Council tree officer ignoring trees in TPO

[Khriss]

Was gonna point that out Kev, so thankyou ( odd but true, possibly hang over post war intiative to accelerate rebuilding) if i lived near that plot i would have been more active in its use and management, K

[Khriss]

( wouldn't have just been planting onions neither) 

[Chris at eden]

1 hour ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Mad but entirely accurate. 
 

You don’t necessarily have to own the land to submit (and potentially gain) a planning consent. 

You could get a consent on land not in your ownership. 
 

Planning and ownership are separate issues. 

 

Yes I know. I’ve worked in a planning department for more than 10 years.   I think it’s wrong in this situation. Applying to build on a piece of land you don’t yet own with a view to buying it is one thing. But, applying to build an extension the crosses your boundary into next doors garden is ridiculous.  They rather have to involve a solicitor to prevent it.  

[Chris at eden]

1 hour ago, Khriss said:

Was gonna point that out Kev, so thankyou 

No need to point it out mate as that is what I was saying.   I just think it is bonkers. 

[Chris at eden]

12 hours ago, Khriss said:

@Chris at eden  after the Sheffield STAG and HS2 activists, i think 

i am being conservative in my comments here. K

Not sure what you mean. Apologies if I caused offence. Not my intention. I just don’t think the kids on Facebook is a good approach. I worked in a planning department for a long time and it’s the kind of stuff you hear all the time. I’m calling the newspaper, I’m putting it on Facebook. I pay your wages.  
 

I've had lengthy meetings with tree owners saying they can’t fell trees but advising them in detail to get a consultant and go for an appeal. They would write to the MP complaining instead. I’d tell the MP they have never applied or appealed.  The Mp would tell them to follow the process. They then slag the MP off.  There is a system to follow with planning and you can’t really get around it. 
 

[Chris at eden]

25 minutes ago, Chris at eden said:

Yes I know. I’ve worked in a planning department for more than 10 years.   I think it’s wrong in this situation. Applying to build on a piece of land you don’t yet own with a view to buying it is one thing. But, applying to build an extension the crosses your boundary into next doors garden is ridiculous.  They rather have to involve a solicitor to prevent it.  

By the way. It was refused in the end. The neighbour objected so it was refused due to the negative impact on the neighbours land. Which was kind of what I was getting at. 

[Khriss]

No no, @chris at eden, i meant the opposition to such development can involve such, but a better approach is good field diaries, trap cameras to log badger activity, walking night surveys on bat foraging or roosting and involving local schools in nature visits to keep a presence on the site. Which often garners faster support if a planning proposal goes in  (  wine n netflix stopped play  ☺️)  K

[richyrich]

On 28/05/2021 at 16:28, ArthurJob said:

Hi all,

 

I'm currently contesting a planning application and would like some help please.

The land subject to the application has a number of trees on it that were planted as part of an urban forestry scheme 20 years ago. The Silver Birches are far taller than other species as expected, around 10 metres or so but there are others such as Oak, Ash and Alder that range from a metre or so to about 5 metres as expected for the length of time. Some are saplings that have propagated since the TPO was applied 10 years ago. The TPO is a woodland one that covers the whole area. A tree report was done which said there were no trees present as they were under a certain diameter trunk and therefore easily replaceable and low value.

From what I understand being a woodland TPO all trees should be acknowledged regardless of size and age etc. The local council tree officer goes with the tree report and says there are no trees there at all and saplings are low value and easily replaced. Shouldn't the presence and location of the trees be recognised and mapped as under the TPO they are to be replaced if lost if the application goes ahead? None of them are showing on any of the plans at all so can't see them being retained or replaced. A tree report for the same site for an application made in 2017 shows the presence of the Birch trees in respect of the new house locations.

 

What are your views? If it is a woodland TPO fully covering the area should it not be the tree officers responsibility to identify and map all trees present?

Maybe the tree officer is mates with the applicant? If the area is TPO'd then i agree with what you say. Obviously i'm not the expert here which is why i suggested contacting district councillors to ask for assistance. Planning officers can just manipulate policies to suit their agenda. However maybe they will put it down for refusal before planning committee.

[richyrich]

On 28/05/2021 at 18:18, ArthurJob said:

Thanks Chris, I tried to measure the bigger trees and they were about 15cm in diameter. It was done on a visual amenity basis to protect the Urban forest. I can see what you mean about it being a bit disjointed in intention. The TPO was applied by a previous officer who made a record when small saplings of less than a few metres in height got damaged when they were doing digging there prior to the application. He actually notified them of the TPO as well. It just seems like the new tree officer is completely disinterested. When I said there were some young trees and saplings of up to around 5 metres he practically laughed it off saying no-one would care but initially dismissed the idea there were any trees there at all. If counting of any size there would probably be about 15-20 or so there in total.

Have you a copy of the original TPO?

[daltontrees]

On 29/05/2021 at 19:42, Chris at eden said:

 If the trees are less than 150mm they are automatically Cat C. Low quality. Should not be used to prevent development as they are easily replaced.

Important clarification. BS5837 says less than a150mm AND young. Some species at that diameter could not possibly be classified as young. Hawethorn for example. I'd also hesitate to call a 150 birch 'young', they usually fit better into the 'semi-mature' or even 'early mature' lifestage.

If this is a woodland TPO, surely the only test for retention v loss is importance for the amenity of the area? Only if the TPO is to be disregarded as a material consideration should the merit of individual tree be looked at in the context of a design proposal.