An interesting scenario...

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Here's the scenario:

 

A domestic applicant submits a planning application for internal changes to a listed building and the new build of a double garage in the existing garden.

 

The application form (section 7 Trees & Hedges) states there are no trees within or adjacent to the development site.

 

The application is considered by the Parish council as an advisory consultee and, whilst not objecting to the development in principle, it is noted that the application form is incorrect in that there ARE trees within the development site and TPO'd trees in reasonably close proximity (RPA effected) adjacent in the nearby cemetery.

 

The Parish council support the development in principle subject to TO's consideration of the trees in the immediate vicinity.

 

The application is approved, with conditions (but none that relate to trees) and work starts pretty much before the ink is dry on the DN.

 

Applicant and contractor are acting within the terms of the approved application.

 

Application form, as submitted, can be shown to be incorrect in relation to existing trees. 

 

Email / phone contact with Planning officer results in PO stating that unless within CA or TPO'd, there's no requirement for any consideration of trees on or adjacent to a domestic development site.... (?) You can imagine how that conversation went!

 

There is now an excavator on site a a big hole within the RPAs of trees within the development site and that of the larger, mature, TPO'd trees which are nearby off site.

 

If you could accept that the application form was incorrect (either by accident or design) and that the Parish council attempted (maybe not sufficiently forcefully) to highlight this and that the PO didn't take account of it (either because it was insufficiently worded or that they are insufficiently aware of BS 5837) where would you apportion blame (if such a thing would be appropriate?)    

 

If it gets lively or if anybody wants to look at the source documents, I can link the planning page where all of the above can be viewed first hand...

 

  

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Source doc's and details here:

 

https://www.cornwall.gov.uk/environment-and-planning/planning/online-planning-register/

 

search under planning app numbers:  PA17/04381 and PA17/04749

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

  Ed, it was the PO that thought trees were not a consideration!

 

Desperate times!!

 

Email just sent....

 

Thank you for the phone call yesterday.  

 

It came as quite a surprise to hear that you would not consider trees in relation to planning applications unless there are Conservation Area (CA) or Tree Preservation Order (TPO) considerations.  This would appear to be contrary to the recommendations in British Standard 5837:2012 Introduction which states:

 

“...Existing trees are an important factor on construction sites, whether on or near the working areas, and trees are a material consideration in the UK planning system (see Annex B)…”

 

And Annex B which states:

 

“...Under the UK planning system, local authorities have a statutory duty to consider the protection and planting of trees when granting planning permission for proposed development. The potential effect of  development on trees, whether statutorily protected (e.g. by a tree preservation order or by their inclusion within a conservation area) or not, is a material consideration that is taken into account in dealing with planning applications …”

 

I’ve attached a (not to exact scale) map extract which highlights the existing TPO’d trees within St Clarus churchyard - this is a closed cemetery and falls under the stewardship of Cornwall council.  There is a prior history of Meripilus giganteus leading to catastrophic wind throw failure of mature Beech in the cemetery.  Root wounding of mature Beech is a recognised means by which this fungal pathogen can become established.  

 

There are notable high value human, property and highway target areas within failure range of these trees.  Failure to apply adequate planning controls for the protection of trees which may later be attributed to failure could have significant liability considerations and also could give rise to questionable stewardship of TPO’d trees by the Authority.

 

Alongside this, there remains the issue of the existing trees within the development site which are in the immediate vicinity of the current excavations.  

 

I have submitted a Planning Enforcement query as this seemed the 'least bad’ way of attempting to highlight the scenario although it is noted that, since the development is progressing iaw the DN, it may not actually constitute a breech?

 

Appreciate this may be a peculiar situation and I’m keen to learn from it so as to apply gained knowledge in the future.

 

12 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Email / phone contact with Planning officer results in PO stating that unless within CA or TPO'd, there's no requirement for any consideration of trees on or adjacent to a domestic development site.... (?) You can imagine how that conversation went!

 

5 minutes ago, EdwardC said:

Email the planning officer with a brief description of the phone call

[htb]

Got the same with a site adjacent to our wood, application full of mistakes, states no trees on site or adjacent to it.

It gets a bit stressful at times

[skyhuck]

No doubt this is why many choose to fell unprotected trees  before they start the planing process.

 

I've often wondered how many tree have been felled due to the fear of TPO's?

 

There is a chance, imo, that TPO's have actually reduced the the total number  of trees we have.

 

[skyhuck]

 

Double post

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

21 minutes ago, skyhuck said:

No doubt this is why many choose to fell unprotected trees  before they start the planing process.

 

I've often wondered how many tree have been felled due to the fear of TPO's?

 

There is a chance, imo, that TPO's have actually reduced the the total number  of trees we have.

 

And similar logic could be applied to bat regs...

[skyhuck]

1 hour ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

And similar logic could be applied to bat regs...

Not at all, ALL bats are protected.

 

All tree however are not protected, so removing them before they could be potentially protected is perfect legal and some would argue "wise"

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

I probably didn't express that as intended!

 

Agree all bats are protected (unlike trees), but what I meant was, sometimes over restrictive legislation can have a negative rather than a positive effect e.g.: Aversion to allowing / maintaining / sustaining bats roosts - and trees with potential for protection because of the potential hassle involved downstream.

 

I wasn't disagreeing with you, just presenting (not very well perhaps) a parallel comparison. 

[matelot]

Seemingly a lot of ancient buildings were knocked down in the months before they brought in the listed buildings legislation....