Our email to the council about tree removal.

Dear Cynthia,

Thanks for the update.

We heard today that yet another tree - a mature Conifer - has to be removed following your visit.

Part of what makes this so frustrating is that we genuinely tried to raise concerns before any of this happened. We could see potential problems coming and even asked you whether these issues could be looked at before development took place. It seems you can only react once something has happened, not step in beforehand.

Time and again, the way the licensing system operates seems to encourage a 'build first, deal with the consequences later' approach.

We have seen situations in other parks where homes appear to have been sited in places that residents believed would create problems with licence compliance. Yet once the home is in place, the focus often seems to shift towards working around the issue rather than undoing it. In this case, the answer appears to be removing a mature tree, not questioning whether the home should have been positioned there in the first place.

From a resident's perspective, it can feel as though the balance is all wrong. Site owners are able to press ahead with developments, while local authorities can only respond after the event. By then, the homes are installed, the trees are gone, the views have changed and the character of an area has been altered, often permanently.

That is why there is so much frustration. Residents feel they are constantly trying to prevent problems before they happen, only to be told that nothing can be done until after the damage is already done. It leaves many with the impression that the system works far better for site owners than for the people who actually live on these parks.

To be frank, the whole licensing and governance system feels badly in need of review. Residents invest their life savings in these communities, yet too often they feel they have very little influence over decisions that fundamentally change the places they call home.