BS 5837 Planning and Construction advice please

[sean]

I am after some advice on behalf of somebody who has submitted an application for a build on adjacent land to his property. As is the norm he has been asked by the council to submit an Arboricultural Impact Assessment.

 

On the proposed development site there is a prunus and two small beech trees which have been maintained at the same height and crown spread for many years. These are neither tpo'd or fall within a conservation area although they are to be retained if possible.

I have worked out Root Protection Areas for these 3 trees and all extend into the proposed construction zones even by off setting by 20% (if this is still the norm?)

 

Due to no restraints being placed upon these trees and the fact that they are in a moderate category with regards retention he could legally fell them before submitting any documentation to the council. He is trying to do things properly however. The concern is that once the report has been submitted the council could quite feasibly put a TPO on 1 or all of the trees and scupper his plans somewhat.

 

I can understand the council wanting an Arb report for a TPO tree or in a conservation area but surely he can just turn around and fell the trees if the report puts restraints on development?

 

And it would have cost him a few hundred quid for the report......

 

Bit new to all this 5837 malarkey so any advice/help would be appreciated.

 

Thanks in advance.

[Arctostaphylos uva-ursi]

Some of the terms used in your post lead me to believe that you may not have read the current standard. Reading the current standard will go a long way in (1)helping you answer your questions and (2) bringing you up to date!

I personally think your clients best interests will be served by him/her seeking advice from someone with the relevant qualifications and experience. Otherwise I think you may find your self in hot water.

[sean]

Some of the terms used in your post lead me to believe that you may not have read the current standard. Reading the current standard will go a long way in (1)helping you answer your questions and (2) bringing you up to date!

I personally think your clients best interests will be served by him/her seeking advice from someone with the relevant qualifications and experience. Otherwise I think you may find your self in hot water.

 

Hi....I'm not doing the report for him....he is going to pay a professional to one for him. I am just intrigued as to the purpose of the report with regards non tpo'd or conservation area trees. Surely whatever reccommendations are made in the tree protection plan and constraints put in place he could can just go ahead and remove the trees instead.?

[Arctostaphylos uva-ursi]

Its very difficult to give advice without seeing the site and the trees. But I would never advise any developer to go ahead and just cut trees down to make way for development. It only takes one complaint to the Local Authority from a neighbour or passer-by, who sees trees being felled, to land your friend/client in trouble. I understand what you are getting at but you are exploring dangerous territory and a public forum is not the best place to discuss such matters.

[treequip]

Its very difficult to give advice without seeing the site and the trees. But I would never advise any developer to go ahead and just cut trees down to make way for development. It only takes one complaint to the Local Authority from a neighbour or passer-by, who sees trees being felled, to land your friend/client in trouble. I understand what you are getting at but you are exploring dangerous territory and a public forum is not the best place to discuss such matters.

 

What trouble? The trees arent protected.

[Arctostaphylos uva-ursi]

Just my opinion.

I am more than happy for you to give advice.

[Amelanchier]

Of course he could fell the trees and still be refused permission...

[sean]

so in effect could permission be turned down on the basis that any construction could be detrimental to the trees well being even though there are no restraints in place?

 

If by adhereing to BS 5837 it made it unviable to build unless trees were removed surely he is entitled to remove them.

 

Surely if this was the case people would just remove unprotected trees before submitting any applications and therefore removing a risk of an application being turned down because of trees and at the same time saving themselves money by not having to get a tree survey done?

[Tim Williams]

A TPO would just require full consideration is given to the trees within the development ie developer cannot just fell the trees prior to submitting a planning app. once the site has a valid application all trees whether TPO'd or not are given the same consideration as each other, a TPO'd tree could be removed if there is sufficient justification and need for the development to take place. A TPO placed on a site just to prevent any development could end in a high court challenge.

 

The current BS5837:2012 will answer most of your queries in regards current standards.

[oslac]

so in effect could permission be turned down on the basis that any construction could be detrimental to the trees well being even though there are no restraints in place?

 

If by adhereing to BS 5837 it made it unviable to build unless trees were removed surely he is entitled to remove them.

 

Surely if this was the case people would just remove unprotected trees before submitting any applications and therefore removing a risk of an application being turned down because of trees and at the same time saving themselves money by not having to get a tree survey done?

 

If, inter alia, the tree is not protected by a TPO nor growing in a CA or no planning condition can be enforced, the trees can be felled pre planning submission. It may not be very ethical but since when have ethics got in the way of making money.

 

If you were acting as the consultant and was asked the question . . What are my options? . . . would you keep quiet about the right to fell the trees or tell your client that they could legally fell the trees prior to submitting the planning ap.

 

It happens all the time and in my opinion, now that developers, Architects etc have wisened up, will happen more and more. For a lot of developer's it is not worth the risk to go through planning and have some idiot tree officer recommend refusal on the basis that some crap tree is growing in the middle of the site.

 

Also, in planning terms, there is no right to remove a tree (unless dead, hazardous etc) which means that a development could be refused because some rubbish tree has caught the fancy of a tree officer.