Dropped kerb planning rejected due to RPA

[Gajendra]

We just bought a property in Sutton and it does not currently have a driveway. I applied for initial assessment for a dropped kerb with Sutton council but two days later I got email to informed me my application has been rejected due to two trees on public pavement and RPA (12 times) calculations overlapping. I am really confused as both trees are not directly outside my property and my neighbour who has one of the tree outside his house already have a dropped kerb. Is there anything can be done to install the dropped kerb and not harm the trees? Any guidance would be great thanks 🙏

[Mick Dempsey]

Can you put up a few photos? Usually creates a bit more interest.

Edited December 13, 2021 by Mick Dempsey

[Gajendra]

24 minutes ago, Mick Dempsey said:

Can you put up a few photos? Usually creates a bit more interest.

 

[Mick Dempsey]

Ah yes, I can understand your confusion.

 

[petercb]

Phone them up and talk to them we had a refusal and when we talked to them it turned out assessor had checked wrong property.  

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Interesting that you have referred to an “initial assessment” and an “application” being rejected. 
 

Maybe we just need to get the terms ironed out. 
 

Is it like a pro-forma or pre-app advice that you have submitted or was it a planning app?

 

Important because a planning app (if valid) ought not to be ‘rejected’ (it might be refused) but only after due process.  
 

Now the reason the scenario you present is ‘interesting’ is that it would seem potentially short sighted and counter productive of LA to simply refuse the drop curb aspiration ‘because there are 2 trees there.’

 

It would not be inconceivable to actually improve the rooting environment for said trees as a consequence of granting a drop curb consent. 
 

Early indication seems to be you might have encountered a “computer says no” type and it would be worth going around them. 

[spudulike]

It is possible your neighbour didn't get planning permission to do his...stranger things have happened and some think planning for tree work etc somehow doesn't apply to them....or is it just round here

Did you send pics to the planning department? They may have just got the wrong idea or just can't be arsed to look at the job in detail. If your neighbour has done his with planning, a precedence has been set and that usually means you should get planning permission.

A polite appeal with images of the area and a plan drawn out with the positioning of drives, boundary and trees may help them rationalize.

[petercb]

Out of Interest I googled Sutton's policy on trees

 

f) Trees – Highway trees will not be removed to allow a vehicle crossover. If there is conflict with an established street tree on the public highway, a vehicle crossing cannot be constructed within the root protection area (RPA) of the tree in accordance with British Standards (currently BS 5837:2012). As a guide, for a tree with a single stem, the RPA is calculated as 12 times the stem diameter, measured at a height of 1.5m above the ground level as shown in Figures 9 and 9a, below. (This does not apply to trees on private land). Additionally, no crossover will be permitted within a distance of 1metre from the trunk of a tree. Note that if the assessing officer has concerns about conflict with the presence of roots within 300mm of the ground surface of a tree, roadside shrubbery, or planter, an inspection trench may need to be dug to investigate further. This will be at the applicant’s expense and is non-refundable.

[Gajendra]

1 hour ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Interesting that you have referred to an “initial assessment” and an “application” being rejected. 
 

Maybe we just need to get the terms ironed out. 
 

Is it like a pro-forma or pre-app advice that you have submitted or was it a planning app?

 

Important because a planning app (if valid) ought not to be ‘rejected’ (it might be refused) but only after due process.  
 

Now the reason the scenario you present is ‘interesting’ is that it would seem potentially short sighted and counter productive of LA to simply refuse the drop curb aspiration ‘because there are 2 trees there.’

 

It would not be inconceivable to actually improve the rooting environment for said trees as a consequence of granting a drop curb consent. 
 

Early indication seems to be you might have encountered a “computer says no” type and it would be worth going around them. 

Thanks Kevin, it was application for dropped kerb site survey to Sutton council highway agency. I think someone came and marked the pavement with pink spray with some numbers. Here is the exact words from the email.

 

"As per to minimum standard of section 2f of the current policy.
f) Trees – Highway trees will not be removed to allow a vehicle crossover. If there
is conflict with an established street tree on the public highway, a vehicle crossing
cannot be constructed within the root protection area (RPA) of the tree in accordance
with British Standards (currently BS 5837:2012). As a guide, for a tree with a single
stem, the RPA is calculated as 12 times the stem diameter, measured at a height
of 1.5m above the ground level.
.
Please note I did measure the trees RPA,
Left side tree RPA 12 x 0.7 = 8.4m
Right side tree RPA 12 x 0.33 =3.96m
The trees RPA over laps one another . I do recognize that there may be crossovers
down your road that are close to the trees but these would have been constructed
before the current vehicle crossover policy was put in place. 

 

[Khriss]

Thats all very well and good - but loads of dropped crossings near base of tree here, one with the tree left in place after, and white lined 🙄 will try n dig pic out. K