Haytop appeal against Tree Replacement Notice

We have just been informed that Mr Barney’s appeal against the TRN is to be heard by a Planning Inspector on 24th August at Ripley. The TRN obliges him to replace the trees illegally felled  in 2017, in accordance with guidance from AVBC. The appeal details and a link for documentation submitted to the Inspector are set out in the “Hearing Letter” in the Documents section of this website.

Unfortunately WACAG was not provided with this information by either the Planning Inspectorate or AVBC until the date for written submissions to the P I had passed, so we were unable to make any representation on behalf of local residents and other supporters. However, we did make the following submission to PINS in January 2022:-

Attention: Kyle Williams, Case Officer

WACAG represents the local communities nearest to Haytop Country Park, together with others from further afield who have shown support for our cause, which is to protect and preserve the landscape and amenity value of this part of the Derwent Valley Mills World Heritage Site.

We were present and gave evidence as a Rule 6 Party in support of Amber Valley Borough Council at the Public Inquiry APP/M1005/C/19/3226961 – Haytop Country Park, held in Jan-Feb 2021. In the closing remarks to the Inspector our barrister stated that “the baseline position should be that unlawfully felled trees should be taken to be in the same places they were felled from (as this positioning is required by the Tree Replacement Notice)” in accordance with Section 206 TCPA 1990.

Our barrister also emphasised the importance of the legal principle that “one cannot benefit from one’s own wrong. In this case, the wrong in question is a criminal wrong, not merely a moral wrong (although the latter alone is sufficient for the purposes of statutory interpretation). The wrong in question is the Appellant’s conduct in cutting down 120+ TPO Trees. The First-Tier Tribunal described this conduct as ‘reprehensible, not merely incompetent.’ WACAG agrees entirely with the First-Tier Tribunal.”  It was established at the Inquiry that the development of the site to accommodate twin lodges, roads, and other infrastructure would not have been possible but for the removal of those trees.

WACAG would like to reiterate its full support for AVBC’s position that the conditions of the TRN must be fully complied with and therefore replacement trees will have to be located in the same positions from where the original specimens were removed. To do otherwise will allow the appellant to profit from his illegal and reprehensible conduct.

Yours sincerely,

Wacag Admin

We were assured at that time that this had been made available to the Inspector for consideration.

However, we would urge anyone who feels strongly about the matter to contact AVBC or their Counsellors to make their views known. We think that the lack of any local residents’ opinion in the core documentation is an unfortunate omission from the appeal that should not go unremarked.

This Post Has One Comment

  1. Hillside Harry

    I would ask everyone to show suppport for AVBC. If Barney gets his way he will not plant any trees and put 60 park homes on the site. It looks bad enough now so imagine how awful it would be with all those mobile homes and no trees to hide them!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.