5837 site extents

[sloth]

Does anybody have experience in the following situation, or a similar one?

-A residential site of several acres wishes to demolish existing building and erect another in its place.

-The site as outlined in the planning documents etc has many trees, and backs onto woodland.

-only a couple of trees are anywhere near the building, the adjacent hardstanding and the entrance in/out of the site. The majority are to the rear of the property and no where near the development.

 

My question is, can the 'site extents' be altered to reflect the actual area of the site which is likely to used for development? In effect missing the trees outside of the new site boundaries, which would reduce the size of survey/report needed from a whole day on site + write up, to just a couple of hours on site + write up = less cost to client.

 

See 4.2.4 a, b & c attached, which gives guidance as to which trees on and off site are to be included. I don't think it is very clear on this matter. In this instance it may not make a huge difference, but on larger sites it could make a substantial difference in cost to the client.

 

Thanks all, Kevin

[Amelanchier]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to define the parameters of your survey where the BS is vague - provided you explain yourself thoroughly. This could involve reduced data collection, averaging (with an idea of deviation) or omitting trees altogether.

 

What is essential though is that you discuss this with the client; explain the risks and the benefits (i.e., if the design changes to the extent that previously distant trees are now involved there may need to be a second visit / survey but you can reduce the immediate costs / time).

 

Eventually you will run into an LPA who will demand that everything on site is surveyed regardless of relevance - be prepared to fight your corner. That's another reason for having the client on side; it's their application and their money that is at risk should you need to get stuck into the finer points of what constitutes a reasonable amount information to determine an application...

[sloth]

Excellent. Thanks for your input

[daltontrees]

I woudl agree it is pointless incurring unnecessary expenditure on tree info for the whole site. However, it is not a question of whether the part of the site is 'likely to be used for development' (your words) but which parts of the 'site' (as defined in the registered application) would 'influenced or be affected by the development '.

[ScottF]

Something I sometimes find useful is to define the site extents (red line) and then provide a general tree exclusion zone within that red line so what you end up is the effective construction area. Sometimes when you map individual RPAs you end up with something which looks complicated (from the developer's point of view) to fence off.

 

An example is attached. It's a pretty large site, but the same principle could equally apply to a smaller one.

12-078A Wrexham Gateway TCP REV copy.pdf

[sloth]

Good point daltontrees, and thanks scottf (nice looking plan by the way )