Planning Conditions

[stevelucocq]

Following on from the http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/trees-law/46340-tree-survey-arb-impact-assessment.html thread I was looking to get feedback/thoughts on the following:

 

My understanding it that the new BS is looking more for tree surveys/constraints plans to be provided with a planning application. From the tree survey/constraints plan straightforward applications can be quickly assessed and where requiried Arb Methods/Tree Protection Plan etc can be conditioned into planning approval.

 

A condition which we have been tweaking is as follows:

 

1. A.) No development including demolition work shall commence on site until a scheme for the retention and protection of trees to British Standard 5837:2012 - Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall include full details on all works that impact on the original ground conditions within the root protection areas, as detailed in BS5837:2012 and in particular details of protective fencing, ground protection & construction method, required tree surgery operations, service trenching position and any changes in ground level within the root protection areas of all retained trees. No development shall take place except in complete accordance with the approved scheme, and the works required by that scheme are in place. All protective fencing, ground protection etc shall be retained intact for the full duration of the development hereby approved, and shall only be removed, or altered in that time with the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

 

B.) No development including demolition work shall commence until all tree protection measures as detailed in the approved scheme have been implemented, inspected and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Where things are tighter/complex etc and not clear how the proposed scheme is going to be built without causing an adverse impact on the trees to be retained then an Arb impact/tree protection plan etc may be required. This may only be the heads of terms and a tree protection plan to illustrate these methods.

 

In terms of fairness asking for a full detail Arb impact assessment/methods statement/ tree protection plans etc when submitting a planning application that may well be refused for visual impact seems wasteful to me?

 

Thanks for any comments or amendments on this condition and I hope it makes sense as it’s Friday afternoon!

 

Steve

[HCR]

"In terms of fairness asking for a full detail Arb impact assessment/methods statement/ tree protection plans etc when submitting a planning application that may well be refused for visual impact seems wasteful to me?"

 

Look at it the other way round - how does the LPA know what the impact on trees will be when determining the application if the relevant reports/surveys etc haven't been submitted? What if thet approve the application with conditions, then it turns out that the scheme can't be implemented without compromising the retained trees?

 

In theory they could refuse to approve the scheme for the retention and protection of trees but this could easily be deemed unreasonable upon challenge if it was foreseeable on the basis of the submitted plans (which it almost certainly would be).

 

At the very least they could end up deeply embarrassed.

[Paul Barton]

Have you got a separate condition that requires on-site monitoring by an arboriculturist where construction activities are necessary within the RPA.

 

Actually, I think some regular supervision visits from an arb should be conditioned regardless - it's not like most LPA's have the resources to make regular visits.

[HCR]

Have you got a separate condition that requires on-site monitoring by an arboriculturist where construction activities are necessary within the RPA.

 

Actually, I think some regular supervision visits from an arb should be conditioned regardless - it's not like most LPA's have the resources to make regular visits.

 

That would be ideal, because as we all know, once the work begins, all bets are off.

 

However, pretty much all conditions are 'Grampian' [negative] conditions these days, i.e. of the form that begins 'No development shall commence prior to.....', which is actually enforceable as it is time-bound; positive requirements are usually delivered via planning obligations (section 106 agreements).

 

"Where conditions restricting development from occurring until a planning

obligation has been completed are imposed, they must be negatively worded in the ‘Grampian condition’ form, i.e. prohibiting the development from occurring until the specified action has been taken. Positively worded conditions must be avoided."

[stevelucocq]

"In terms of fairness asking for a full detail Arb impact assessment/methods statement/ tree protection plans etc when submitting a planning application that may well be refused for visual impact seems wasteful to me?"

 

Look at it the other way round - how does the LPA know what the impact on trees will be when determining the application if the relevant reports/surveys etc haven't been submitted? What if thet approve the application with conditions, then it turns out that the scheme can't be implemented without compromising the retained trees?

 

In theory they could refuse to approve the scheme for the retention and protection of trees but this could easily be deemed unreasonable upon challenge if it was foreseeable on the basis of the submitted plans (which it almost certainly would be).

 

At the very least they could end up deeply embarrassed.

 

Thanks for the comments,

 

My point was where things are clear cut then a tree survey would only be required and tree protection could be conditioned in. Where things are complex then heads of terms/tree protection plan etc would be required to illustrate how things are going to be achieved and what will be lost.

 

What I was trying to say is that a reasonable level of detail should be provided.

 

Thanks,

Steve

[stevelucocq]

Have you got a separate condition that requires on-site monitoring by an arboriculturist where construction activities are necessary within the RPA.

 

Actually, I think some regular supervision visits from an arb should be conditioned regardless - it's not like most LPA's have the resources to make regular visits.

 

I have nothing specific to Arboricultural supervision.

 

I would be keen to recommend such a condition which included details of the supervision, such as inspection frequency, findings, photos etc

 

Thanks,

Steve

[stevelucocq]

That would be ideal, because as we all know, once the work begins, all bets are off.

 

However, pretty much all conditions are 'Grampian' [negative] conditions these days, i.e. of the form that begins 'No development shall commence prior to.....', which is actually enforceable as it is time-bound; positive requirements are usually delivered via planning obligations (section 106 agreements).

 

"Where conditions restricting development from occurring until a planning

obligation has been completed are imposed, they must be negatively worded in the ‘Grampian condition’ form, i.e. prohibiting the development from occurring until the specified action has been taken. Positively worded conditions must be avoided."

 

Thanks for this.

Steve

[Paul Jenks]

There is also another way of thinking in that maybe the developers and designers should involve tree professionals and actually learn some of the factors within the BS so they can build projects that aren't impacting on trees.

This is always going to be a challenge as developers aren't known for they altruism.

I've said previously that I believe either the next or next but one version of BS5837 will say that arb survey MUST be carried out prior to design.

Changing the culture is hard and made doubley so as developers generally want to extract as much from their land banks as possible.

Maybe, as the professionals involved with development become more enlighted, (to the rules, that is), land values, especially large gardens with trees in them, will be angled more to their aesthetic than their potential to slip in an extra house or two.

[Blakes 7]

Steve, there are some long sentences in there. Split the text up into paragraphs or separate conditions.

 

You want the developer to be able to digest the material and act on it, when they are probably not that interested in the first place!

[stevelucocq]

Hi, I have been talking to a planning officer regarding what level of Arb detail should be provided with a planning application. She explained the benefits of front loading an application so ALL information is provided up front and how the application will be processed generally more quickly. I guess overall the delay in not providing all information up front can cost the developer more than the cost of the full Arb report etc.

 

The applications where i have been involved with input from an early stage and produced a Tree Constraints Plan to aid the developer to design around the trees of value have always gone through more smoothly as you would expect.

 

So i can see the pros and cons of different approaches but still struggle with spenting a lot of time and effort producing tree protection plans only to see applications refused for other reasons. I guess that's up to the developer to do all their research and ask for preapplication advice before commiting.