Agenda item

Alphington Allotment Holders and Residents – 31 signatories          

We the allotment holders and residents are concerned about the loss of the trees on the bank between the allotments and the new development and the erection of a fence. Trees removed by a developer included a significant 100 year old oak tree along with other trees and a hedge. The developer has also levelled the old bank and repositioned the bank encroaching on allotment land owned by Exeter City Council as the Allotment boundary as shown on all relevant maps, The hedge was not maintained by the Council because “Rule 3 of the Allotment Rules states that if a tenant’s plot abuts a hedge then the tenant is responsible for the hedge”. Allotment holders for the last 50 years confirm this has been the practice.

We therefore request that Exeter City Council takes enforcement action regarding what the developer has done with the fence and hedge to get the owner to return the hedge and ditch to the position and state it was and plant trees of the same species native to Britain that were removed.

The Chair reported the receipt of the following petition of 31 signatories from theAlphington Allotment Holders and Residents:-          

“We the allotment holders and residents are concerned about the loss of the trees on the bank between the allotments and the new development and the erection of a fence. Trees removed by a developer included a significant 100 year old oak tree along with other trees and a hedge. The developer has also levelled the old bank and repositioned the bank encroaching on allotment land owned by Exeter City Council as the Allotment boundary as shown on all relevant maps, The hedge was not maintained by the Council because “Rule 3 of the Allotment Rules states that if a tenant’s plot abuts a hedge then the tenant is responsible for the hedge”. Allotment holders for the last 50 years confirm this has been the practice.

We therefore request that Exeter City Council takes enforcement action regarding what the developer has done with the fence and hedge to get the owner to return the hedge and ditch to the position and state it was and plant trees of the same species native to Britain that were removed.”

Councillor Atkinson attended the meeting and spoke on this item having given notice under Standing Order No 44. Councillor Atkinson read from a detailed paper she had prepared referring to a further statement from one of the petitioners and to supporting photographs and plans. Her statement included:-

·         a timeline of events;

·         a series of concerns arising from the petition which she and her fellow ward Councillor had researched; and

·         eight recommendations to address the issues she had highlighted in her paper.

The concerns raised by the petitioners included:-

·         the loss of trees on the boundary between the allotments and a development of two self-build houses;

·         a failure to protect trees by means of a Tree Preservation Order;

·         a belief that the erection of the close boarded fence had encroached onto City Council land;

·         need for the City Council to take appropriate enforcement; and

·         no clear agreement on the boundary ownership with an inaccuracy in the conveyancing relating to the transfer of land to the initial developer in 1972.

The Portfolio Holder for Environment and City Management advised that, following a visit to the site and inspection of the relevant documentation, he was satisfied that there had been no encroachment onto City Council land, there were no trees protected by a Tree Preservation Order and that the documentation was correct.

In responding to Councillor Atkinson’s comments, the Director made the following points:-

·         it was an historic complaint on which a large number of questions had been answered by officers since 2013;

·         there had been no encroachment onto council land as the land in question had been sold in 1972 including the boundary on which the trees were situated. There was no ambiguity in the conveyancing and no dispute between the Council (the seller) and the purchaser. The location of the boundary had also been agreed on site with the City Council allotments manager and the new owner. The replacement of this boundary with a fence had not therefore encroached on any City Council land;

·         the diseased trees removed had been within the private residential garden and, as they had been removed by the homeowner, there had therefore been no breach of planning conditions. The trees had not been protected by a Tree Protection Order and therefore the homeowner had not required prior approval to do work to them and no offence had been committed;

·         the City Council recognised the loss of screening to the allotment holders and would investigate options to plant a new hedge or trees along the allotment boundary; and

·         the homeowner had planted new semi mature trees along the boundary in an effort to replace some of those lost. In addition, they had offered to plant more native trees to offer greater screening.

Councillor Atkinson responded that she remained of the view that the conveyancing issue was unclear.

In discussion, Members suggested that future housing developments should be subject to greater scrutiny to help avoid similar boundary disputes but also that local communities were better able to understand what issues the Council could take within its powers and which they might seek to influence but could not compel third parties to take a particular course of action. The Director (BA) advised that this was best addressed via the Council’s communication and information to residents and that as part of the Liveable Exeter Garden City Vision, it was the intention to develop a variety of approaches for engaging with communities on new housing developments. She also stated that, once in post in the New Year, the new Project Director of Liveable Exeter Garden City would be asked to deliver a Members’ Briefing on the Programme.

Customer Focus Scrutiny Committee noted the petition.