Neighbours upset at removal of protected trees to make way for new homes

PLANS for two new homes on the site of a cottage in Gallowstree Common have been approved in principle, despite objections from neighbours and the parish council.

Mohsin Ali, who owns Orchard Cottage in The Hamlet, wants to redevelop the 0.18-hectare site.

The two new buildings would be located to the south-west of the existing cottage and would be two-storeys, replicating the eaves and ridge heights of neighbouring properties.

Mr Ali also plans to apply for consent for an extension to the cottage alongside proposals for the technical details of the new dwellings, including design, layout, scale and appearance. South Oxfordshire District Council, the planning authority, has granted him permission in principle.

However, Kidmore End Parish Council has joined neighbours in opposing the proposal, which it says is “unneighbourly” and not in keeping with policies in the village’s neighbourhood plan.

Neighbours have raised concerns about loss of privacy and the removal of protected trees during a previous site clearance.

Parish clerk Roger Penfold said: “The council objects to the position of the proposed new dwellings because of the impact that one will have on Stanley Cottage opposite.

“The proposal in its current form is unneighbourly and not in keeping with The Hamlet. The council believes that the site is capable of supporting no more than two new houses and it is important to recognise that a further increase in housing density in this area will be objected to because it will not be in keeping with policies in the adopted Kidmore End neighbourhood development plan.

“The council is also concerned about the potential loss in biodiversity, particularly of apex predators, when the site is cleared to allow building works. Some trees have already been felled, contrary to tree preservation orders, so great care must be taken with the remaining biodiversity on site.”

Jenny Rayner, who lives at Stanley Cottage, said she was concerned the development would affect her privacy. She said: “It’s not necessary on this site or acceptable to choose to position a new house and its predominant living orientation directly opposite and facing an existing house.

“It would also not be appealing for a prospective buyer of house two. House one equally is positioned directly facing the houses on the other side, even if not quite so close or directly aligned. Their orientation should be addressed, or simply just fit one new house comfortably on the site.

“I also note that two protected trees were removed, not one as stated. The field maple in the middle of the site was removed as well as the mentioned yew.”

Rafal Kubinski, of Weydown, said: “It has come to light that two protected trees were unlawfully removed from the site during clearance works. This disregard for protected trees and planning regulations is unacceptable.”

Jill Kendal, of Woodbury Cottage, said: “We live right next door to the property. I was responsible for asking for the tree preservation orders to be applied to the site. As it stands, we have no objections to the application as long as it goes ahead as applied for without major alterations. We should like to be sure, once building commences, that the orders will survive and as much other boundary greenery as outlined on the plans will be maintained.

“If and when the owner applies to extend the original Orchard Cottage we hope that the character of this old property will be maintained.”