bs 5837 fines

[Bundle 2]

A question to those of you who consult and or are TO's with some experience of planning and in particular with respect to trees and planning constraint orders....

How often will you reckon to see planning consented and a TPO revoked into the bargain to make way for the development?

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

A question to those of you who consult and or are TO's with some experience of planning and in particular with respect to trees and planning constraint orders....

How often will you reckon to see planning consented and a TPO revoked into the bargain to make way for the development?

 

As someone who's had some previous experience as a TPO TO I would say 'fairly often', but the TPO wouldn't be 'revoked' it would be 'overridden', in effect, by detailed planning consent (a technicality, same outcome tho = tree goes!)

The trouble, and conflict, is that central government place targets on LPAs for new housing being built and often within fairly short timescales to address the national housing shortage, particularly with 'affordable homes' (only £150k...A BARGAIN!) Hence mini wars breakout in LPA Depts, between the planners, who want housing, and the TOs, who want trees...hence the white flag of 'compromise' is called for.

To be honest, IMO (personal NOT AA) AND based on my limited experience of TPOs AND with only 1 LPA, too many trees that aren't really worthy are TPO'd (quick, 'head for the hills'!) and hence we would often press for good mitigation in the form of new tree plantings and often this would be 2 or 3 for 1, a good investment for future generations was my view.

Don't get me wrong we did press to retain really good quality trees, particularly where they complimented the development AND could be reasonably and sustainably retained, but the reality was these were the minority so we pulled out all the stops to get it right AND we monitored their protection on site which is absolutely key to succesful retention.

 

Sorry, I've probably gone off subject by now so I'll call matron to wheel me back to my room for the night....sleep well!

Cheers..

paul

[Andy Clark]

A question to those of you who consult and or are TO's with some experience of planning and in particular with respect to trees and planning constraint orders....

How often will you reckon to see planning consented and a TPO revoked into the bargain to make way for the development?

 

It's very rare that you actually see a TPO revoked - I think more often is the case, whereby consent is granted to remove but with a stipulation to re-plant elsewhere on site.

 

I've even heard of at least one LA using the CTLA/CAVAT "value" of the tree to set a re-muneration figure for replacement planting costs... ie, "Yes, you can remove that tree with a £2k value, but only on condition that you spend £2k on replacement planting"

 

 

The biggest 5837 topic of the moment though is from the opposite end of the spectrum - TPO's being placed in order to STOP development!

 

 

But that's a whole other kettle of fish.

[Bundle 2]

"The biggest 5837 topic of the moment though is from the opposite end of the spectrum - TPO's being placed in order to STOP development!..."

I am reasonably up to speed with the technicalities ( by which I mean the interpretations) of this process. It is certainly rarely a cut and dried issue.

Apart from using the wrong term, revoked was incorrect, sorry; the conclusion is the same as Paul says.

What seems clear from this, and perhaps folk might like to comment further but bs5837 does make provision for a "classification" of treee. From this, we can to some extent, categorise the trees worth to reflect for example, its worthiness of a TPO for example. I beleve BS5837 does come into criticism fron arboriculturalists, and I imagine, developers alike, for an apparent range of classifications. IE- its seems to be an issue of subjectivity. This I dont find alarming as it is to some extent what I would expect. It allows a certain degree of flexibility at the planning stage. For LPA's with their wits about them, it could be made to work favorably with respect sustainability ....

If I have understood your comment correctly Andy, a temporary TPO used in this way is not a part of bs5837 atall is it? ( can I direct your attention to a post by the infamous Mr Quaife on uktc...http://www.tree-care.info/uktc/archive/2010/msg00773 )

cheers Tim.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Bundle 2

[Andy Clark]

"The biggest 5837 topic of the moment though is from the opposite end of the spectrum - TPO's being placed in order to STOP development!..."

I am reasonably up to speed with the technicalities ( by which I mean the interpretations) of this process. It is certainly rarely a cut and dried issue.

Apart from using the wrong term, revoked was incorrect, sorry; the conclusion is the same as Paul says.

What seems clear from this, and perhaps folk might like to comment further but bs5837 does make provision for a "classification" of treee. From this, we can to some extent, categorise the trees worth to reflect for example, its worthiness of a TPO for example. I beleve BS5837 does come into criticism fron arboriculturalists, and I imagine, developers alike, for an apparent range of classifications. IE- its seems to be an issue of subjectivity. This I dont find alarming as it is to some extent what I would expect. It allows a certain degree of flexibility at the planning stage. For LPA's with their wits about them, it could be made to work favorably with respect sustainability ....

If I have understood your comment correctly Andy, a temporary TPO used in this way is not a part of bs5837 atall is it? ( can I direct your attention to a post by the infamous Mr Quaife on uktc...RE: TPOs as a tool to prevent development )

cheers Tim.

 

 

A noteworthy thread B2..... don't worry, i have been watching it with much interest.

 

I think the key point to remember though, as was also highlighted on the UKTC thread (I forget by whom) is as to the scenario and point during the process that the respective TO finds him/herself in.

 

For example, IF a conciencious developer plays by the rules (recomendations), and enlists the 5837 services of an Arb consultant from the offset, then there is very little need or even opportunity for a TO to start slapping TPO's on things......... BUT if a TO finds him/herself faced with an over-eager "fell everything cos we need the space" developer, then common sense alone would surely dictate that the TO will use everything at his/her disposal to ensure that the developer is put under a measure of control..... including temporary TPOs.

 

 

The matter, as always, is more a question of interpretation of the act, and the objectiveness/concienciousness of the respective TO.

[Bundle 2]

Yeah no...regardless of the views expressed by many and arb, and I guess the "spirit " of TPO legislation...never say never would seem to be the pragmatic approach.