TPO trees on development sites...

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Mynors 21.9.2 p554/5

 

Since this is "discussion / research" I hope this isn't a copyright issue:

 

[sloth]

I know, I feel I may be missing the obvious too!

[daltontrees]

Should an app for works to a TPOd tree be submitted with an outline planning application, even if the tree works/felling/installation of cellular confinement system driveways over RPAs etc would only be relevant and desired in the event of a full app being consented?

 

Assuming you are in England or Wales.

 

No. Maybe I am missing something here, but it seems your LPA wants to ensure that works are only carried out to the tree if consent for development is granted. That may be on principle and/or to allow control of how the work is done and a fuller assessment of just how much work is required.

 

Sorry to disagree with the other contributors and yourself, but it seems that not only can the LPA do it this way but this is the best way it should do it, pending a full detailed application. At that stage the LPA may be satisfied that the tree works are adequately detailed in the application such that the tree works are proportionate and necessary, will only be carried out if development commences and that the works can be controlled by planning conditions.

 

It is not uncommon for indicative schemes to go in with outline applications. This can be useful for the LPA to envisage the likely next stage (i.e. a detailed application), but if outline consent is then granted the indicative layout has no status whatsoever. Likewise any supporting information such as TPP/AIA that did the same job of reassuring the LPA that development is in principle feasible.

 

Put it this way, without that sort of information the LPA migh have been able to decide that access was not possible without unacceptable damage to or loss of trees and that in the right circumstances could competently result in refusal of outline consent. I say this having been involved in cases where outline consent was refused solely on the basis that satisfactory access was not possible in any shape or form.

[daltontrees]

I have just been appointed on a case this morning where this very thing is happening. Worse, it is a detailed consent with all or any tree work being a reserved matter. It's in a Conservation Area. Effectively the trumping of CA by consent has been undone by conditions. Dammit!

[Jon Heuch]

''Any works to trees still require the submission of a separate application to undertake works to the trees.''

 

So, do protected trees require a separate TPO app for works needed to implement a full planning consent, or is the approved AIA/AMS etc with tree works detailed/listed enough by itself?

 

 

As others have indicated what (full) planning consent provides is permission to undertake tree works that are NECESSARY in order to implement what has been permitted. This does not necessarily include all tree works listed in a tree survey.....unless the permission explicitly refers to the tree report and plans and even then the ice might not be quite as thick as you would like for 100% safety.

 

The 2016 Barney Smith judgment took this issue apart at some length. Barney-Smith & Anor v Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council [2016] EWCA Civ 1264 (09 December 2016)

 

There is at least one Council that appears to have taken a hard line on this; I expect many others are more pragmatic but I would be careful if you are relying on this exception to protected status and the tree work is not strictly necessary.

[sloth]

Thanks Jon, I'll have a look at that now...

[Gary Prentice]

Assuming you are in England or Wales.

 

No. Maybe I am missing something here, but it seems your LPA wants to ensure that works are only carried out to the tree if consent for development is granted. That may be on principle and/or to allow control of how the work is done and a fuller assessment of just how much work is required.

 

Sorry to disagree with the other contributors and yourself, but it seems that not only can the LPA do it this way but this is the best way it should do it, pending a full detailed application. At that stage the LPA may be satisfied that the tree works are adequately detailed in the application such that the tree works are proportionate and necessary, will only be carried out if development commences and that the works can be controlled by planning conditions.

 

It is not uncommon for indicative schemes to go in with outline applications. This can be useful for the LPA to envisage the likely next stage (i.e. a detailed application), but if outline consent is then granted the indicative layout has no status whatsoever. Likewise any supporting information such as TPP/AIA that did the same job of reassuring the LPA that development is in principle feasible.

 

Put it this way, without that sort of information the LPA migh have been able to decide that access was not possible without unacceptable damage to or loss of trees and that in the right circumstances could competently result in refusal of outline consent. I say this having been involved in cases where outline consent was refused solely on the basis that satisfactory access was not possible in any shape or form.

 

 

Sorry Jules but your answer has just made me realise that I've a gaping hole in my knowledge.

 

Can you explain, or anyone else, what status outline planning consent actually has?

 

I don't know why, but I've always assumed that it acknowledged that, in principal and subject to other conditions, the LA would allow development of whatever type (residential, commercial etc) on the site.

 

 

I've assumed that full consent could be refused for any number of reasons, even if outline had been consented?

[daltontrees]

Can you explain, or anyone else, what status outline planning consent actually has?

 

See the attached. May be a bit out of date, but not substantially. In Scotland this is known as "Planning Permission in Principle", which I think is a much more meaningful term.

[daltontrees]

https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200126/applications/60/consent_types/4

[Gary Prentice]

Okay I see now. I thought that after getting outline consent, a 'full' application was necessary, more or less an application in its own right. If I understand this correctly now, the next step after outline is basically to sort out the details (the Reserved Matters app)

 

seems like outline consent has a bit more legal standing than I'd previously assumed.