Articles written concerning Planning issues for The Twickenham Tribune on-line newspaper can be accessed on their website or seen on our News Diary and the first article is posted here:  twickenham tribune article

 List of species recorded near the recent three planning applications can be seen by clicking this link:updated species 2020

 ******************************************************************************************************************************************************************

 History of Planning applications of the Privately owned MOLs in West Ward Twickenham:

Belmont Road MOL refused Planning 15/5407/ful  

Campbell Close MOL refused Planning 16/2815/out

Churchview Garages Refused Appeal 17/2759/FUL

Churchview Garages Alteration Refused 19/1647/FUL

 TPO request churchview - This was a request for the Hedgerow behind Churchview Garages which many wanted protected from Developers.    nb.  It does not relate to the Blanket TPO 1046 which the Tree Officer intiated in Sept 2019. We did support the retention of the TPO to protect trees on this MOL in private hands and that was unanimously passed by the Committee contrary to the Officer's recommendation for its removal.

 *************************************************************************************************************************************************************

 The below FORCE objection submission to the Council highlights one of the  contraventions on the MOL/SMINC in Private Ownership which River Crane Sanctuary asked them to comment on and they were concerned enough to raise an objection.   Unfortunately, FORCE then wrote to us saying: 

 "Our understanding is that this is privately owned MOL, and that planning and enforcement issues concerning its condition are a matter between LBRuT Planning officers and the private owner.  I'm sorry that I don't think FORCE can be of any further assistance on this matter"

Given that there are no inspections of MOL in private ownership and there have been enforcement issues only bought about by independent parties alerting LBRuTPlanning Officers; we think that FORCE needs to reconsider its position given its remit to protect the River Crane Corridor and we will not desist from pointing out any issues of concern for nature along this route.  

 

August 2019

Campbell Close Twickenham

Building on Metropolitan Open Land

FORCE believe that the sheds and platform are built on MOL without planning permission so raised a submission to the enforcement department.

  19/0186/EN/UBW

 

We understand that the platform has been removed but not the sheds as their removal is unenforceable due to the passage of time.  This highlights the need for at least an annual inspection of MOL in private ownership to ensure illegal structures are not hidden from view without planning permission and oversight being sought.

FORCE also supported our Objection, along with local residents and other environmental groups/supporters, in 2016 when a build was proposed on the same  MOL/SMINC .

Sep 2016 Land Rear Of Campbell Close Twickenham

A new build, three bedroom home, predominantly single storey. The proposed site covering is generally grass with mature trees and planting.

This proposal would develop additional footprint for private benefit within MOL and the River Crane corridor. It would impact the integrity and wildlife/community value and be contrary to local and regional planning policy.   16/2815/OUT

 

There was another contravention on MOL in Private Hands in Belmont Road which we have been informed is under investigation.

*************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

River Crane Sanctuary and Friends of the Earth Local Group also supported the TPO 1046 which Councillors decided was necessary for this land on 11th March 2020 Planning Committee.

Unfortunately, The Webcast has been removed from the Council site and it showed Cllr Allen and Mr Macqueen support the TPO and gained an unanimous decision from the eight Councilors to keep the TPO in place againgst the TPO Officer's request to remove it. We are challenging the Council on the issue of Supporters' submissions not being shown in the file for balance and we post our three minute presentation here:

 Click here to read: IainMacqueenpresentation      Removed Webcast-   https://richmond.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/477974

If you would like to see the full suport submissions for the TPO 1046 11th March 2020 Planning Committee, without redactions, from supporters who have given us permission to use their data, please contact us direct.

Click here for:river crane sanctuary patron tpo support submission

Readers may like to see a Freedom of Information request links below which relate to this TPO and which sought to get supporters' submissions recorded in full to counterbalance the Objections on the agenda pack.  We submit that this TPO was not presented correctly as a legitimate argument for environmental concerns but as a neighbourhood dispute unlike the Udney Park planning issue where there were neighbours for and against the plans but this application was not presented as a neighbourhood dispute. One could argue that this MOL on a river corridor with Nature conservation status as well as Metropolitan Open Land designation is rather more important than a neighbourhood tiff.

  nb.There were data protection issues raised with the Council on this TPO which had Freedom of Information requests;  See end of this page for our full response to FOI 1658824 which is now completed.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/supporters_representation_for_tp?nocache=incoming-1599656#incoming-1599656

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/metropolitan_open_space_and_site?nocache=incoming-1658824#incoming-1658824

 

******************************************************************************************************************************************************************

 FORCE submitted an Objection to the Churchview Garages site which River Crane Sanctuary fought with local residents and other environmental groups and we commisioned the Ecology Report which you can Read here the Ecology Comments on Churchview site by Dr Sarah Cox which helped us again defeat this inappropriate developement alongside the same MOL/SMINC mentioned above.

