Planning Conditions

[stevelucocq]

Not my blog but of interest

 

Stephen's Blog - BS 5837:2012 - An Insider's Guide to the changes

[oslac]

There is no longer any requirement for a Tree Constraints plan. This is because in planning terms, they are pointless. They are essential for designing the development layout but are classed as an internal document and not required as part of a planning submission. The Tree Retention and Removal plan sets out the necessary information for the planner with the Tree Protection plan forming part of the methodology.

 

The main planning document is the Impact Assessment. This is where consideration is given to trees growing on and adjacent to the site. The document sets out how trees have been considered, their constraints and the impact a developemnt will have on the trees.

 

Planners should scrutinise the Impact Assessment and challenge its findings if found lacking. Methodology (heads of terms) sets out the general areas of consideration to allow the development to occur. The planner will need to make a judgement as to the level of information required to decide if the development can be implemented without harm to retained trees. If the Heads of Terms provide too little information, the planner should ask for more until he is satisfied.

 

The original comment with the proposed planning condition, is long winded. Ok it says what it needs to say but goes on a bit of a journey to get there. The tree report and Impact Assessment should accompany the application with draft methodology and tree protection. If this information is not supplied, the application should not be registered. Conditions can require the additional information such as detailed methodology, tree protection etc

 

Monitoring is an issue. In my opinion, I would be supprised if a condition requiring monitoring by the arb consultant is lawful and would have serious doubt that any monitoring condition which requires the developer to monitor the site would stand up in court. The LPA is responsible for policing their own condition and cannot pass this obligation on to the developer. I am sure a court case will come along at some point to sort this one out. Any monitoring condition needs to be very carefully worded and my view is for LPA's to talk to one another, agree a joint condition and then pass the wording of the condition across their legal team before using it.

 

One last point is that many LPA's have a two pronged approach with arb conditions. One for the initial paperwork (methodology, tree protection etc) and the second will only be discharged at the completion of the development when the developer supplies sufficient information that that the methodology (including tree protection) has been carried out in accordance with approved documents. This last point is a killer for developers because they soon realise that they cannot gain retrospective discharge of the condition and hopefully no self respecting arb consultant will sign off a development unless he has actually visited site in accordance with the approved documentation and has agreed that site works have been carried out in accordance with the approved documatation.

[New Forest DEAN]

I am an architectural designer and deal with Planning and Building Regulations Applications for different size projects (i.e extensions thru' to housing developments, industrial etc). This is a bit difficult to summarise, but:

 

Nearly all Planning consultants are ego-centric and think their element to be the most important, which should be considered and included in advance of any submission - Trees, biodiversity, flooding, access, contamination, Localism etc etc.

 

Every applicant, from a small extension to a housing development will typically be pushing the limits and taking a punt - therefore, it is simply not worth the speculation to pay for all of the external professionals to provide comment or substantiation in advance.

 

It is far cheaper to submit an application (pre-application enquiries are just as expensive) and see what happens, what its refused on, or what conditions are attached.

 

If one of these conditions renders the scheme unviable, then its still cheaper to amend or re-design and re-submit - most applications get a second free go at Planning.

 

Add to this: useless Council Tree Officers, OTT one-size-fits-all tree conditions, expensive Arb' consultants (i.e. wont set foot on site for an informal opinion), developers fear of trees, anti-TPO attitude etc etc and its a bit of a struggle....

 

The Planner is right - more information up front smooths the way. But no one is going to risk the cost up front if the Planner (or consultant) refuses on a subjective point.

 

DEAN

[New Forest DEAN]

'Details of all other activities which have implications for trees on or adjacent to the site'

 

Typical example of one small part of an extensive (and pointless) Tree condition attached to a Planning Approval for a very small domestic extension that was not near a TPO tree.

 

We asked if they wanted details of the owners weekend BBQ....

 

DEAN

[stevelucocq]

'Details of all other activities which have implications for trees on or adjacent to the site'

 

Typical example of one small part of an extensive (and pointless) Tree condition attached to a Planning Approval for a very small domestic extension that was not near a TPO tree.

 

We asked if they wanted details of the owners weekend BBQ....

 

DEAN

 

Thanks for your comments but I have visited a site where a small extension was being built to a find contractor mixing cement under the canopy of a fine oak tree. Nothing would surprise what contractors do (knowingly or not) to trees so conditions and informatives do bring awareness and hopefully prevent the contractors having any chance of causing an adverse impact on to the trees.

[stevelucocq]

Thanks for your comments but I have visited a site where a small extension was being built to a find contractor mixing cement under the canopy of a fine oak tree. Nothing would surprise what contractors do (knowingly or not) to trees so conditions and informatives do bring awareness and hopefully prevent the contractors having any chance of causing an adverse impact on to the trees.

 

Sorry a few typos!

[New Forest DEAN]

Agreed.

 

However, the problem often stems from the Council Tree Officer being too lazy to visit site (some visit every site, some never) in order to better understand the actual constraints.

 

In my above example, the Tree Officer had simply cut&pasted a Condition from a large housing development to a small domestic extension without considering its relevance, impact and cost to the owner.

 

Despite detailed plans, I recently had a Council tree Officer insist on tree protection measures and full details of materials storage, vehicle movements etc when the non-TPO tree was in the far corner of the site, across a lawn, over some planting beds through some green houses and through an orchard, away from roads etc.

 

The extension, however, was by the driveway....

 

DEAN

[treebloke]

I have a client who has a planning condition on some trees which is about to expire later this year. However, some of the trees have deteriorated since the planning condition was imposed and they need some work doing sooner rather than later.

 

The planners want £190 to discharge the condition and have threatened court action if we proceed without their consent.

 

Anyone got an opinion on that.

[HCR]

What was the condition? £190 seems a bit steep, which LPA is it?

[treebloke]

I have not seen sight of the condition other than reference by the planning officer.

 

What bugs me is paying £190 (not me but the client) for some thing that would be free if it was a TPO or CA and the trees were not good enough to qualify for TPO otherwise they would have put one on instead of a PC.

 

The planners and tree officer have agreed the trees can go in principal, I think I am just being bloody minded.