Method statement - what's expected ?

[Sullo]

HI

 

I have received planning permission for a rear extension to my house, with a constraint attached that I must provide the council with a Method Statement conforming to BS5837, prior to starting construction work.

 

Some background; I had full planning permission without any conditions initially. It was not until I applied for planning permission for a single story extension, in addition to the original application, that it upset my neighbour at which stage the Conifers, which act as hedge between myself and neighbour, became important in terms of maintaining a screen between the two properties. The inclusion of the method statement condition was added to the second planning consent. Planners approved my plans with 1meter depth normal type foundations and also the plans have been approved by building control.

 

There is a large Oak Tree in the garden (guess diameter 1 meter) with a TPO. The Oak tree lies 5 meters from a retaining wall, garden is raised by 1.25 to 1.5meters above patio level. The other side of retaining wall is a slabbed patio (4 meters wide and is leads up to rear wall of my house). I have permission to build my extension on this patio and also to the grassed area to right of this patio, which brings the side wall to within 2meters (at tightest point) to the row of Conifers in my garden.

 

Questions;

1. Do I have to have carried out a Tree survey, CAD drawing of garden etc, AIA in order to have a Method Statement done? This seems like overkill for a domestic extension. Does the BS 5837 makes allowances for small extensions of this nature. It seems like a process for a large development is being inappropriately applied to a small house extension?

2. Given the existence of patio and retaining wall (for the last 40years or so) and fact the base of Oak tree lies approx 1.25 meters above patio level and the Tree Officers statement that he had no objection given proximity to the Oak tree, would you agree that Tree officer/council view the likely damage to Tree roots to be minimal as roots unlikely to exist under patio and have no expectation for an engineered foundation ? Does BS5837 allow for Arborculturlist to apply reasonable logic ?

3. Given the size of the Oak Tree, I believe that under the BS the RPA would capture the part of the extension that I intend to build on the grassed area to the right of my patio. This would be at 8 or 9 meters from Oak tree. Inclusion of building extension into Rpa would be max 6 to 8 sqM by my estimates. Is this material, it seems unreasonable to have to build piles at this part of the building extension, which is only a conservatory, in order protect a small fraction of the root system and what what is likely to be fibrous roots.

4. The conifers are of low quality, multi stemmed type, planted in last 10yrs only so I don’t think TPO applies to them. My plans are to build within 2 meters of the trees, what is likely rpa for a conifers ? Stem is approx 20cms max diameter. I don’t intend getting rid of any trees.

 

 

Appreciate your advice.

[WorcsWuss]

That is unfortunate but not surprising. The planning dept will not take responsibility for things like that, building control yes, planners no.

Where in the country are you? I'm sure there's someone on here who can sort this for you.

[Sullo]

Im in Kent, not far from M25.

 

Many thanks for all the colour and comment that members contributed to this thread. It was helpful.

[sloth]

There is a member on here called HCR based in Kent, his company is called Portcullis Trees. I reckon he will sort you out

[Amelanchier]

I agree Tony, but the report I posted a link to was on the planning portal as an approved document written by an architect with no reference to a qualified arboriculturalist. On the face of it he's as qualified as I to write a method statement for protecting a tree during building works. It's not a tree report, it's a method statement and that is simply a list of things you're going to do, not an assessment of the condition of a tree.

 

I daresay given a simple enough site, a broad understanding of construction principles and others work to copy, an arb could design a house sufficiently well to satisfy a planning application. Does it matter if architects write method statements or if arbs design houses? For many simple planning applications, I doubt it (whether those projects can actually get past building regs or be implemented without harm to trees is another matter altogether...).

 

The problem is how do you know you have a simple site / application if you don't engage the professional? That gamble is up to the applicant - save money now and hope you won't have to spend it later. Fair enough, it's their money - I know of at least two seperate projects last year that just couldn't be built lawfully as per the consent. Both had to submit new applications - win some lose some I guess. Non-arbs do get away with a one-size-fits-all type document that they may trot out anytime there's a tree on site; but one-size-fits-all fits all but one size badly and when things get complicated its all too apparent.

 

What makes an arboriculturalist qualified to specify building works? They can surely only advise on impact of said works on a tree?

 

But you can extrapolate from those impacts to specify types of construction that will be less damaging - you can work back from what you want to avoid to what will be acceptable. Far better to give constructive guidance before the design team have spent time working on a layout than to just shake your head afterwards (or facepalm when you see the bungalow under the sequioa).

[HCR]

There is a member on here called HCR based in Kent, his company is called Portcullis Trees. I reckon he will sort you out

 

Why thank you!

 

Happy to help, drop me a line if you're interested.

 

[email protected]

[WorcsWuss]

As can an architect the other way, common uk tree and soil types and behaviours form part of the environmental science element of even just an hnc in construction. How much building technology is taught in an ARB course? I'd imagine no more than the equivalent at best?

A planning application is the most basic of things, draw a picture of a house, the planners either like it or they don't. Sure, there are certain requirements but these are all published so I dare say an ARB could do planning without even having to copy other's work.

 

The interaction between trees and new developments is far more clean cut than a tree survey. The tree either stays, in which case the development is built sufficiently far away such that neither harm each other, or the tree goes. If it's staying, protect it, RPA is easy to calculate, canopy protection even easier. If it's going, cut it off and dig it out.

 

I'm not trying to oversimplify things, just avoid over complicating them.

[likeitorlumpit]

I decided to follow advice and call Council to ask exactly what they want in relation to Method Statement.

 

The Tree officer wants it to be carried out by professional, so diy approach won't do unfortunately.

 

I can't help but feel that by inserting this condition in the planning consent, its a convenient way for Planning officer not to have to bother considering what specific requirements they desire to protect trees such as fences etc. Its more convenient for them to demand this report (which is unexpected expense and large for an individual) thereby protecting themselves at the cost of the homeowner who then has to commision a report, which ultimately may only tell them....u need a fence !!!

 

Can he actually stipulate this or is it just a way of making his job easier. Plus as we all know, a lot of tree officers do private work(usually out of their area) and so this stimulates their economy.

I recently paid £300 for a plan to build an extension. In truth I could have done it on a fag packet/ The structurals- that was different.

In truth I'd be tempted to wing it and use the method statement posted earlier. But thats just me. You'd be surprised what you can do when you try. Perhaps it helps to have a qualification. Gives you confidence.

[Amelanchier]

The interaction between trees and new developments is far more clean cut than a tree survey. The tree either stays, in which case the development is built sufficiently far away such that neither harm each other, or the tree goes. If it's staying, protect it, RPA is easy to calculate, canopy protection even easier. If it's going, cut it off and dig it out.

 

In my experience that approach would be applicable to less than 5% of developments in which trees are on site.

 

What about indirect constraints? The latest arb journal has a paper that suggests avoiding constructing dwellings within 30m of trees to avoid complaints about their physical presence impacting on quality of life for the inhabitants. Apply that to an average plot and see what your developable area is!

[WorcsWuss]

In my experience that approach would be applicable to less than 5% of developments in which trees are on site.

 

What about indirect constraints? The latest arb journal has a paper that suggests avoiding constructing dwellings within 30m of trees to avoid complaints about their physical presence impacting on quality of life for the inhabitants. Apply that to an average plot and see what your developable area is!

 

But that's where you would come in Tony!

I still reckon, irrespective of what the TO has said, that old lumpy is right, stick one in and see what happens, they can't dismiss it put of hand, if they read it and it's ok, they have to accept it. It is just a small domestic extension in a garden after all, not a multi storey car park in Epping forest....

[Amelanchier]

True enough.