June 2019

garages adjacent 75 Churchview Road Twickenham 

Demolition of the existing garage block and the erection of a mews development, consisting of 2 x 2 bedroom dwellings, together with associated car parking and landscaping improvements.

FORCE objects to this proposal as it constitutes over-development of a sensitive site adjacent to MOL, and does not offer community and environmental value to the Crane valley. We would welcome the opportunity for discussion of all matters raised with the developers and relevant council staff

  19/1647/FUL

 

River Crane Sanctuary objection:  rcschurchview2019 objectiono Churchview Road Garages Application 2019

************************************************************************************************************************************************************************ 

Freedom of Information Request TPO 1046 - Read below our response to the Council on this matter:

Dear FOI LBR,

Your response to this FOI request after so much time is inaccurate, misleading and frankly poor service which I realise is in part due to having to wait for the Tree Officer/Planning who issued TPO 1046 ( with my address inappropriately) to provide you with information. This Officer issued a blanket TPO which stretched across from Trafalgar School border Ash Tree Row to the North to behind number -- Campbell Close.
It only borders my house for 40 metres and yet he says he looked up your GIS system to issue his blanket TPO and there was no link to my address.

No other officer in Planning, Local Groups, individuals have needed to use a GIS system to label this area and I maintain that the use of my address linked me to his TPO order and caused considerable distress in the neighbourhood and considerable harm to me personally from libellous and slanderous material which your council has now acknowledged by removing or redacting from your website and files. Still without any apology from your Tree Officer.

You have inaccurately commented below on the examples I gave to highlight other cases on this one acre MOL which all of your previous Case Officers in Planning have identified as Land rear of or Land adjacent to Campbell Close.
If you check your own records you will see that each one is in the same location/area space as TPO 1046 which is a blanket order for all trees from Trafalgar school border in the North to Oaks outside number--- Campbell Close which is nearly to the end of the one acre plot to the South and which finishes at the Stables bordering Belmont road.

In fact TPO 15/T0881/TPO is the row of Ash Trees we were concerned about to the North of the plot and which you say is not in the same location and is south! This TPO was labelled by a Tree Officer as Land rear of Campbell Close and did not need a GIS reference to locate it. It is the exact location of TPO 1046.

You make the following inaccurate statements below which I clarify and which are on your records to check:
You stated: 15/T0881/TPO is to the south when it is to the North and directly relates to TPO 1046 and 17/T0197/TPO is the Lime Tree which is south of my house but only 10 metres away on your GIS map but identified as Land rear of Campbell Close again by a tree officer and not linked to us or the house it is next door too in the Close.
The enforcement case 19/0186/EN/UBW described as Land adjacent to Campbell Close by yet another officer who did not need to use your GIS system is also within the TPO 1046 map grid and letter sent out to all neighbours for comment even if further 'south' as you say which is misleading.
FORCE also described this land as Rear of Campbell Close in their objections to building and encroachments on this MOL.
Further, The Planning Officer for 16/2815/OUT described the land as Rear of Campbell Close and this Planning Application actually lies adjacent within 11 metres of our house.

To add insult to injury, you state at the end of your comment below that none of these 'involved reference to the GIS system', which is my point precisely. Why did your Tree Officer say he used this GIS system as it was common practise when it is obviously not so?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOI Council's Comments:
"You provided some examples of other TPO Planning Applications and
Enforcement Cases which appear to be named differently (15/T0881/TPO,
17/T0197/TPO and 19/0186/EN/UBW) but the examples you have highlighted are
not in the same location. The two TPO Planning Applications referred to
as 15/T0881/TPO and 17/T0197/TPO both cover an area further south of
TPO1046 so are not adjacent to (number) Campbell Close. Enforcement Case
19/0186/EN/UBW is again located somewhere else. For reference, the naming
of these TPO matters did not involve reference to the GIS system."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for the below confirming that you have made an amendment to your GIS system.

"The TPO TPO1046 was named after a former land title that was in the
Council’s GIS system. As part of the complaint handling process the
Council’s Trees team requested that this name was changed by the GIS team
to the title that is currently shown. This amendment was made on the 28
July 2020."

I will have to take comfort that this public site will show up the disgraceful behaviour and service to a resident who your own FOI/Data managers have thanked for patience and tolerance in this matter and I hope lessons have been learnt so that someone else less resilient will not be harmed by unprofessional and sloppy performance by a Council Officer and collusion by others to cover up and hide information requested.