TPOs and statutory undertakers

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Interested in any thoughts....

 

Scenario (I'm thinking of you @Gary Prentice)  Homeowner wants to replace their drive within the RPA of a TPO'd tree.  Understandably, LA would require Arb report, TPP, AMS, possibly an engineers report, engineering solutions to avoid root damage (and probably improve) the rooting environment, would probably expect hand excavations within RPA, porous surface finish, SuDs compliant etc, etc etc.  And if all of that wasn't considered to be at least not detrimental to the tree, at best an improvement.....  The request would be declined.

 

No beef with that as a scenario, I'm not looking to discuss whether it's right or wrong, I'm just saying that would probably be a base line that we would expect in this circumstance....  

 

So, why are these types of stipulation so often completely ignored - worse than that even - they don't even come into the conscious decision making cycle when applied to highways?

 

How can a homeowner have any confidence in 'the system' when they see such disparity right in front of their very eyes?

 

The video is local, 10 minutes ago.  I've watched these works over the past week or so.  They're expanding the pedestrian walkway in the vicinity of a fairly substantial, relatively recent housing development and appear to be doing some utility work at the same time.

 

With absolute wanton disregard they have clawed through areas which were previously designated as being within the CEZ of the development and now they are trenching within spitting distance of a TPO tree (yes, the Sycamore! Why it's attracted a TPO is another issue but it has.) 

 

What a shambles and if I were the homeowner with that Sycamore I'd be a bit miffed!

[Gary Prentice]

3 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

They're expanding the pedestrian walkway in the vicinity of a fairly substantial, relatively recent housing development and appear to be doing some utility work at the same time.

 

With absolute wanton disregard they have clawed through areas which were previously designated as being within the CEZ of the development and now they are trenching within spitting distance of a TPO tree (yes, the Sycamore! Why it's attracted a TPO is another issue but it has.) 

I reported that Highways were installing a cycle path on a grass verge immediately adjacent  to the stems of the councils own trees. No no-dig base - just dig, hardcore and tarmac. The excavated soils piles alongside were something to behold, topped with roots up to and above 50-75mm diameter.

 

The lack of interdepartmental communications in some LAs has to be experienced to be believed. The TO often doesn't even get consulted but tends to take the initial flak once someone reports it. 

[Khriss]

TO's eh ! Pahhh ! Wot would they know abt trees eh !   God , you could'nt make it up  ?  K

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Woeful.....

[Gary Prentice]

1 hour ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Scenario (I'm thinking of you @Gary Prentice)  Homeowner wants to replace their drive within the RPA of a TPO'd tree.  Understandably, LA would require Arb report, TPP, AMS, possibly an engineers report, engineering solutions to avoid root damage (and probably improve) the rooting environment, would probably expect hand excavations within RPA, porous surface finish, SuDs compliant etc, etc etc.  And if all of that wasn't considered to be at least not detrimental to the tree, at best an improvement.....  The request would be declined.

EDIT.  realised that I'm stupid in thinking that you were applying to remove the tree, if you read my original mutterings, ignore it.

 

First off, does a replacement drive actually require planning permission?

 

If it does, somewhere it's stated that for minor development the LA should refrain from demanding a reports on everything but the kitchen sink.

 

Id KISS. Provide a plan identifying the RPA, if your not set up with CAD you can purchase an OS map in PDF, and then use a drawing program to scale that on. Measure the highway/drive width whatever to get the RPA reasonably accurate. You can also use that plan as a base for an AMS and TPP

 

I wouldn't provide an engineers report. The RPA and drive clash, cellweb is an accepted no-dig solution so there shouldn't be any need for another expert report - unless the planning department are just bloody awkward but if they are you just remind them about reasonableness.

 

I don't know how your LA works, mine normally sends out a pre-determination letter outlining the TOs comments/support or not and their concerns. So you've an opportunity to address issues or provide more information before determination. 

