Planning application & Arboricultural Method Statement

[Puffingbilly413]

1 hour ago, daltontrees said:

The recommendation should not be made unless the tree is potentially affected by the development. And the recommendation should not appear in the final report unless and until the client wants it to be.

 

2 hours ago, daltontrees said:

The recommendation should not be made unless the tree is potentially affected by the development. And the recommendation should not appear in the final report unless and until the client wants it to be.

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.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

20 minutes ago, john87 said:

Hmmm, not so sure...

 

197 Planning permission to include appropriate provision for preservation and planting of trees.

 

It shall be the duty of the local planning authority—

 

(a)to ensure, whenever it is appropriate, [Note the magic word "appropriate]that in granting planning permission for any development adequate provision is made, by the imposition of conditions, for the preservation or planting of trees; and

 

(b)to make such orders under section 198 as appear to the authority to be necessary in connection with the grant of such permission, whether for giving effect to such conditions or otherwise.. [S198 is the bit that empowers them to make a TPO if as it says above it; "appear to the authority to be necessary"

 

They have not done this, they have looked at the case in question and obviously decided that it is NOT neccessary to impose TPO's or they would have done so..

 

Cut the trees down, go back to the council and say; "Hey, that report you wanted, you do not need one now as i have just cut the trees down"

 

john..

 

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.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Puffingbilly413]

2 hours ago, daltontrees said:

No consultant should state that a tree is to be removed without the client's approval.

Is this for tree reports in general or 5837 ones specifically?

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Just now, Puffingbilly413 said:

Is this for tree reports in general or 5837 ones specifically?

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.

 

 

 

 

[Puffingbilly413]

1 minute ago, 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.

 

 

 

 

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?

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Just now, 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?

I think we're at slightly cross purposes and merging subjects which probably doesn't help.

 

Maybe the Elf & Safety nazi is a useful comparison...

 

Instead of seeking the barriers and opportunities to say "no," a sustainable (I mean financially as distinctly different from the academic sense) tree report service should present the options and opportunities to achieve the client aim whilst maximising protection / retention of suitable and appropriate arb assets. 

 

If an overpriced report provides a whole host of further problems and associated expense rather than options and savings (which is, I think, what is being intimated here) the person providing that service will not be likely to gain repeat business nor recommendation - hence unsustainable.

[Chris at eden]

7 minutes ago, 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.

 

 

 

 

And make recommendations.  The risk assessment is the bit where the client gets to decide on risk tolerance.  If my opinion is that the tree needs to be felled that is what I am going to say. If the client asked I may give a second recommendation and evaluate both but I would still say if felling is my preferred option.
 

While expert advisors duty is to their client all of these reports have the potential to end up in court at which point you become an expert witness and your duty is to the court.  I wouldn’t much fancy saying I didn’t recommend felling as the client asked me not to!   Or even worse, I did but the client asked me to take it out. 
 

With impact assessments I am always objective. I don’t say there is no impact if there clearly is, I identify it and look at mitigation.  It’s not rocket science. 
 

[Chris at eden]

12 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

I think we're at slightly cross purposes and merging subjects which probably doesn't help.

 

Maybe the Elf & Safety nazi is a useful comparison...

 

Instead of seeking the barriers and opportunities to say "no," a sustainable (I mean financially as distinctly different from the academic sense) tree report service should present the options and opportunities to achieve the client aim whilst maximising protection / retention of suitable and appropriate arb assets. 

 

If an overpriced report provides a whole host of further problems and associated expense rather than options and savings (which is, I think, what is being intimated here) the person providing that service will not be likely to gain repeat business nor recommendation - hence unsustainable.

This I agree with, fix problems, not pretend they don’t exist.  
 

[Chris at eden]

3 hours ago, daltontrees said:

Yoo were charged £2500 for that? It's the sort of thing I do routinely for £350. Only better.

I am guessing he used one of the big multi dis companies. I know a lad who used to work for one of the big players.  Said they were charging £2,000 for a survey and TCP with about 8 trees. Mental. 

Edited June 26, 2022 by Chris at eden

[Chris at eden]

18 hours ago, Mick Dempsey said:

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

 

 

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.