Trees and outline planning permission

[sloth]

Hi all, how do TPOs and outline planning permission work together?

I have a site where outline planning is being applied for, and the developer has been asked to provide a tree survey. The only option for access will involve removing a TPOd tree, and either using a no dig driveway or removing a second TPOd tree. Could the la give the nod to the definite removal during outline consent, and then refuse a full application on the basis of not wanting to lose the TPO tree? I've not been involved with this particular situation before, so would appreciate some advice, thanks...

[Gary Prentice]

If the TPO tree is identified for removal in the report, wouldn't it be a material consideration in granting consent?

 

TBH, just guessing as I've never been involved in an outline app.

[Justme]

I thought a successful planning application trumped a TPO?

[sloth]

I really don't know Gary. This is from the planning portal:

 

Applications for outline planning permission seek to establish whether the scale and nature of a proposed development would be acceptable to the local planning authority, before a fully detailed proposal is put forward.

 

This type of planning application allows fewer details about the proposal to be submitted. Once outline permission has been granted, you will need to ask for approval of the details (“reserved matters”) before work can start. These details will be the subject of a “reserved matters” application at a later stage.

 

... So, I'd imagine trees aren't generally looked at in any great detail during outline planning applications. However, as the site simply won't be able to work without the removal of the TPO tree in the access point, it seems to me that granting outline permission would be pointless if they aren't going to agree to its removal.

Also, a full AIA based on the vague plans provided to me (as to be used in the outline app) may be ott, perhaps. Would a more brief version of an AIA talking about the proposal 'in principle' be acceptable, and wait for the la to require a detailed AIA as a reserved matter with the detailed site plans?

Ed, Chris, any TOs?

[daltontrees]

Hi all, how do TPOs and outline planning permission work together?

I have a site where outline planning is being applied for, and the developer has been asked to provide a tree survey. The only option for access will involve removing a TPOd tree, and either using a no dig driveway or removing a second TPOd tree. Could the la give the nod to the definite removal during outline consent, and then refuse a full application on the basis of not wanting to lose the TPO tree? I've not been involved with this particular situation before, so would appreciate some advice, thanks...

 

This is fairly clear-cut. Outline consent does not trump a TPO. A TPO'd tree can only be removed from a development site under exemption if the removal is immediately required for implementation of the consent. Since outline consent cannot be implemented without detailed consent, it can never be the basis for tree removal.

 

It's not for the LA to think ahead to detail before granting outline consent. It's for the applicant to demonstrate that the detail can be achieved at detailed consent application stage. There's no rationale for tree removal on the basis of there being an implied inevitability of a tree loss in due course.

[sloth]

Thanks jules, I appreciate that outline consent does not trump a TPO, and no one is suggesting removing the tree pre-full consent.

Even in principle, the la can't ignore the fact that there is a protected tree smack bang in the centre of the access (hence them asking for a tree survey), so I don't see how they could approve the development proposal in principle without some consideration of the inevitable loss of the tree to implement it.

There are other trees on site, but they can be worked around/with using various options, so no real details of those needed at this stage.

[daltontrees]

Ahh, shades of grey. I've seen this situation befoore, and applicants (clients of mine) hav ebeen at pains to submit and have stamped as approved indicative layouts of developments but LAs always treat them as just indicative of density or massing or other generalities. For a particular access point t be acknowledged as implicit in the consent, the application has to be clear that the specific access position requires approval even as part of an outline consent. When this happens, the LA can then request all sorts of additional technical support for the application, like traffic impact and visibility splays. I have genreally found LAs to be reluctant to take mixed detail/outline apps like that. So I'd still be wary of implied tree removal assumptions. The LA may indeed anticipate loss of the tree but may think that its replacement under conditions is only a detailed consent (reserved) matter not requiring express mention now.

[sloth]

Grey indeed. Many thanks for your help..

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Not trying to "cop out" on the question, but wouldn't the issue/question you're trying to resolve better sit with the architect / project manager? Given the circumstances, they have to decide if the risk is worth the potential reward.

 

Outline could be attained notwithstanding the existence of the tree, later the tree could be removed if the gain from the development was greater than the loss of the tree (which could be mitigated), or the full application could be refused if the opposite is assessed.

 

Frustrating not to be able to get a definitive answer to the exam question (it could even be interpreted differently by different LAs?) but would it be acceptable to present the position that outline might be achieved but then later full might not be achieved and let the architect / client decide how they want to proceed?

[Gary Prentice]

Thanks jules, I appreciate that outline consent does not trump a TPO, and no one is suggesting removing the tree pre-full consent.

Even in principle, the la can't ignore the fact that there is a protected tree smack bang in the centre of the access (hence them asking for a tree survey), so I don't see how they could approve the development proposal in principle without some consideration of the inevitable loss of the tree to implement it.

There are other trees on site, but they can be worked around/with using various options, so no real details of those needed at this stage.

 

That was what I was trying to say in my last post.

 

The report, or part of the the report, is to inform the planners of the trees on site. So (based on the information you have at the time) if the report says remove for development, one would hope that that would be a major material consideration in formulating the decision.

 

You'd think that that would be the first thing decided, tree stays - no development, so you would like to think that if outline is approved on that basis it would be a done deal.

 

All you can do as far as I can see, is your part in the informing process.