 

I'd avoid saying that you'd improve the rooting environment. It'll probably be conditioned and then the owner is committed to more costs. If the TO thinks that it's necessary for the trees health he can always say it's needed. The cellweb site has some information on it's use and successful tree retention recorded over a lot of years, maybe note that to suggest improvement isn't even considered necessary, unless you think that it is. In all probability the new drive with cell web will provide a better (more permeable) environment than the existing anyway.

 

Don't forget any grade level changes if the drive meets the footpath. Include how it will be dealt with in the AMS.

 

Regarding SUDs. I'd try to find other successful applications for replacement drives to see if reports were included in those applications. If they weren't don't bother. Again if needed they can always request them. Just be aware, if you're not aware that some LAs are so backlogged with planning apps that they wait until near the determination date and then request more info and then delay the determination (sneaky buggers)

 

The frustrating thing with planning is the bloody mindedness, requesting so much information that reporting costs almost as much as the final works on minor projects. If you're the only pro working for the applicant I'd state that due to the size you're not providing engineers reports, Suds and whatever is unreasonable. Make your case clear as to why you aren't providing numerous expert reports, at the outset. Don't let them run the game but demonstrate you've considered what they may want and have covered it sufficient detail yourself. They don't care what their demands mean to the applicants pocket, applicants hard earned.not their concern. 

 

I'll think of other things later and will probably add more.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 11, 2020 by Gary Prentice

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

2 hours ago, Gary Prentice said:

EDIT.  realised that I'm stupid in thinking that you were applying to remove the tree, if you read my original mutterings, ignore it.

 

First off, does a replacement drive actually require planning permission?

 

If it does, somewhere it's stated that for minor development the LA should refrain from demanding a reports on everything but the kitchen sink.

 

Id KISS. Provide a plan identifying the RPA, if your not set up with CAD you can purchase an OS map in PDF, and then use a drawing program to scale that on. Measure the highway/drive width whatever to get the RPA reasonably accurate. You can also use that plan as a base for an AMS and TPP

 

I wouldn't provide an engineers report. The RPA and drive clash, cellweb is an accepted no-dig solution so there shouldn't be any need for another expert report - unless the planning department are just bloody awkward but if they are you just remind them about reasonableness.

 

I don't know how your LA works, mine normally sends out a pre-determination letter outlining the TOs comments/support or not and their concerns. So you've an opportunity to address issues or provide more information before determination. 

 

I'd avoid saying that you'd improve the rooting environment. It'll probably be conditioned and then the owner is committed to more costs. If the TO thinks that it's necessary for the trees health he can always say it's needed. The cellweb site has some information on it's use and successful tree retention recorded over a lot of years, maybe note that to suggest improvement isn't even considered necessary, unless you think that it is. In all probability the new drive with cell web will provide a better (more permeable) environment than the existing anyway.

 

Don't forget any grade level changes if the drive meets the footpath. Include how it will be dealt with in the AMS.

 

Regarding SUDs. I'd try to find other successful applications for replacement drives to see if reports were included in those applications. If they weren't don't bother. Again if needed they can always request them. Just be aware, if you're not aware that some LAs are so backlogged with planning apps that they wait until near the determination date and then request more info and then delay the determination (sneaky buggers)

 

The frustrating thing with planning is the bloody mindedness, requesting so much information that reporting costs almost as much as the final works on minor projects. If you're the only pro working for the applicant I'd state that due to the size you're not providing engineers reports, Suds and whatever is unreasonable. Make your case clear as to why you aren't providing numerous expert reports, at the outset. Don't let them run the game but demonstrate you've considered what they may want and have covered it sufficient detail yourself. They don't care what their demands mean to the applicants pocket, applicants hard earned.not their concern. 

 

I'll think of other things later and will probably add more.

 

 

 

 

 

I don’t have any interest, other than as a casual observer, of that actual set of circumstances Gary. Just saw it happening and thought back to your circumstances from a while back.