Post planning tree removal

[Chris at eden]

I keep thinking that the only way the construction industry will ever be policed adequately is that when the method statement says that there will be arboricultural superrvision, at key stages, it is actually done. If it means a consultant has to visit to sign off, make them pay for it. If the site hasn't been worked to the AMS, don't sign the site off. A substantial bond, securing tree health and longevity, would be great, but don't know if legislation is really there to implement it.

 

If the TO visits, to deal with a contravention of the AMS, charge the builder.

 

The planning system is sort of there to implement this with the AMS,but no-one ever confirms it's been adhered to.

 

Its a difficult one for consultants that is. They rely on repeat works from these people. I think money should be made available for TOs to monitor properly.

 

I went to the ICF - TPBE3 conference this week at Birmingham University. There was a Canadian Tree Officer there saying that the Council he works for has a $12m annual tree budget. Its a big area but even so that is a lot of money.

[Gary Prentice]

You would hope, that like writing BS5837 reports, the consultant would remain objective. But I take your point and think I'd probably have to agree they'd be a certain degree of pressure.

 

One way I imagine it might work, if the local planning had a list of consultants they trusted to monitor the site and conditioned usage of that list (might be shaky legal ground), and if it came to light the consultant was bowing to pressure - hearing, then off the list for good. Just a thought.

[oslac]

You would hope, that like writing BS5837 reports, the consultant would remain objective. But I take your point and think I'd probably have to agree they'd be a certain degree of pressure.

 

One way I imagine it might work, if the local planning had a list of consultants they trusted to monitor the site and conditioned usage of that list (might be shaky legal ground), and if it came to light the consultant was bowing to pressure - hearing, then off the list for good. Just a thought.

 

Council lists do not work and neither do council statements such as 'use a registered consultant of the arb assoc' If you have proper qualifications and experience, you should do what is right and make your judgement based on the approved documentation and good arboricultural practice - hopefully they will not contradict each other.

 

Even when monitoring is included within the approved documents, the Consultant still needs to be invited to site by the Client and paid for their time. Many Clients see the monitoring as a waste of a lot of money and they may be right.

 

One solution would be to provide two tree related conditions within the Decision Notice. The first is to discharge the arb documentation and the second is on completion of the approved amount of monitoring viists and satisfactory outcomes. If the monitoring visits are not carried out as approved, then no planning discharge.

 

Some Clients won't care and some will try and bend the system but I cannot see any other way in the present system which will have a chance at working.

[Gary Prentice]

 

One solution would be to provide two tree related conditions within the Decision Notice. The first is to discharge the arb documentation and the second is on completion of the approved amount of monitoring viists and satisfactory outcomes. If the monitoring visits are not carried out as approved, then no planning discharge.

 

Some Clients won't care and some will try and bend the system but I cannot see any other way in the present system which will have a chance at working.

 

So there's already a way to impose monitoring.

 

What happens where there is no planning discharge?

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Council lists do not work and neither do council statements such as 'use a registered consultant of the arb assoc' If you have proper qualifications and experience, you should do what is right and make your judgement based on the approved documentation and good arboricultural practice - hopefully they will not contradict each other.

 

 

 

Even when monitoring is included within the approved documents, the Consultant still needs to be invited to site by the Client and paid for their time. Many Clients see the monitoring as a waste of a lot of money and they may be right.

 

 

 

One solution would be to provide two tree related conditions within the Decision Notice. The first is to discharge the arb documentation and the second is on completion of the approved amount of monitoring viists and satisfactory outcomes. If the monitoring visits are not carried out as approved, then no planning discharge.

 

 

 

Some Clients won't care and some will try and bend the system but I cannot see any other way in the present system which will have a chance at working.

 

 

👍🏻

 

Just a supplementary thought as relates to OP situation:

 

If I understand it correctly, Planning condition applies to the property owner rather than a potential contractor.

