Planning application & Arboricultural Method Statement

[Puffingbilly413]

36 minutes ago, MaxD54 said:

 

This is the issue I have, what gives the council the right to do this? How are they allowed to suddenly declare that all trees are to be considered TPO'd until the building work is complete? Surely, the Council also have to follow the law, and it feels like an overzealous council officer is currently operating outside the legal framework they have been given.

Planning authorities have a statutory duty to take into account the protection of trees likely to be affected by building works requiring planning consent.

 

Your situation is completely standard.

 

It's true that you could have felled any/all of your trees prior to applying for planning permission as they were not otherwise protected. 

 

However now that the council has granted permission with conditions, those conditions exist and have to be followed (legally speaking that is). I agree that this does seem strange - you've gone about things the 'right' way and now have to jump through some expensive hoops as a result. But that is how it is.

 

As has been said, you only need to comply with the tree protection measures they agree on but you don't have to fell any trees you wish to retain just because your tree report recommends it. That said, if said trees have been inspected by an arb consultant and recommended for felling, then there will be a concrete reason for it.

 

The Arb Association has a brief guide to all things tree protection, including planning conditions:

 

Arboricultural Association - A brief guide to legislation for trees

WWW.TREES.ORG.UK

---

A range of tree related help and advice for members of the public...

Oh - councils often fail to remove conditions after a build has been finished. Do make sure you chase them to do so at the end.

[Puffingbilly413]

51 minutes ago, john87 said:

Yes, and then all extension building would cease, permanently.. If it were me i would just cut the things down and worry about it later..

 

john..

He would be worrying about it a great deal I would suggest. The expense involved in (potentially) being taken to court for breaching the planning conditions by removing the trees is unlikely to go unnoticed.

[Mick Dempsey]

Seems to me that this encourages people to fell trees as a safety measure BEFORE putting in planning.

 

 

[Stubby]

Its a case of coulda , shoulda innit ?  Been here before but with some one who was a bit aware .  Large nursery with big glass houses . Some trees at the end of one row of glass . No TPOs . Felled the lot then got permission to sell the end plot for development .  All went ahead with no probs as far as I know . Houses there now anyway .

[Joe Newton]

6 minutes ago, Mick Dempsey said:

Seems to me that this encourages people to fell trees as a safety measure BEFORE putting in planning.

 

 

Absolutely. I can totally see why they would. 

 

A genuinely interesting thread for a change!

[Mesterh]

Why would you hand dig for foundations? It's not like you are threading a pipe or cable between the roots. Any roots would be encased in concrete. 

Maybe it's an accepted practice but it sounds like a waste of time and a lot of money to me.

 

I hope you get it sorted and please update the thread as others have said it is an interesting one.

 

 

[Stubby]

5 minutes ago, Mesterh said:

 

 

I hope you get it sorted and please update the thread as others have said it is an interesting one.

 

 

Edge of my seat !

[Mesterh]

Well I wouldn't say that but imo it's better reading than a thread about which is the best foot spa.

[MaxD54]

Will make sure to update as I am progressing this through. Thanks to everyone who contributed. Super helpful.

[Puffingbilly413]

2 hours ago, Mick Dempsey said:

Seems to me that this encourages people to fell trees as a safety measure BEFORE putting in planning.

 

 

It does Mick you're right. Did some work for a guy recently who did exactly that. Can't see the situation changing though unless there is a change in the law that makes all trees above a certain DBH protected. But that would be impossible to administer so won't happen.

 

That said, in Scotland the legislation has been amended so that it is automatically an offence to fell a tree unless an exemption is in place. In practice nothing has changed because the exemptions are (pretty much) the same as before and as they still are elsewhere in the UK.

 

What is different is that the fact that there are exemptions now comes after the big stick wording of 'offence' whereas it used to be the other way round IE you can fell trees in certain circumstances without needing permission but otherwise you'd be committing an offence. Seems like nothing really but as most folk only read the first few lines of anything it does have an impact I reckon.