felling prior to planning application

[daltontrees]

18 hours ago, Dendrophile said:

Hi all, 

 

I've just priced some 5837 reporting work but the potential client has asked whether he can just fell three trees on his property that would otherwise be effected by a building extension and not have to deal with the whole 5837 process. Assuming I am right in thinking that there is nothing to stop him doing this (no TPO, not of a size needing a felling license) I was just wondering how others have responded in similar situations. Obviously it's not an action I would advise him to take. 

 

Cheers

 

Rob

In this situation I would verbally advise potential client as a matter of professionalism that he is within his rights to pre-emptively fell (it's true, and no charge for this). I'd also offer as part of my commission to look at the development proposals to see if felling is likely to be needed and/or if existing trees are suitable for retention even without development plans and/or would enhance the value of the development if retained. A good client will take this, as it gives him an informed basis for pre-emptive felling. A bad one won't because he has other reasons for removal. If it's the latter, happy days I won't have to work with him.

[Jon Heuch]

22 hours ago, Dendrophile said:

I've just priced some 5837 reporting work but the potential client has asked whether he can just fell three trees on his property that would otherwise be effected by a building extension and not have to deal with the whole 5837 process. Assuming I am right in thinking that there is nothing to stop him doing this (no TPO, not of a size needing a felling license) I was just wondering how others have responded in similar situations. Obviously it's not an action I would advise him to take. 

So the client is faced with this choice:

 

i) uncertainty in submitting a planning application (TPO may be served & permission refused) + cost of tree survey/report.

ii) certainty in submitting a planning application (no trees, so no TPO) + cost of removing trees + no cost of tree survey/report.

 

It's a no brainer, isn't it, if the trees have to be removed for the proposed development to go ahead?

 

The only uncertainty is whether the tree work is unnecessary, because planning permission is not granted.

 

If it's an extension, then presuming it's a domestic garden, a felling licence will not be required, regardless of tree size.

 

It's a discussion I have from time to time, talking a potential client out of using my services as they have a far more obvious route than employing an arboricultural consultant.

 

Why would you not advise him to take this route? If you are acting on behalf of the client you are duty bound to advise him/her in a professional capacity, not as a tree hugger.

 

You would be in a much greater quandary if one or more of the trees is a veteran tree, or you regarded it as a veteran tree but there might be some debate over its status. You would then be in that ethical hole that government policy has created by supposedly "protecting" veteran trees, but in reality done nothing about it in terms of protecting veteran trees. If the veteran tree is left your client may be faced with planning refusal, if the veteran tree is removed pre-emptively, the veteran tree issue evaporates. That is a real challenge for the professional!

[Khriss]

Way uncertain from this post, possibly deliberate 🤔, you can have decent B n C trees, as possibly good boundary, shading trees or screening structures. Or is the client wanting everything  felled regardless as ' its in the  way' before constraints are placed. K

[daltontrees]

21 hours ago, Jon Heuch said:

Why would you not advise him to take this route? If you are acting on behalf of the client you are duty bound to advise him/her in a professional capacity, not as a tree hugger.

Big difference between advising him on strategy and advising on tree constraints. BS5837 is fairly clear that decisions on retention are for the designer, using the survey info and other criteria. I need to get paids a whole lot extra to advise on strategy, and I would only do it if I had already done (and been paid to do) the survey, because only then could I advise on whether the Council would resist (on a tree by tree basis) removals and/or trees could feasibly be retained.

[Boo Who?]

The ecological report will likely state that the site has been prepped for planning with habitats removed and as a result they will put additional constraints/mitigation in place to counter said loss of habitat.
This will seem overkill but they can only assume that it was valuable habitat that should have been retained, hence it’s preparatory removal.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

4 hours ago, Boo Who? said:

The ecological report will likely state that the site has been prepped for planning with habitats removed and as a result they will put additional constraints/mitigation in place to counter said loss of habitat.
This will seem overkill but they can only assume that it was valuable habitat that should have been retained, hence it’s preparatory removal.

Sounds like PD, unlikely to have an eco report. 
 

A bit off topic, but the number of planning apps that state “No, No” for trees and hedges when it should be “Yes” still staggers me. 
 

I even tried raising it as an issue with LPA once - distinct lack of interest frankly. 
 

Edit - Meant to say - conditions based on assumptions? That’d be fun to challenge. 

Edited August 11, 2021 by kevinjohnsonmbe

[donnk]

barren wasteland devoid of anything living is the ideal starting point for a planning application.

 

really f*cks off the planners as well which is a bonus.

[daltontrees]

2 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Edit - Meant to say - conditions based on assumptions? That’d be fun to challenge. 

Like shooting fish in a barrel.

[daltontrees]

2 hours ago, donnk said:

barren wasteland devoid of anything living is the ideal starting point for a planning application.

 

really f*cks off the planners as well which is a bonus.

But not the ideal starting point for a development site. Established trees give ready-made amenity which it has been demonstrated increase sales value of completed developments. And who would buy a house on a sterile site that cannot be gardened?

It's not that hard to get trees and development right. Pissing off planners for sport is only going to make it harder.

[donnk]

15 hours ago, daltontrees said:

But not the ideal starting point for a development site. Established trees give ready-made amenity which it has been demonstrated increase sales value of completed developments. And who would buy a house on a sterile site that cannot be gardened?

It's not that hard to get trees and development right. Pissing off planners for sport is only going to make it harder.

wrong unfortunately.

 

Your method cost money, delays and more legally binding  restrictions. Not to mention footings costs could be multiplied by a factor of 10 if they are have to piled due to the prescience of trees.

 

My method, none of that and if planting is desirable then it will be on the developers terms, timescale, and conditions.

 

Has to be this way unfortunately to get anything done.

Edited August 12, 2021 by donnk