1966 SIDMOUTH Cedar Shade Hotel Devon Photo Postcard | eBay
And this is what it looks like today - minus a few Cedars:
5 Cedar Shade, All Saints Road, Sidmouth, EX10 8EU - Mouseprice
Formerly Belle Vue, it was the home of Elisabeth Barrett Browning:
Sidmouth Town Website - Blue Plaque Cedar Shade
There is quite a history of developers finding trees rather irritating:
94/T0002 | One Cedar & 2 Beech To Be Lopped | Cedar Shade Hotel All Saints Road Sidmouth Devon
References have been made to wider District Council planning policy:
Submission to East Devon Local Plan
June 10, 2012
There are concerns that the District Council will not respect the integrity of TPOs. The case of ‘Cedar Shade’ from 2008 has thrown into doubt undertakings made by Officers.
Futures Forum: Knowle: Victorian hotel and grounds ... application to English Heritage for national listing [See "In July: Knowle Application to English Heritage" pt4]
At this week's Town Council planning committee, it was decided to turn down a request to fell an oak - and reference was made to the 'development' of 2008:
180 16/1740/TRE South Ward
CEDAR SHADE LIMITED CEDAR SHADE, ALL SAINTS ROAD, SIDMOUTH, EX10 8EU. T2,
Holm Oak: Fell.
The Council REFUSES permission to carry out work described below for the following reasons:
T2, Holm Oak: Fell
The tree adds to the setting of the listed building and the amenity of the conservation area.
The retention of this tree was a medium term decision at the time of the development, to maintain continuity of tree cover whilst new tree planting establishes.
No evidence has been submitted demonstrating that the tree is actually causing the damage, or that it cannot be addressed without the need to remove the tree in the short term.
At this time the new landscape (post development) is not sufficiently established to justify the removal of the tree neither is the circumstantial linkage of this tree to the damage of a small decorative wall.
PL._MINS._7.9.16.pdf
.
.
.
Sidmouth Town Council raised concerns in the Minutes of its Planning Committee at point 08:9/P15.5: On 16th May, the Clerk wrote to the District Council regarding the above application expressing concern regarding the behaviour of the Property Developers at Cedar Shade in respect of the trees. The Clerk reported that a reply was still awaited. www.sidmouth.gov.uk/PDFs/Planning%20Minutes%202008/Plan%20Min%20-%202008.09.24.pdf
At the development of new homes at ‘Cedar Shade’ in April 2008 it appears that the District Council gave permission for the TPO to be:"… suspended in order to allow redevelopment to take place. The council decided that all the trees that were in the developer’s way were either “over-mature” or were diseased or more dangerous (and couldn’t be made safe?) What a convenient coincidence!! The County Highway Authority had recommended refusal of the planning application. That recommendation was rejected by EDDC." (Letter to Sidmouth Herald: 17th June 2008) http://www.edp24.co.uk/lifestyle/we_must_all_make_planning_concerns_known_1_457957?ot=archant.PrintFriendlyPageLayout.ot
Consequently, there are fears that no TPOs are safe in the District: This must not be allowed to become a most dangerous precedent to wholesale wrecking of Sidmouth’s heritage
Submission to East Devon Local Plan | Save Our Sidmouth
And, in the context of another controversial development involving unwanted trees:
Knowle Application to English Heritage: Notes: Part 4
There are threats to the arboreal heritage at Knowle, following concerns that the District Council does not respect the integrity of TPOs. To take one example:
· At the development of new homes at Cedar Shade, Sidmouth, in April 2008 it appears that the District Council gave permission for the TPO protecting the eponymous cedars to be ‘suspended in order to allow redevelopment to take place. A suspended TPO implies that it is temporary action, and will be restored. In this case it seems to have been a convenient way of allowing the destruction of healthy trees, of no danger to anyone, except the financial considerations of the developer. It suggests the re-developer must have intended from the start to destroy these trees, otherwise he would have planned to include them within his planning application.’ (press comment at the time)
· From the Sid Vale Association, there has been ‘considerable disquiet about the felling of trees at various sites in the town, even those which had tree protection orders. The prime reason for complaint was the felling of the cedar at Cedar Shade, subject of a TPO, which was however suspended, and the tree was allowed to be felled.’ (letter to the Herald: SVA chair Handel Bennett)
· Members of the public have also expressed doubt with regard to the planning process: "The council decided that all the trees that were in the developer's way were either "over-mature" or were diseased or more dangerous (and couldn't be made safe?) What a convenient coincidence!! The County Highway Authority had recommended refusal of the planning application. That recommendation was rejected by EDDC." (another letter to the Herald at the time)· Consequently, there are fears that no TPO is safe in the District: ‘This must not be allowed to become a most dangerous precedent to wholesale wrecking of Sidmouth's heritage.’ (Handel Bennett letter)
Submission to East Devon Local Plan | Save Our Sidmouth
And, in the context of another controversial development involving unwanted trees:
Knowle Application to English Heritage: Notes: Part 4
There are threats to the arboreal heritage at Knowle, following concerns that the District Council does not respect the integrity of TPOs. To take one example:
· At the development of new homes at Cedar Shade, Sidmouth, in April 2008 it appears that the District Council gave permission for the TPO protecting the eponymous cedars to be ‘suspended in order to allow redevelopment to take place. A suspended TPO implies that it is temporary action, and will be restored. In this case it seems to have been a convenient way of allowing the destruction of healthy trees, of no danger to anyone, except the financial considerations of the developer. It suggests the re-developer must have intended from the start to destroy these trees, otherwise he would have planned to include them within his planning application.’ (press comment at the time)
· From the Sid Vale Association, there has been ‘considerable disquiet about the felling of trees at various sites in the town, even those which had tree protection orders. The prime reason for complaint was the felling of the cedar at Cedar Shade, subject of a TPO, which was however suspended, and the tree was allowed to be felled.’ (letter to the Herald: SVA chair Handel Bennett)
· Members of the public have also expressed doubt with regard to the planning process: "The council decided that all the trees that were in the developer's way were either "over-mature" or were diseased or more dangerous (and couldn't be made safe?) What a convenient coincidence!! The County Highway Authority had recommended refusal of the planning application. That recommendation was rejected by EDDC." (another letter to the Herald at the time)· Consequently, there are fears that no TPO is safe in the District: ‘This must not be allowed to become a most dangerous precedent to wholesale wrecking of Sidmouth's heritage.’ (Handel Bennett letter)
Futures Forum: Knowle: Victorian hotel and grounds ... application to English Heritage for national listing [See "In July: Knowle Application to English Heritage" pt4]
At this week's Town Council planning committee, it was decided to turn down a request to fell an oak - and reference was made to the 'development' of 2008:
180 16/1740/TRE South Ward
CEDAR SHADE LIMITED CEDAR SHADE, ALL SAINTS ROAD, SIDMOUTH, EX10 8EU. T2,
Holm Oak: Fell.
The Council REFUSES permission to carry out work described below for the following reasons:
T2, Holm Oak: Fell
The tree adds to the setting of the listed building and the amenity of the conservation area.
The retention of this tree was a medium term decision at the time of the development, to maintain continuity of tree cover whilst new tree planting establishes.
No evidence has been submitted demonstrating that the tree is actually causing the damage, or that it cannot be addressed without the need to remove the tree in the short term.
At this time the new landscape (post development) is not sufficiently established to justify the removal of the tree neither is the circumstantial linkage of this tree to the damage of a small decorative wall.
PL._MINS._7.9.16.pdf
.
.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment