Planning application & Arboricultural Method Statement

[MaxD54]

Hello everyone, given I have been looking on the web for answers for days unsuccessfully, I thought I'd try my luck here.

 

We are building an extension at the back of our house into our garden. After many back and forth, the council finally gave us approval if the following condition is met:

--------

Prior to the commencement of the development an arboricultural tree report and tree

protection plan shall be submitted through the submission of an application of approval of details

to the Local Planning Authority. The details submitted should be in accordance with

BS5837:2012.

Reason: To safeguard existing trees on site and trees at neighbouring sites

Reason for pre-commencement condition: These impacts can arise at any time

--------

 

Rather happy about this outcome, we went ahead and hired a company to produce a Arboricultural Method Statement. First surprise was the cost, I was expecting £500, ended up paying £2,500 but I digress slightly... 

 

The massive surprise was the amount of work the report is saying we have to do prior to the construction work commencing, things such as:

- Cutting down 3 trees, one of them is fine as it is close to the new foundation, but the others are at the back of our garden, 20 meters away from the site!

- Demolition and excavation needs to be supervised by an arboricultural consultant.

- Ground boarding needs to be provided

- Protective Fencing need to be installed

 

Not only all of this seem super excessive (and costly!), but more importantly, I am not interested in implementing all of this, I am happy to take a risk and potentially damage some of the trees in my garden. None of them being under Tree Protection Order by the way. The trees from the neighbours are far from the sites so nothing to worry about on this front.

 

My questions are:

- Am I being the victim of the company I hired for the AMS and they are trying to upsell me more services down the line? 

- Do I have to follow these recommendations to the letter? Or they are just recommendations  and I am free to ignore them? Note the report is phrased in such a way that I am not allowed to commence the work if their instructions are not followed.

 

(edit) I forgot to add I had a conversation with a representative in the company that produced the AMS and they mentioned that although none of my trees are under Tree Protection Order, the fact I am now going through planning application, it's apparently the same as if they were all under TPO...which means we have to comply with everything in the report. I have to admit something does not quite sound right to me....

Edited June 24, 2022 by MaxD54
Acronym error

[monkeybusiness]

Have you submitted the AMS to the council yet?

[Doug Tait]

I've no idea if the cost is excessive but what you say the report recommends sounds reasonable enough to me.

Can't comment on the reasons for Tree removal, but the other stuff I'd have expected. Everywhere I go I see trees damaged by builders, usually they have no regard for trees.

 

The fencing protects the tree/root system by stopping them hitting it with machinery or storing supplies in a sensitive position. The boarding will spread the weight of any traffic over the root system and lessen the chance of compaction of the roots. The Arb Consultant supervision of demolition and foundations seems reasonable too, they want to be sure that their recommendations are followed correctly.

 

I don't imagine it matters how "interested" you are in complying with the report if it's a condition of your planning permission, but be aware that if the Council get the feeling that you aren't being up front about this they could decide to make things a lot less favourable than it sounds currently. 

[Joe Newton]

I'm by no means an expert on the subject. I'm surprised you had to go to the extent of an arb survey for trees that weren't protected by a tpo or CA.

 

It wouldn't be the first time planning officers have acted outside their remit.

 

If they aren't protected you can basically do what you like to them  whether it's felling them to make way for your extension, or simply by ruining them with the proposed works. 

 

I think you need a second opinion, preferably by a qualified surveyor with no conflict of interest. 

[MaxD54]

@monkeybusiness, AMS not yet submitted to the council. I am trying to get educated on the topic before I do so.

 

@Doug Tait, I somewhat naively walked into this thinking, my house, my land, my trees (no protection area + no TPOs) therefore I get to decide how (and if) I want to take care of them. The council wanting to check I am not going to damage surrounding trees that I don't own, it's fine, but being forced to abide by a report that forces me to take care of MY OWN trees seems wrong. 

 

@Joe Newton, we are on the same page, it's exactly what I am thinking. Who do you think I should turn to get a second opinion ?

[monkeybusiness]

1 minute ago, Joe Newton said:

I'm by no means an expert on the subject. I'm surprised you had to go to the extent of an arb survey for trees that weren't protected by a tpo or CA.

 

It wouldn't be the first time planning officers have acted outside their remit.

 

If they aren't protected you can basically do what you like to them  whether it's felling them to make way for your extension, or simply by ruining them with the proposed works. 

 

I think you need a second opinion, preferably by a qualified surveyor with no conflict of interest. 

Not true - the planning permission is conditional of the tree report, and the report/method statement that is accepted by the planning department must subsequently be followed until the building is completed and signed off (at which point you can fell all of the trees you’ve protected throughout the development…) 

To the OP - if the planners have agreed to your report and tpp you will need to follow it. You could arguably leave in the trees that are 20m away from the development but you definitely can’t damage trees that are assigned protection without risking being forced to replace/replant etc at considerable cost.

If you don’t want the arboriculturalist on site then that’s upto you - just take plenty of pics to prove you followed the method statement. 

[monkeybusiness]

Just seen that you haven’t yet submitted the report - talk to the arboriculturalist about your concerns and see what they can amend. Removing the distant trees may be unnecessary. Tree protection isn’t though - you won’t be able to dodge that one. 
In future, remove any contentious trees before submitting your planning application………

[MaxD54]

4 minutes ago, monkeybusiness said:

If you don’t want the arboriculturalist on site then that’s upto you - just take plenty of pics to prove you followed the method statement. 

You mean, things like supervised excavation don't need to be done by a professional/arboriculturist? Reports says: "

All excavations within and immediately adjacent to RPAs are to be undertaken under direct on-site arboricultural supervision"

 

Noted about talking to the arboriculturalist. Will give it a go. Thx for the suggestion.

[Joe Newton]

11 minutes ago, monkeybusiness said:

Not true - the planning permission is conditional of the tree report, and the report/method statement that is accepted by the planning department must subsequently be followed until the building is completed and signed off (at which point you can fell all of the trees you’ve protected throughout the development…) 

To the OP - if the planners have agreed to your report and tpp you will need to follow it. You could arguably leave in the trees that are 20m away from the development but you definitely can’t damage trees that are assigned protection without risking being forced to replace/replant etc at considerable cost.

If you don’t want the arboriculturalist on site then that’s upto you - just take plenty of pics to prove you followed the method statement. 

Like I said, I'm far from an expert on the matter.

 

The OP has stated there are no TPOs on the trees affected. So he can do anything with them without the involvement of the LA. He could top, fell or even several the roots lawfully if he so chose, but now they're planning permission in place he has to jump through these hoops? It doesn't make sense.

 

To the OP, might well be more cost effective to remove the nearest tree prior to submitting anything more to the council.

 

Could you perhaps post photos of the trees to give us an idea?

[Mesterh]

What was the reason given for felling the trees 20M away?

 

I suppose the la are looking after the interests of yours and your neighbors trees but I doubt that you need to adhere to the protection of your trees if you don't want to.