BS 5837 Planning and Construction advice please

[sean]

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.

 

the guy is building a house on land which is essentially his garden. If the trees are not protected then he can fell them prior to any application.....surely?

[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.

 

So no trouble then???????

 

I have to wonder just who is exploring dangerous teritory on a public forum.

 

I know many developers who want to put "no" in the box that says are any trees affected.

 

I guess they would rather deal with fact than have you tell them they or the contractor might get into trouble when they clearly wont.

[treequip]

the guy is building a house on land which is essentially his garden. If the trees are not protected then he can fell them prior to any application.....surely?

 

Provide there is no ststutory protection, break out the saws:thumbup1:

[farmer rod]

this highlights the whole conundrum. Even if the guy likes the trees and wants to build a house /garage/tennis court next to them and take a small chance that the trees will suffer some ill, he seems best advised to chop them down.

 

It is a problem caused for the trees by their supposed protectors.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Trees are a 'material consideration' in the planning process regardless of whether or not they are TPO'd / CA'd etc. Hence if there are trees on the site at the time of application (???) the LPA (Local Planning Authority) are quite correct to ask for an arb report.

 

On receipt the tree / planing officer should determine whether a TPO would be appropriate, if not aleady in place, but in so doing should have a recognised procedure for so doing, i.e. Helliwell System (or variation of). Regardless of development proposals, if the tree doesn't make the (TPO) grade then it shouldn't be protected...SIMPLES!

 

Paul

[Amelanchier]

the guy is building a house on land which is essentially his garden. If the trees are not protected then he can fell them prior to any application.....surely?

 

Yes.

 

Fortunately in my experience, the pre-emptive feller is a rare beast.

 

Where they exist, their desire to avoid a material consideration / site constraint faces off against the duty delegated to tree officers (a legal duty no less) creating a Hobbesian trap where each strives not to be caught out and is increasingly tempted to a first strike. An arms race.

 

When clients ask me about pre-emptive felling I certainly begin with whether it's legal or not in the given circumstance but remind them that legality is only part of the equation. Once you've felled the tree/s, they're gone and you are not necessarily guaranteed to get your permission - so if you're developing your garden you need to have a think about whether you would be happy without the trees and without the development in the worst case scenario.

 

Also if we're talking about publically prominent trees, TPO's notwithstanding, have they considered local sentiment? I know of a site where a row of large lime disappeared prior to an application (on a bank holiday). Plans came in and then so did the objections from neighbours and local residents - over a hundred of them. These weren't throwaway nimby objections either they were precise, detailed and valid. App was withdrawn before it went to committee and the site was sold. Presumably at a loss.

 

Finally, and putting aside allegations of unfair attachment to unworthy trees (though I have been there), the TO / planners might simply ask for more landscaping. They are obliged to consider the site as it is and not as it was but a gap is a gap and if it can be planted it probably should be. That might not put anyone off, but it should be costed into the decision.

Edited November 22, 2012 by Amelanchier
sp.

[daltontrees]

Nicely put, TS.

I would add that felling while an application is in and with a request for an AIA outstanding would be unwise.

So if the COuncil gets the AIA it has a couple of options, but it depends what the AIA concludes. If it concludes development can take place (even while encroaching on RPA) without loss of trees, the Council would be hard pushed to challenge that view by a suitable consultant and should grant subject to conditions for the trees' protection. If it concludes the trees can't be saved, it might still grant consent but if it feels the trees are special and that there is a public interest it probably shouldn't just refuse consent but should also make a TPO.

I would phone up the Council and informally ask what weight it is attacvhing to the trees and why. At worst you will be told nothing, at best it may provide some useful perspective and result in a better AIA.

If the Council is asking for an expensive AIA out of laziness that would be indefensible. It sounds like there is a precautionary presumption against loss. Tread carefully in all such situations.

[HCR]

Plenty of good information, but I would just add that submitting an application that involves the felling of the trees but replants of appropriate species is slightly better locations is a valid alternative (obviously if the exisiting trees are incompatible with the development).

 

Incorporate bat-bricks and bird-nesting hardware into the build as well, to gain environmental credibility.

 

Bat Brick: NHBS

Schwegler 1SP Sparrow Terrace: NHBS