PENARTH HEIGHTS DEVELOPER SEEKS APPROVAL TO FELL 43 TREES IT’S ALREADY AXED

All the trees marked in red would be felled. The one's in light brown would be "thinned" and the green ones left alone.

All the trees marked in red have apparently already been felled  – but were  removed without formal council permission. Now the Penarth Heights developers Crest Nicholson are requesting a “retrospective” “non-material development” to regularise the position  . The trees in brown were to be “thinned” and the green trees were to be left untouched.

A retrospective “non-material amendment” has been submitted by the developers of Penarth Heights , Crest Nicholson to regularise apparently unauthorised removal of trees in the course of the construction of the large residential development which replaced the “Billybanks” council estate [which originally stood on the Penarth Escarpment].

PDN has been told that Crest Nicholson went ahead with the build without first discharging some of the planning conditions which were to have been implemented before work started. The firm is said not to have had all the conditions formally agreed with the Vale Council in advance.

Penarth Heights under development. Formal permission is now being sought to remove some trees taken out during construction. Permissions Trees removed during development

Penarth Heights as it looked when under development . Formal permission is now being sought to remove some trees which were actually taken down during construction. (Google Earth image). The bat boxes were to have been installed in the woods at the top left of the picture

The new submission is a move to “regularise” what has, in fact,  already occurred on the site. It doesn’t mean any more trees will be chopped down now;  it means that the firm is requesting retrospective permission for clearance work that it has already carried out – probably some years ago . From the Crest plan it appears that about 43 trees were earmarked for removal and taken down.

The new application enables the wording of the original planning conditions to be altered to take account of the current actual position. A PDN source says Crest Nicholson “should have submitted the details before they commenced work. They didn’t.”

Tree surgeons at work removing undergrowth from the escarpment overlooking Penarth Marina

Tree surgeons at work removing undergrowth from the escarpment overlooking Penarth Marina last year.

The cleared area marked on the plan (top of the item) appears to include part of the escarpment slope overlooking the marina inner basin – the clearance of which was subject to considerable public criticism.

The Vale Council will now carry out checks with its other departments to ensure that the current position –  as stated by Crest Nicholson – is correct.

A “non-material” application means that the matter is considered to be relatively minor and there  need be no public consultation or planning committee discussion about the matter.

A bat box

A bat box

Details of the trees recommended for felling were originally published in 2007 in a Crest Nicholson-commissioned consultants’ report.

Another obligation which Crest Nicholson had undertaken was the provision of 10 “bat-boxes” for the wooded area in the North West of the site.

However Crest Nicholson now say :  “The provision of bat boxes is as per the action agreed in our meeting earlier this year”.However, under the 2012 permission, this action is no longer necessary due to no conditions requiring ecological mitigation”

 

About NewsNet

Penarth Daily News email address dmj@newsnet.uk . Penarth Daily News is an independent free on-line fair and balanced news service published by NewsNet Ltd covering the town of Penarth in the Vale of Glamorgan, Wales, UK. All our news items are based on the information we receive or discover at the time of publication and are published on the basis that they are accurate to the best of our knowledge and belief at that time. Comments posted on the site by commentators reflect their opinions and are not necessarily shared, endorsed or supported by Penarth Daily News.
This entry was posted in Penarth Daily News. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to PENARTH HEIGHTS DEVELOPER SEEKS APPROVAL TO FELL 43 TREES IT’S ALREADY AXED

  1. Paul says:

    “PDN has been told that Crest Nicholson went ahead with the build without first discharging some of the planning conditions which were to have been implemented before work started.”
    Thats how developers work, if its in the way of their plan, it has to go. Regardless of whether they had planning permission in the first place!…

  2. AK says:

    The Billy Banks seems to have relocated next to the Cogan flyover.

  3. Frank Bird says:

    You couldn’t make this stuff up!

  4. Chris David says:

    So does this make Crest Nickolson criminals? Should they face charges? At the very least they should pay compensation. A lot of compo in order they, the VoG can plan lets say a 100 mature- yes mature trees not £10 saplings where they are needed. Penarth could benefit . Do I read from this they’ve escaped “ecological mitigation”? if so one may suggest they are an odious company with no community conscious at all? Some may think they should be barred from tendering in the future. Did Crest N pay any section 106 contributions? I heard probably not. Perhaps a councillor could comment.

  5. Anne Greagsby says:

    I’m making enquiries to find out if they got planning permission for those flag poles with gaudy flags on Plassey Square.

  6. Kevin Mahoney says:

    They did pay certain 106 contributions, thats how the crossings in Plassey street appeared and were paid for.

    As regards the trees and bat boxes I always feel that in many number of cases developers get away with blue murder in ignoring planning conditions I never understand how local authorities are so lax in holding them to account.

    Sully is still waiting for Wimpey homes to deliver the community centre and other facilities that they promised almost 40 years ago when they built the top estate in the village. The Vale recently gave planning permission for houses on the gap site originally allocated to these facilities just off Basset Rd.

    Taylor Wimpey of course are the developers who have gained planning permission for 350 houses at Cog and have just submitted yet another application for another 190 at the same location. I wouldn’t have given them the permission to commence building houses until they build a new decent sized community centre ( apart from all the other reasons) and any other infrastructure projects promised.

    Personally I would make developers build the community infrastructure that they highlight in their applications first before any houses are built and honour any other planning clauses or conditions under pain of massive fines if they don’t comply with the terms of the planning consent, unfortunately it seems to be the only way to guarantee that these companies deliver on their committments.

  7. Chris David says:

    Whilst I would exempt small builders developing brown infill from 106, these large developers are now ruling some authorities it seems and should be forced to compensate. One writer observes it used to be the Banks that ran London, now its not Barclays Bank its Berkley homes. Perhaps all monies owed for 106 should be paid in advance and proper enforceable paperwork signed re other matters. I really do think based on much we read here and the odd conversations I’ve had with you, we could do much better with a council of independents as long as they could demonstrate openness, honesty and political impartiality. I also agree with your comments re Wimpey and would extend the ban to Crest until they make tree reparations. Thank you again for this insight.

  8. Chris David says:

    You carping on again. Just trying to bait eh! Something fishy here- ah yes- who are you. But on the grand scale of things I’m sure you’re barbell-ing around and coming slowly to good impartial thinking.

  9. snoggerdog says:

    you wait til batman,hears about “ecological mitigation” .

Comments are closed.