Weird planning guidance/conditions

[arb culture]

I found this on Selby website the other day...

 

http://www.selby.gov.uk/upload/Protecting_Trees_Yorkshire_100622.pdf

 

It's not adopted by the council using any democratic procedure, but they still insist on trying to use it as some kind of planning document.

 

I get really annoyed at this sort of thing.

 

Once again some arb (or group of arbs) somewhere has cobbled together something based on their own subjective opinion claiming it's based on 'evidence' and 'research', and that it is the opinion of a particular group - when really a small number of indiviuals (or even just one person acting on their own) have just made something up off the top of their head without consultation.

 

Our industry is never going to get out of 'the dark ages' if this kind thing is allowed to carry on.

 

Sorry, rant over for now.

[Amelanchier]

I haven't been able to read it properly from my tiny phone screen but I get the jist. Perhaps it warrents a letter to the head of planning asking for clarification on the documents weight, offering a savage critique and suggesting that you will be advising clients to appeal against any refusals that are based on the document. That should bring it into wider scrutiny.

[Paul Barton]

But what's to stop a LA writing their own procedure/policy to do what they feel is best to enhance 'best practise'? Frustrating as it is, they are the ones in the position of power here.

 

Either way, it's a pretty poor document!

[Paul Jenks]

It all sort of hangs together until you look at the points for different trees.

Cobblers

[Amelanchier]

But what's to stop a LA writing their own procedure/policy to do what they feel is best to enhance 'best practise'?

 

Nothing at all really provided it's reasonable and expedient to do so. I'm not sure this meets those benchmarks.

[ferdinand2000]

But what's to stop a LA writing their own procedure/policy to do what they feel is best to enhance 'best practise'?

 

One deterrent is threats of Planning Appeals, perhaps?

 

In the Reading case I quoted on the other thread, that was in the mix if you dig down to the correspondence.

 

F

[Bundle 2]

You gotta figure the criticism that has apparently lead to the document posted is not untypical. It seems that it may indeed be a common view that BS5837 does not infact go far enough in its remit.

Personally, I think it is part of its strength that it permits a degree of "interpretation" by design. We are not living in either a black & white or "Cut & Dried" world afterall.

As for the position taken by the council concerned; it would not pay to take it too seriously imo. They are over reaching!

It is a totally untenable stance that the document proposes; regardless of your views as to the efficacy of the BS5837 standard: Reports to standard BS5837 still suffice thank-you.

[Yorkshireman]

Salix spp scores the same as Prunus spp and a Populus 'lombardy'

 

oh dear .. never mind then

[arb culture]

But what's to stop a LA writing their own procedure/policy to do what they feel is best to enhance 'best practise'? Frustrating as it is, they are the ones in the position of power here.

 

I'm all in favour of LPAs creating their own SPGs, but they really do need to make sure they do it democratically.

 

To try and hold a document up as an SPG when it is nothing of the sort is not good.