Compliance with landscaping conditions - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)
Open group
|
Started - July 2012
|
Last activity - This week
Compliance with landscaping conditions
It is being alleged that a number of trees were not planted by a developer as part of their approved landscaping scheme for a small housing development. This may or may not be the case but the approval includes a condition that any removed trees must be replaced within 5 years of landscaping approval. Having written to the developers they claim that liability for these trees has passed on to individual houseowners. Is this true, seems unfair to me as house purchasers may not be aware of this condition? Does anybody have any experience of this situation, or any thoughts about if and how I could get the developers to make good?
I would have thought that as the consent goes with the land ( ususually) the developer is right. Anyone buying a house as freeholder should be aware through their searches that such a condition or restriction applies ( like any other such as an Article 4 direction or enforcement notice) and can take a view as to whether they wish to take it on or not. It may well be on the title deeds anyway.
Andy I agree with Dave C's reply, however If the consent required a landscaping scheme to be submitted, and that was subsequently approved, I'm assuming that your condition required that the scheme be implemented in full in accordance with the approved details. It may be that this has not taken place and you could then possibly attack the developers through a BoC notice (or threat) as they were responsible for the works. The planting season is fast coming!
As a Manchester resident I'd just like to say how refreshing it is to see that there are still planning authorities who are bothered about this. To regularise the situation you could follow the example of my home authority and ask the developer to submit an 'as done' plan as a variation on the approved scheme, and pass it without informing the residents. Saves a lot of trouble, apparently. More relevantly, I'd say Richard is correct; it's down to how the condition was worded.