Planning conditions and retention of trees

[swinny]

Just wanting to pick some brains if possible please. 

 

Got a job to do to remove some trees on a property. Checked with council, no tpo or con area happy days but they say may be planning conditions attached. I asked them for more information but they've gone quiet on me. 

 

Anyhow, old house was demolished, mew house built nearly 4 years ago. Checked on planning and it says "other issues" trees to be retained and protected  ... no mention of timescales etc  (is it possible trees should have been tpod but council potentially caught with trousers down?)

 

Then in another section describes tree protection fencing to British standards etc.... ( is British standards applied to all sites where trees are even when not protected in any way via the council?)

 

Trying to see where I stand really. Plannings done with, house is built and lived in. Recent checking in with the council reveals no tpo or con area..... why do they have to say planning conditions to mucky the water and then not give any more info on the subject!

 

What do people think? Highly unlikely likely they would protect said trees as not good specimens by far! One large tree is to be retained and selective reduction so not mass felling everything.

 

Cheers 🍻 

Edited March 31, 2023 by swinny

[Dan Maynard]

I believe planning conditions are mainly intended to protect the trees from the builders during the development, but a planning condition continues to exist until it is "discharged".

 

One of the options on planning portal is applying to discharge a condition, seems like another way for them to take a few quid off you but I think that would finish the protection.

 

Be great to hear from someone more knowledgeable if there is a default time of expiry in the case that it's not stipulated in the condition.

[swinny]

24 minutes ago, Dan Maynard said:

I believe planning conditions are mainly intended to protect the trees from the builders during the development, but a planning condition continues to exist until it is "discharged".

 

One of the options on planning portal is applying to discharge a condition, seems like another way for them to take a few quid off you but I think that would finish the protection.

 

Be great to hear from someone more knowledgeable if there is a default time of expiry in the case that it's not stipulated in the condition.

I'm sure I read the planning in 2019 and discharged in 2021 I will look again

 

That said I have another issue with a site where a group of lawson cypress are under planning conditions 'in perpetuity' 

 

😆  these must be the first trees that are going to live forever

[Excels1or]

Is the planning documents headed "Town and planning act 1947"?

[swinny]

3 hours ago, Excels1or said:

Is the planning documents headed "Town and planning act 1947"?

Planning act 1990

[woody paul]

I had a site which had been passed by planing to be built on and buildings altered, which was in conservation area owner then wanted 2 big conifers down so looked at architect plan and trees in question were not reported on. So put application to remove both and tree officer got back with a request for pictures and then hap no problem with removal. 

If you can check if trees were in landscape report on planning application or not if not how for it. 

[Kylus Sylvestris]

Planning consents typically come with any number of useless conditions. Often landscaping or tree issues include nonsense like "all new planting shall be maintained for a period of 5 years..."

I don't know the particulars but if the LPA wanted to secure the tree long-term they could have served a TPO in the last four years?

In any case, a planning condition MUST pass ALL six tests, whereby the condition is:

(i) necessary  
(ii) relevant to planning
(iii) relevant to the development permitted
(iv) enforceable
(v) precise  
(vi) reasonable in all other aspects

It's all about the wording of the condition. In your case ...does the condition pass (iv) (v), or (vi)???

Its probably just some self-flagellating bureaucrat, who may technically be correct. But if they haven't provided any details, and the trees aren't otherwise protected, I'd check the planning consent against the above... and crack on!

[daltontrees]

On 31/03/2023 at 18:52, swinny said:

I'm sure I read the planning in 2019 and discharged in 2021 I will look again

 

That said I have another issue with a site where a group of lawson cypress are under planning conditions 'in perpetuity' 

 

😆  these must be the first trees that are going to live forever

That is not a valid copndition. Government guidance is clear that conditions should not be used to protect trees beyond the development period. It says that that is the job of TPOs.

[daltontrees]

10 hours ago, Kylus Sylvestris said:

Planning consents typically come with any number of useless conditions. Often landscaping or tree issues include nonsense like "all new planting shall be maintained for a period of 5 years..."

I don't know the particulars but if the LPA wanted to secure the tree long-term they could have served a TPO in the last four years?

In any case, a planning condition MUST pass ALL six tests, whereby the condition is:

(i) necessary  
(ii) relevant to planning
(iii) relevant to the development permitted
(iv) enforceable
(v) precise  
(vi) reasonable in all other aspects

It's all about the wording of the condition. In your case ...does the condition pass (iv) (v), or (vi)???

Its probably just some self-flagellating bureaucrat, who may technically be correct. But if they haven't provided any details, and the trees aren't otherwise protected, I'd check the planning consent against the above... and crack on!

Quire right about the tests, but unfortunately those who are jittery about these things can't safely ignore the conditions if they don't meet the tests. Strictly speaking the thing to do would be to appeal the condition on the basis that it is unreasonable or unnecessary, but of course the other option which the less jittery will happily take is to ignore the conditions on the basis that they are probably unenforceable. Either way, the sort of bullshit conditions that Councils commonly insert are tiresome and all too often don't achieve any meaningful results.

[swinny]

40 minutes ago, daltontrees said:

That is not a valid copndition. Government guidance is clear that conditions should not be used to protect trees beyond the development period. It says that that is the job of TPOs.

Thank you.  As I couldn't see a date on conditions and no tpo no con area I'd like to go and crak on and fell the ugly ducklings in next couple of weeks. Still a nice oak to keep, strip ivy and selective reduce 

 

Cheers Chris