as the trees were considered unsafe please see arboricultural report logged on EHDC website. It is the duty of the property owner to ensure any trees remain in a safe state.

Re: Tree preservation orders - JMc (6th Nov 2014 - 22:05:29) Hi I grew up opposite the tree and have total empathy with Liz about the tree. When you turned the bend at the top of the Close there was the tree..... It gave a sense of home . Those of us who grew up in the Close during the sixties will have childhood memories of playing in the 'Conifer' hedge, ( which was down the road a little from the said tree) hiding away in the dark waiting for Bill and Doris Albion to finish their care taking job at Bramshott Boys school so that we ( you know who you are ) could jump out and scare them. The seed pods were very useful to pelt those pesky Liphook kids with from our den in the Hollow as they walked past, and when it snowed the " tree" looked like a Christmas card drawing. I do appreciate the tree debris is or was a nuisance, however what a shame to take down such a lovely tree that over the years had been party to a lot of happy, carefree, sad, tragic and innocent times. That tree unlike a great deal of others in Bramshott survived the Great Storm of 1987 so was it really in danger of falling ? Not to mention last years storms. I remember the old wooden bungalow very well and a lot of the various families who lived there, I don't remember any rubbish or anyone walking a dog there after the old chap who had lived there died. There were four large wooden bungalows, one was called the Limes, it was knocked down in the early sixties and three 'new' bungalows erected . Two more were demolished in the seventies and the dormer bungalows were built, then the last one was demolished and two more 'modern' houses built. The big Oak up by the boys school was as Liz stated cut down for road improvements probably when the Close was adopted and we got street lights and tarmac. It was also a very nice tree that I think a lot of the male population of old Liphook will have climbed on their way into the boys school. All of the above was change, like the sad demise of the 'tree', let's hope that the Field Maple will fill the hole that's been created, it is in keeping because if memory serves me correctly there are maples/sycamores at the top of the Close. Sadly we don't own a view we can only try to protect it.

Re: Tree preservation orders - liz (7th Nov 2014 - 09:42:57) I did see the arboricultural report says that the trees presented no imminent danger. However warned that the stems could break above the previous lopping points if they grew much further. Not sure why lopping (as previously) was not an option - as we had carried out on trees on a previous property in a similar situation. However the trees are gone now so hopefully those who considerd them a nusiance will be happy and I look forward to the field maple! (Although personally I did like one neighbour's suggestion of a flowering cherry - Tai Haku is spectacular and no bigger then a field maple.......). I realise I probably shouldn't have made such fuss but it was a huge shock to find the much enjoyed (by some - see JM's post) trees which I thought were protected cut down in a few hours.

Re: Tree preservation orders - Roz (10th Nov 2014 - 22:13:16) So yet another tree has been lopped !! A maple .... Why oh why oh why ..that's all I can say , if people do not like trees then please go and live on Salisbury Plain where there is none , we are in Hampshire , we have lots of trees so get used to it and enjoy them !! Rant over

Re: Tree preservation orders - Julie (16th Nov 2014 - 11:21:30) I totally agree with you Roz. Tree Preservation Orders are there for a reason. Thank goodness they are. I’d hate to think of what would happen if they didn’t exist. I find some people’s intolerance of trees quite depressing. A sort of tree hysteria. Too many people it seems regard trees as a threat or a ‘nuisance’ because they’re ‘in the way’, they drop leaves/needles or, heaven forbid, blow about a bit in the wind. Better cut them all down then. We live in Hampshire for goodness sake. There are trees! You should be proud to be the custodian of a protected tree. I am. Invariably these trees are already in the garden when you buy a house so work with them and not against. If a protected tree is structurally sound and free from disease, then of course it should not be felled. That’s the point. Of course, as Roz suggests, if you really don’t like trees then buy a house on a vast expanse of scrubland and you’ll never have to worry again.

Reply to THIS thread
Talkback Home