felling prior to planning application

[doobin]

17 hours ago, daltontrees said:

who would buy a house on a sterile site that cannot be gardened?

Um… how about every single Barret, Persimmon and Taylor Wimpey customer ever? 🙄

[daltontrees]

2 hours ago, donnk said:

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.

Different experiences. I represent just about every volume house builder in the country and have a good constructive rapport with most of the TOs. Somehow we manage to get about 5,000 units a year squeezed in amongst the trees.

[daltontrees]

6 minutes ago, doobin said:

Um… how about every single Barret, Persimmon and Taylor Wimpey customer ever? 🙄

Not true, the Barratt box I am currently reluctantly calling home has at least 6 inches of soil on top of the rubble.

[donnk]

4 hours ago, daltontrees said:

Different experiences. I represent just about every volume house builder in the country and have a good constructive rapport with most of the TOs. Somehow we manage to get about 5,000 units a year squeezed in amongst the trees.

 

big sites can do what they like anyway, same as only 1 in 7 builds at large sites are ever checked by the in house building control.

 

For the normal joe you want zero on site that will cause you hassle and cost. That's just the reality of it. That way people, no offence, in your profession are not needed so it keeps the cost down.

 

 

[daltontrees]

12 minutes ago, donnk said:

 

big sites can do what they like anyway, same as only 1 in 7 builds at large sites are ever checked by the in house building control.

 

For the normal joe you want zero on site that will cause you hassle and cost. That's just the reality of it. That way people, no offence, in your profession are not needed so it keeps the cost down.

 

 

Maybe, but what a joyless, sterile, grim world that would be.

 

My fees add to cost but this is more than outweighed by the value that is added.

[donnk]

not saying the builder or owner shouldnt plant what they like, just saying taking the cost and council out of that process is a very wise move.

[Khriss]

And yet every major developer has trees in the images of their fresh new box.. Sorry house.. On their hoardings n press adverts. K

[Chris at eden]

On 11/08/2021 at 18:02, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

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. 

I’ve raised it dozens of times while working for the LPA.  It’s not the LPA that is the main problem. It’s the applicants and agents telling lies on the forms.  They then moan when they get caught out and their app runs well over the 8 weeks while waiting on info. You can probably argue that the validation officer should pick it up but equally they shouldn’t have to. 
 

Slightly different situation. I returned a TPO app today as invalid is it came in dated beginning of July by the tree consultant. He would be moaning in a couple of weeks that it is overdue. 
 

You seem to have it in for LPA TOs Kev and I agree some are pretty useless. But a large percentage of consultants are no better.  Good and bad on both sides as far as I can see. 
 

 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

1 hour ago, Chris at eden said:

I’ve raised it dozens of times while working for the LPA.  It’s not the LPA that is the main problem. It’s the applicants and agents telling lies on the forms.  They then moan when they get caught out and their app runs well over the 8 weeks while waiting on info. You can probably argue that the validation officer should pick it up but equally they shouldn’t have to. 
 

Slightly different situation. I returned a TPO app today as invalid is it came in dated beginning of July by the tree consultant. He would be moaning in a couple of weeks that it is overdue. 
 

You seem to have it in for LPA TOs Kev and I agree some are pretty useless. But a large percentage of consultants are no better.  Good and bad on both sides as far as I can see. 
 

 

I don’t Chris, it’s just a case that I only ‘talk’ about the bad experiences. It might give a certain ‘weighted’ impression but all anyone should hope for is efficiency and consistency. It’s just not human nature to comment when something happens as it should, whereas it is human nature to harp on when it doesn’t. 

I guess I could say I have 80% positive 20% negative experiences with LA - but that’s not all TO. 
 

It was deputy head of county planning that mugged of the scenario with application forms. No way that’s TO fault, they are not even being consulted on app’s that say “No,No.”. I’ve no doubt at all that if they were they’d be all over it. It’s a ‘system’ weakness and, in my experience, there was nobody willing to engage.  Lead TO pretty much said it was a “planning” problem, planning weren’t interested. 
 

That was 1 (small) parish in 1 county where I found about a dozen app’s over 18 months that were factually wrong - multiply that up nationally and the numbers get a bit worrying. 
 

edit - just thinking on, and reflecting on today’s new task - I’m sure it also has a fair bit to do with taking on the ‘trickier’ scenarios that lend them selves more to interpretation rather than application. In my own defence, I don’t think I moan anything like as much as my architect mates do about planners 🤪
 

 

Edited August 12, 2021 by kevinjohnsonmbe

[Puffingbilly413]

3 hours ago, daltontrees said:

Maybe, but what a joyless, sterile, grim world that would be.

 

My fees add to cost but this is more than outweighed by the value that is added.

I do agree with you Jules in broad principle but didn't you say earlier you were living in a Barrat box with a garden with 6" of topsoil over rubble?  Joyless, sterile and grim don't sound bad adjectives to describe such a predicament!