Coalition plans for relaxing applications goes further still?

[Bundle 2]

The govt has sen fit to relax planning application legislation in an attempt to boost the economy.

I wonder what implications have been overlooked in these proposals....( TPO's for example, Conservation areas and more...! )

Interesting times....!

 

Planning Portal - Superfast broadband planning regime changes proposed

[Ben90]

  Quote

special measures for conservation areas, listed buildings or ancient monuments had been overlooked.

 

Trees are taking a back seat.

 

At least we'll be able to stream super fast youtube videos of a chimp having its way with a frog.

[Paul Barton]

The change to allow 6 metre single story extensions (rather than the current 3m) will also have an impact on privately owned trees. If a planning application is not required, high value trees in rear gardens are less likely to be identified as worthy of a TPO.

[Johny Walker]

is it just for housing or commercial building as well ,ie. workshops

[Paul Barton]

  Johny Walker said:

is it just for housing or commercial building as well ,ie. workshops

 

I think it's just for residential homes but I am not 100% sure.

[oslac]

Permitted development rights do not overide TPO legislation. If a TPO tree or CA tree is wilfully damaged or destroyed, a criminal offence has been carried out irrespective of the desire to extend a property under permitted development.

 

A tree growing in a rear garden has no bearing on TPO legislation. If the tree has amenity value or if it is expedient to serve a TPO, then a TPO may be served.

 

For detached properties, the maximum extension appears to be 8m. Usually its not the building of the extension which causes damage to rear garden trees but the large terrace, retaining walls and steps which are constructed afterwards which cause problems.

[Paul Barton]

  oslac said:

Permitted development rights do not overide TPO legislation. If a TPO tree or CA tree is wilfully damaged or destroyed, a criminal offence has been carried out irrespective of the desire to extend a property under permitted development.

 

A tree growing in a rear garden has no bearing on TPO legislation. If the tree has amenity value or if it is expedient to serve a TPO, then a TPO may be served.

 

For detached properties, the maximum extension appears to be 8m. Usually its not the building of the extension which causes damage to rear garden trees but the large terrace, retaining walls and steps which are constructed afterwards which cause problems.

 

Sorry, perhaps my post was unclear. What I meant was, given that planning applications often alert tree officers to a potential threat on a high value amenity tree, less reactive TPOs may be served due to the changes.

 

Perhaps this will highlight the weaknesses in the way the TPO system is used more than anything else.

[oslac]

To be fair, I think that tree officers have a tough time of it. Slap a TPO on a tree and they are heavy handed, don't slap a TPO on a tree and some munchkin comes along and builds an extension on the tree's RPA or worse still, chops the tree down.

 

I spend most of my working like acting as the middleman between tree officers and developers and although some tree officers are over zealous, they nearly always have the tree's best interest at heart whereas most developers (and that includes the little old man down the road who only wants to build a little extension to while away his time) don't give a flying fig about trees and the desire to build an extension or the need to make a profit comes first.