Penalties for ignoring RPA's?

[pie eater pete]

I see this time and again...new developments near to me are doing very similar.  

[daltontrees]

On 17/08/2022 at 21:24, Puffingbilly413 said:

My now far too cynical mind immediately comes to the conclusion that the contractors are well aware of the situation and what they can get away with.  Maybe a fine, maybe not.  But if a fine then just a cost of doing business.  See it all the time sadly.

That's pretty much it.

[daltontrees]

On 17/08/2022 at 20:49, StephenMews said:

Another part of this to consider, is the damage enough to now cause complete tree failure and damage the now being built properties... Possibly yes, extensive damage? unlikey more garden sheds/fences etc..

If I am correct in thinking the LA choose to TPO the tree and prevent any work/removal they could be liable for any damage as is was foreseeable and preventable.

 

I shall upload an image to help show the scenario 

Not so. LA liability is for damage that is foreseeable. If risk is foreseeable and is serious and urgent then the exemption should be used. If it's less urgent an application should be made. Only on refusal is there any argument of LA liability, and even then an appeal should be considered.

But if failure arises from instability due to unaothrised excavatiions, the LA could comple the developer to reisntate the ground to make the tree stable. In my experience tthe excavatiin of roots close to a tree will only create risk either immediately duel to lack of lateral support or slowly due to infection and decay. In your scenario I think it could be very hard to hold a LA responsible for short term failure which could be prevented. The LA might be in no rush to allow removal if the demise of the tree could take years and years to develop.

Much lesser works than removal shoudl be considered first.

[Engineeringalltheway]

Hi all 

 

I also need some advice on a similar topic- a planning permission has been granted for the structure to be built near a ash tree using piled solution- the floor level is approx 600mm lower then the rear garden, hence the ground must be lowered to achieve a level floor. The planning drawings show a level floor on plans and elevations which have been granted. The tree report states not to lower the ground. 
 

the contractor has dug down to the correct level to install the piled raft. The RPA witching the did is approx 8%, and only 3-4 roots were encountered. 
 

the conditions in the planning contradict each other - one condition states to follow the tree report which states do not lower ground level. And another states to match the approved drawing which clearly shows the the ground being lowered. 
 

as stated the contractor has already done the dig. I don’t think the tree will be affected as in my research  I have read maximum 20% root area can be damaged without damaging the tree, in this case it’s approx 8%.
 

I’m just not sure what the penalty is on a case like this, your help will be much appreciated 

[Kylus Sylvestris]

In light of the fact that UK LPA's have a Duty to make provision for the preservation of trees.... isn't it a shame that retained aged trees aren't TPO'd before planning consent is granted.

We've really got to pull our socks up. And perhaps start doing what is meaningful, rather than what is expedient.

DETAILS, DETAILS, DETAILS.

[Puffingbilly413]

19 hours ago, Engineeringalltheway said:

Hi all 

 

I also need some advice on a similar topic- a planning permission has been granted for the structure to be built near a ash tree using piled solution- the floor level is approx 600mm lower then the rear garden, hence the ground must be lowered to achieve a level floor. The planning drawings show a level floor on plans and elevations which have been granted. The tree report states not to lower the ground. 
 

the contractor has dug down to the correct level to install the piled raft. The RPA witching the did is approx 8%, and only 3-4 roots were encountered. 
 

the conditions in the planning contradict each other - one condition states to follow the tree report which states do not lower ground level. And another states to match the approved drawing which clearly shows the the ground being lowered. 
 

as stated the contractor has already done the dig. I don’t think the tree will be affected as in my research  I have read maximum 20% root area can be damaged without damaging the tree, in this case it’s approx 8%.
 

I’m just not sure what the penalty is on a case like this, your help will be much appreciated 

Hard to say what any penalties might be if the LPA has contradicted itself in the wording of the permission.

 

But the time to ask the question was probably some weeks ago...

[Paul Barton]

On 15/09/2023 at 21:25, Engineeringalltheway said:

the conditions in the planning contradict each other - one condition states to follow the tree report which states do not lower ground level. And another states to match the approved drawing which clearly shows the the ground being lowered. 
 

as stated the contractor has already done the dig. I don’t think the tree will be affected as in my research  I have read maximum 20% root area can be damaged without damaging the tree, in this case it’s approx 8%.
 

I’m just not sure what the penalty is on a case like this, your help will be much appreciated 

If the conditions contradict each other then they don't meet the five tests for planning conditions as set out in National Planning Policy, that conditions should be:

  1.Necessary

        2.Relevant to planning 

        3.Relevant to the development permitted

        4.Enforceable

        5.Precise

        6.Reasonable in all other respects

 

It would therefore, in theory at least, be impossible for the LPA to take enforcement action on the contractor. The conflict in conditions needs to be pointed out to the case officer asap!