Concerns about the possibly unlawful removal of trees and groundcover in ancient woodland have been raised in Puckpool.
Residents speaking to News OnTheWight say the activity took place ahead of a new driveway being constructed from Puckpool House to a new access point on Puckpool Hill.
Is permission required?
As Puckpool Hill is an unclassified road, it has been claimed that planning permission for the new access point is not required.
However, it has also been suggested that the engineering work to construct the driveway would require permission.
The work that took place to create the access included the use of heavy machinery to excavate the earth and reduce the level of the ground, drainage was installed etc.
IWC: A criminal investigation
Questions about this, and a number of others (ten in total) have been put by News OnTheWight to the planning department.
In response an Isle of Wight Council spokesperson said,
“We can confirm that the council is investigating alleged works to trees. As this is a criminal investigation, we cannot comment on the matter.”
Five of the questions asked were not related to the trees being removed, so News OnTheWight has gone back to council to ask that these be answered in the meantime.
Orr: Constructed in line with all laws and regulations
Owner of Puckpool House, David Orr, told News OnTheWight that “the driveway has been constructed in line with all laws and regulations”.
He was clear to make the delineation between works at his property and those to the former access to Puckpool House to the north of the property. This land he said, belongs to a different owner, and has its own issues with the planning department.
Mr Orr went on to say,
“Many people get this confused with my land which feeds directly onto Puckpool Hill and because of these issues I have had to construct a new driveway.”
Removal of trees and groundcover
News OnTheWight understands that the trees on the land in question are covered by a blanket Tree Protection Order (TPO) for the area.
As shown in the map below, the area marked in red is where trees and groundcover were removed to create the new access.
Click on images to see larger versions
In relation to claims that trees and groundcover have been removed, Mr Orr told NewsOnTheWight,
“I have liased with all the appropriate departments including the officer who looks after trees and they are all aligned on what has happened to date.
“No retrospective planning is required and ground cover is covered by the replanting agreed with the planning department, which is actually on my land and not public land.”
Concerns over fence/wall height
Questions have also been raised about the height of new fencing, which some residents claim is above the permitted height.
The planning department have been asked about this issue and we await their response.
No further investigation by Parish Council
Puckpool House falls within the planning jurisdiction of Nettlestone and Seaview Parish Council.
Their clerk, Brian Jennings, confirmed to News OnTheWight today (Wednesday) that the “IWC planning enforcement team have carried out and concluded an investigation of the work and that appropriate action has been taken”.
Therefore, he added, the Parish Council does not need to carry out any further investigation of its own and said,
“Parishioners can be reassured that the matter has been handled by the relevant authority.”
This obviously doesn’t square with what Isle of Wight council have told News OnTheWight this afternoon. We’ve asked the IWC to explain further.
Retrospective permissions
In 2020 retrospective permission was granted at Puckpool House after a swimming pool was constructed prior to seeking planning permission.
News OnTheWight pointed out to Mr Orr that there was also concern about work taking place and retrospective permission being sought, asking whether he planned to avoid doing that in the future.
His answer was confused with the removal of trees rather than the wider question of carrying out work first then applying for retrospective permission, so we put it to him again and are awaiting his response.
We’ll update once we hear back.
IWC: It’s all OK
The Council now claim there’s no problem with what has taken place.
An Isle of Wight Council spokesperson said,
“The Local Planning Authority received an enquiry concerning the creation of a vehicular access from Puckpool House onto the unclassified highway of Puckpool Hill. In accordance with Schedule 2, Part 2, Class B (means of access to a highway) of the General Permitted Development Order (2015 as amended) the creation of a new vehicular access for a dwelling house onto an unclassified highway does not require planning permission (subject to compliance with a set of criteria which have been adhered to in this instance). No further action was therefore required in response to this enquiry.
“Further concerns were later received alleging the removal of the understorey vegetation of protected woodland which runs adjacent to Puckpool Hill and within the curtilage of Puckpool House. On inspection, the council’s tree officer was satisfied that the semimature sycamore trees which stand in the woodland had not been felled, however the understorey vegetation had been cleared. The land owner has agreed to the undertaking of replacement planting in the form of whips of various native species which are due to be planted by the end of the month.”
In relation to our specific questions, they replied:
- Please advise whether the tree officer has been out to inspect the most recent felling (if so when)? The council’s tree officer attended the site on 27 January 2022 and 15 December 2021.
- Do they consider the amount of felling that has been carried out to be lawful? The woodland understorey was removed, however the semimature sycamore trees on the land were not felled.
- Will enforcement action be required? An offence under section 210 (Contravention of a tree preservation order) was established.
- If so what mitigation measures will be insisted upon? The land owner has agreed to the undertaken of replacement understorey planting.
- Is planning permission required for the new access point? No. The works are permitted development in accordance with schedule 2, part 2, Class B (means of access to a highway) of the General Permitted development Order (2015 as amended)
- If yes, has permission been sought? (couldn’t find it on the planning portal) not applicable
- Is planning permission required for the engineering infrastructure to create the new sweeping drive up to the property? Please see response to point 5 above.
- If yes, has permission been sought? (couldn’t find it on the planning portal) not applicable
- There are concerns the new boundary fence and wall are above permitted 2m, can officers advise whether the fence and wall have been inspected and what height they were found to be? We are unable to provide a response to question 9 at this stage due to ongoing discussions with the landowner
Article edit
6.25pm 16th Feb 2022 – Para about fence height updated to remove link to retrospective application (different fence)
9.50am 18th Mar 2022 – Statement from IWC added
