Planning application & Arboricultural Method Statement

[Mick Dempsey]

17 minutes ago, Chris at eden said:

Its surprisingly rare. It does happen but most folk play ball. I worked as a planning TO for over 12 years and it hardly ever happened. Even when you turned around saying we need a survey and AIA but there is no TPO they usually just got one instead of felling the trees. 
 

Remember trees and landscape is a material consideration so if you fell all the trees there is nothing to prevent the LPA from asking for a mega landscape scheme to offset the loss and this will impact on layout. I know one LPA that asks for evidence that existing and proposed  trees will deliver 30% canopy cover for the site within 50 years.  That’s a lot easier if you keep the big trees and work around them. 
 

Maybe it happened a lot, but you never knew about it.

The trees were gone after all.

[john87]

27 minutes ago, Chris at eden said:

I know one LPA that asks for evidence that existing and proposed  trees will deliver 30% canopy cover for the site within 50 years.

Would they not lose every time if you appealed though as i would have thought that there is absolutely no basis in law for that??

 

john..

[Chris at eden]

27 minutes ago, Mick Dempsey said:

Maybe it happened a lot, but you never knew about it.

The trees were gone after all.

It’s standard practice to check aerial photos and compare now with previous tree cover. Plus, as a TO you get calls everyday once the chainsaws start up.  
 

[Chris at eden]

19 minutes ago, john87 said:

Would they not lose every time if you appealed though as i would have thought that there is absolutely no basis in law for that??

 

john..

It’s policy. It’s in their local plan which has been signed off by the cabinet I think. Plus S197 says that you should make provision for adequate tree planting via condition, that’s the law bit.  It doesn’t say how much.  The England tree strategy published 2021 aim to increase canopy cover, not as ambitious as 30% but its there. Climate change mitigation. It’s not like they have plucked it out of thin air with no justification. Their TO knows his stuff. He’s probably ahead of the game with the 30% target but that’s not a bad thing. 
 

I don’t think it’s a slam dunk that you would win the appeal and I have never met a developer that wants to go to appeal to avoid planting trees. They don’t want to be sitting around for best part of a year for the appeal decision with no guarantee they will win. 
 

 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

50 minutes ago, john87 said:

Would they not lose every time if you appealed though as i would have thought that there is absolutely no basis in law for that??

 

john..

Good FAQ section here:

 

Biodiversity net gain

WWW.LOCAL.GOV.UK

---

Advice and guidance for planners and councillors involved in planning on biodiversity net gain.

 

[daltontrees]

On 26/06/2022 at 11:02, Puffingbilly413 said:

 

Interesting take. I wouldn't be keen to alter what should be an objective report in order for it to say what the client wants it to say. Granted you work for the client but the first duty is to be objective surely. It's up to them whether they want to use the report.

I could have been clearer. Clause 5.4.3 of BS5837 says the AIA should show the trees to be removed. BUT it is not for the Arb to decide that, it is for the client to do in consitation with the designers and having regard to the arb evidence. It is almost never the job of the arb to justify removals, but the arb should provide all the data and evidence needed for the client to make informed decisions about this. Recommedations can be made, but the client doens't need to follow them.

 

It is therefore downright ridiculous for the situation ever to arise where the arb shows a tree as to be removed in the final report submitted to Planning unless the client has told him to do so. There is a clean break between the survey/constraints plan and the AIA/protection plan. In reality, people like me regularly do a  survey and TCP then the client says 'fine now here's the design that we've decided on, do an AIA'. That after all is what the AIA is for, it shows the effect of the selected design on the trees, sometimes meaning removal, sometimes pruning, sometimes protection. I usually tell the client what the consequences of the design are and give him a last opporotunity to adjust, then the AIA goes to print and to Planning. Too many arbs get sucked into justifying the removals, but it is not their job to do so, it's not necessary and it's rarely helpful if the evidence is already there in the survey report and schedule.

 

I work for many of the volume house builders, as well as for Councils and many others. If I just once submitted a report to Planning without client's prior approval, I'd get my arse kicked, and rightly so. I'd kick it myself if I could. The moment the report goes to Planning there is a possibility of approval with conditions that hold the client to the protection measures. Whereas a Council is unlikely to enforce removal of trees if the client changes his mind, it's  professionally  a sloppy situation to put the client in.

[daltontrees]

On 26/06/2022 at 11:10, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

It could just as easily be both since a tree survey for public safety reasons would record observations and it would be for the tree owner to establish their own tolerance to risk.

 

 

 

 

Agreed. Arbs recommend, clients decide. If they are involved, Planners take a view on that.

[daltontrees]

On 26/06/2022 at 11:06, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Quite right - whenever it is appropriate....  And it is the LA that determines what is / is not appropriate.  In this case, it appears, that what they have deemed appropriate [for the discharge of their duty under s197 in relation to this application] is the commission and provision of a professional report to provide information on existing tree(s) and the measures which may be required to protect them as a condition of granting planning consent.

 

Whether the report is VfM and / or represents the best interest of the client is between the client and the report author.  

 

I agree with you and john87 on this. There are a lot of people high up in the tree world going around stating that Councils are obliged to provide for tree planting and protection, but for their convenience they omit the 'wherever appropriate' bit. In effect the legislation is not there to create an obligation to plant or protect, it is there to create an obligation to use conditions to give effect to appropriate decisions to do so.

 

A very important distinction. Beware of deliberate or careless ignorance of it.

[daltontrees]

On 26/06/2022 at 11:14, Puffingbilly413 said:

Hmm still seems strange to me. You inspect the tree and make recommendations for works or not as appropriate. Would you really change a recommendation to fell a tree in your report because the client didn't want that in there?

Absolutely. It's the client's tree. The only person thart can make him fell it agaist his will is the Forestry Commission (sanitation felling) or a court of law (say, actionable nuisance).

[daltontrees]

On 26/06/2022 at 12:04, Chris at eden said:

Its surprisingly rare. It does happen but most folk play ball. I worked as a planning TO for over 12 years and it hardly ever happened. Even when you turned around saying we need a survey and AIA but there is no TPO they usually just got one instead of felling the trees. 
 

Remember trees and landscape is a material consideration so if you fell all the trees there is nothing to prevent the LPA from asking for a mega landscape scheme to offset the loss and this will impact on layout. I know one LPA that asks for evidence that existing and proposed  trees will deliver 30% canopy cover for the site within 50 years.  That’s a lot easier if you keep the big trees and work around them. 
 

Good point, well made.