Pre-commencement AMS

[Ben90]

We've had a client approach us requesting an AMS and TPP as a pre-commencement condition. No tree survey, so nothing out of the ordinary so far 🤦‍♂️

 

The approved proposal is for a new garage which looks to encroach on a number of TPO trees. Obviously the condition states how the TPO trees are to be retained and protected from damage and so on. I haven't visited site yet but the approved garage is 2 metres from a mature tree on top of a bank. This bank will be dug down 800mm first so the levels match up.

 

My first thought is that we can only really go in as damage limitation - fence off the remaining ground and hope for the best.

 

My main concern with this is what if it transpires that one or more of these trees will lose so much of their RPA to new excavations they can't reasonably or safely be retained. Would its now-expedited removal fall into the realm of T&CP Regs 2012 Section 14.1(a)(vii) "so far as such work is necessary to implement a planning permission"? As such should we simply prepare the AMS and TPP showing removal of those trees considered necessary and 'hope' the LPA approve it? There must be a better approach, even at this late stage.

 

It'd be interesting to hear how other folks mediate between what looks like an unstoppable force and an immovable object.

 

Cheers

[daltontrees]

It's not quite what you are asking, but in that situation I'd want to see the consent and the conditions first-hand. It is often helpful to see the report of handling too for clues as to how the council sees the tree issues. As a consultant you need to ask the right questiosn and be careful not to be the whipping boy if it all goes horribly wrong.

 

Any tree works explicit in the application can be done without further consent, as long as there aren't conditions preventing it. Implicit tree works are a whole different business. It may be valid to say that although the application didn't state the removal of a tree, it is right in the middle of a proposed building so implicitly it has to go. The argument starts to lose water when it's not so clear-cut. And sometimes a 2D plan assumes a 3D solution but another 3D solution can protect a tree that otherwise might be lost.

 

Such published evidence as there is about the destabilising effect of removing roots close to the stem is that it only has a minor immediate effect on stability. Later it might, but not right away. That makes it difficult to justify the logic that root removal resulting from implementation of a consent means that removal of a tree is 'necessary'. Perrin v Northampton got quite deep into what is meant by 'necessary', and it's quite a strict test. An interesting read.

 

So I'd say you could present removal as an inevitable eventual requirement and put it to the Council, but be prepared for them to ask you to show that all other possibilities have been looked at and dismissed for good reasons.

 

I suspect tha tthe problem really is when Councils grant consents and try to protect trees as an afterthought. If there was not tree survey, the Council might have assessed the trees itself, so you can't quite assume they haven't been considered. As I said, the report of handling mught help. But it's generally always dismaying to have afterthought protection conditions that conflict with explicit or implicit tree works. Glasgow City Council near me here frequently asks for a tree survey as one of the conditions. Howe ridiculous is that?

[Ben90]

Thanks for your reply. I'll be sure to read over the delegated report as soon as I can, it may be that the TO had visited site and believed it could be done, as you say I'm looking at the 2D problem.

 

Also not wanting to be the whipping boy was the reason for this post!

 

Thanks for the pointer towards Perrin v Northampton. From my brief review of it I can see how that may apply here, however it would also take a bolder man than me to apply it in this instance!

 

Tree protection as an afterthought is all too common. I suspect one of the key causes that I see time and time again is applicants ticking the 'no' box regarding trees on/near the application area, with seemingly no checks at validation stage.

 

Tree survey as a pre-commencement? That's like sketching the stable after the horse has bolted!