 

Contractor "could" do as requested by property owner (if, as stated no TPO in effect.) No penalties applicable to contractor for a breach of a planning condition, nor any obligation to check (unlike TPO / CA)

[oslac]

So there's already a way to impose monitoring.

 

What happens where there is no planning discharge?

 

Then there is no planning discharge. It will show up on the search when the house/development is sold but some folk don't care about such things.

 

The council's seem to want the Consultants to do their job for them. Probably because the TO is overworked and understaffed. By including all of the monitoring stuff in the approved docs, the TO is probably hoping that some sites are monitored but these are likely to be well run sites in any case.

 

The Consultant is hardly going to dob their Client in and therefore, policing of the condition is a bit of a wing and a prayer. Enforcement is no good after the development is completed and therefore, the LPA needs to fund TOs to do their job which is in part, following up planning conditions. In the great scheme of things, money spent on social care wins votes and money spent on enforcement doesn't . . .

[oslac]

👍🏻

 

Just a supplementary thought as relates to OP situation:

 

If I understand it correctly, Planning condition applies to the property owner rather than a potential contractor.

 

Contractor "could" do as requested by property owner (if, as stated no TPO in effect.) No penalties applicable to contractor for a breach of a planning condition, nor any obligation to check (unlike TPO / CA)

 

Not too sure but I thought it belonged to the property i.e. the land. That is why you can sell land with planning permission.

 

The law of TPO is likely to come into force if any unapproved works are carried out on a protected tree. Both land owner and tree surgeon are open to prosecution.

 

It doesn't matter who is carrying out the works or who instructs, if there is a breach of planning, then there is a breach of planning and enforcement can be taken. Enforcement leading to conviction in a court is a very rare thing and it will be up to the legal eagles to navigate the prosecutions but usually enforcement is an instruction to do or not to do something and the stick is that the works can be closed down.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Not too sure but I thought it belonged to the property i.e. the land. That is why you can sell land with planning permission.

 

 

 

It's getting late and I may not be reading what you're meaning, but I'm thinking a condition applies to an owner of land rather than the land itself - it transfers with ownership. (don't want to get too tied down in that.

 

The law of TPO is likely to come into force if any unapproved works are carried out on a protected tree. Both land owner and tree surgeon are open to prosecution.

 

Agreed, but, just from memory without going back to page 1, this circumstance isn't TPO?

 

 

 

It doesn't matter who is carrying out the works or who instructs, if there is a breach of planning, then there is a breach of planning and enforcement can be taken. Enforcement leading to conviction in a court is a very rare thing and it will be up to the legal eagles to navigate the prosecutions but usually enforcement is an instruction to do or not to do something and the stick is that the works can be closed down.

 

 

No TPO, no CA restrictions, possible planning condition - that would be a problem solely for the property owner, that's what I was asking??

[oslac]

No TPO, no CA restrictions, possible planning condition - that would be a problem solely for the property owner, that's what I was asking??

 

I think you are right. The only real penelty for the Contractor is a potential loss of reputation and possible cost implication for works being stopped whilst costs and overheads continue. If I was that Contractor, I would be very upset with the land owner if it turns out that the landowner asked me to do something which costs me money which was in breach of planning.

[norfolk_tom]

Thanks for all the comments, I'm pleased my question has started an interesting discussion; I used to work in construction management so I've seen it from both ends of the spectrum and agree there's little point in rules without enforcement

 

With regards my OP, there were no landscaping plans submitted as it was just a domestic extension so no 5year planting/maintenance/replacement requirement and the tree condition only stipulates protection during construction phase so from that and what's been discussed here I don't think there's any barriers to removal. The immediate neighbour wants it removed too anyway.

 

As I understand it the 5837 report is about identifying conflicts with the development? The tree didn't affect the build and vice versa so the desire to remove it has nothing to do with the planning application, customer just doesn't like it.

 

Anyway, I'll see how they want to proceed as I think you're right and the risk would be on them.

 

Thanks again