BS5837 refusal

[Simeon]

Hi,

My local authority tree officer is threatening to refuse our planning application on the grounds that he doesn’t like the trees on site and wants them removed. These trees have been there for approximately 50 years, confer a maturity to the site and act as a bit of a landmark in an otherwise pretty bleak landscape. I will concede that they aren’t native, but they are in good health and I’d like them to be retained. Where do I stand??

[Mick Dempsey]

38 minutes ago, Simeon said:

Hi,

My local authority tree officer is threatening to refuse our planning application on the grounds that he doesn’t like the trees on site and wants them removed. These trees have been there for approximately 50 years, confer a maturity to the site and act as a bit of a landmark in an otherwise pretty bleak landscape. I will concede that they aren’t native, but they are in good health and I’d like them to be retained. Where do I stand??

More context please, pictures etc.

[Khriss]

Are we talking Leylandii here. By any chance?  🤔 K

[Simeon]

Maritime location, tourism business and Corsican pine. As I said not native, but in these times of climate change, and whole scale Ash removal, then can we afford to be picky? The expansion of the site is not a problem, his beef is purely the species of tree.

[Stubby]

23 minutes ago, Simeon said:

Maritime location, tourism business and Corsican pine. As I said not native, but in these times of climate change, and whole scale Ash removal, then can we afford to be picky? The expansion of the site is not a problem, his beef is purely the species of tree.

No red needle blight ?

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Have you had a 5837  AIA submission?

 

Just go all in and post the planning app No and LA so we can have a look at the documents/ comments. 
 

If the trees are not in conflict with the design proposals, can’t say I’ve ever heard of a circumstance where an applicant is obliged to remove trees that they don’t want to - quite odd. 
 

Which area??

[daltontrees]

Rarely it can be stated by Planning that a site cannot be developed because the tress will not allow for adequate daylight. In effect not forcing removal (the Council never has the power to do that) but saying if you want permission the trees have to go. Species would not be an issue, but evergreen could be because of winter daylighting.

[Jon Heuch]

Ultimately, the planning officer & the tree officer to a lesser extent will need to consider what might happen if the matter went to appeal; is their argument reasonable? does it carry any weight within the context of the planning priorities & policies? would an Inspector overturn the council's decision for refusal based on the tree officer's desire to remove trees? I think it likely. I would just stick to your guns and make sure that the trees are the only reason the council wishes to refuse the application.

 

Most planning officers would probably listen to the tree officer & then ignore them. Planning permission granted!

[Khriss]

Did the app doc get posted ?  K

[Simeon]

3 minutes ago, Jon Heuch said:

Ultimately, the planning officer & the tree officer to a lesser extent will need to consider what might happen if the matter went to appeal; is their argument reasonable? does it carry any weight within the context of the planning priorities & policies? would an Inspector overturn the council's decision for refusal based on the tree officer's desire to remove trees? I think it likely. I would just stick to your guns and make sure that the trees are the only reason the council wishes to refuse the application.

 

Most planning officers would probably listen to the tree officer & then ignore them. Planning permission granted!

That’s sound advice and I appreciate the confirmation, it’s pretty much the route we’re pursuing.