Planning Inspector vs LA Tree Officer

[Sylvia]

I live close to a Conservation Area householder planning application site.

LA Tree Officer objected saying adjacent offsite magnificent trees on LA land would be harmed by constant lopping and pruning/conflict if planning permission is granted for extension and for that and other reasons the application was refused.

The applicant had previously applied to remove all these trees.

On appeal the Planning Inspector has said no conflict/no harm to trees will result from extension - so new application with no arboricultural report now submitted with as yet no objection from the Tree Officer .... does the Tree Officer have to bow to the Planning Inspector when it comes to trees?

[Gary Prentice]

When an application for works to protected trees, be they covered by a TPO or in Conservation Area, is refused consent, an appeal may overturn that.

 

But there would appear to be more than simply this involved. You write that the trees are on land owned by a local authority. Under what legislation had the applicant applied to have the trees removed?

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

My understanding, which may be flawed, is that it is a little publicised fact that the planning officer, in granting permission for a development, is superior in authority to the tree officer. It is the TO's input that informs the PO in arriving at their decision. Logically then, if a sufficiently robust and compelling arb report is submitted, the PO may grant development permission even if it compromises an existing TPO or appears to be at odds with the TO's view. I'm working on a very similar situation today so will update when the outcome is known.

[treequip]

In a case where tree works are needed to implement full planning consent the consent trumps TPO. Outline planning dosent cut the mustard

[Gary Prentice]

My understanding, which may be flawed, is that it is a little publicised fact that the planning officer, in granting permission for a development, is superior in authority to the tree officer. It is the TO's input that informs the PO in arriving at their decision. Logically then, if a sufficiently robust and compelling arb report is submitted, the PO may grant development permission even if it compromises an existing TPO or appears to be at odds with the TO's view. I'm working on a very similar situation today so will update when the outcome is known.

 

The TO's only real duty is to advise the planning department and/or council planning committee. As everything is relative to various Town and Country Planning Acts, it's the planning department that actually reaches the decision. You can actually be in a situation where a planning officer, with no arboricultural knowledge whatsoever, makes site visits on their own.

 

I know many TO's that are over-ruled by the planning department because the application ticks the boxes for the local UDP or current strategy.

[Amelanchier]

...does the Tree Officer have to bow to the Planning Inspector when it comes to trees?

 

Yes he does. As has been pointed out above, the TO may be a consultee in the planning process and he may even have delegated authority to make TPOs but the planning inspector speaks on behalf of the secretary of state.

 

National govt. representative trumps local govt. consultee every time.

[Sylvia]

Thanks for the benefit of your expertise - we've all known and trusted the tree officer here for years - he's always reckoned to strike the right balance - seems odd that a Planning Inspector can overrule him.

Also: people have no right to know about or object to an application to remove local trees when they have such importance to ecosystems/biodiversity/communities?

[daltontrees]

Thanks for the benefit of your expertise - we've all known and trusted the tree officer here for years - he's always reckoned to strike the right balance - seems odd that a Planning Inspector can overrule him.

Also: people have no right to know about or object to an application to remove local trees when they have such importance to ecosystems/biodiversity/communities?

 

Uh oh, here we go again on the Notify/Apply confusion. In a CA you notify, you don't apply. It is for the Council to stop you by making a TPO. There is no public consultation on CA notices, but up here in Scotland there is a statutory obligation for the Council to keep a public register of notices and in theory this could result in non-statutory representations.

 

I don't think it's odd at all that the Inspector can overrule the tree officer. Regardless of who in the Council made the decision to refuse a planning application and regardless of whether the decision was made by a Committee or under delegated powers it is the Council's decision and the Council has to defend it if the applicant appeals the decision. The Inspector is part of central government, and the legislation provides for appeals to be dealt with by teh Secretary of State or anyone he delegateds to (i.e. the Inspector). His decision, as long as it is properly administered and reasonable, is beyond reproach.

[Sylvia]

Thanks - you're right - I'd no idea it was notify and see if they stop you.

So in this case the person wanting to remove trees on LA land notified the LA he was going to remove their trees and they stopped him removing them but allowed him to cut them back - as far as I know the LA haven't protected them with a TPO .

The land's full of trees, birds and flowers and up for sale for housing.

There's been some cutting back of big well clothed evergreens - leaving the trunks exposed on one side - looks wrong.

[daltontrees]

It all sounds ghastly.

LAs rarely TPO their own tree, I think it is mildly discouraged by central government but by no means illegal.

You can notify all you want for someone else's trees but it doesn't give you permission to enter tehir land and take their trees down. That is a purely civil matter between land owner and would-be feller.

There remains a slight danger that the notifier could misconstrue the lack of a TPO in resonse to the notice as permission to enter the land and do work on the trees. This misunderstanding could only arise on LA land, if you think about it. It would of course be wrong and dangerous to infer owner's consent to works in such a case.

If the LA is looking for a receipt form sale of land, the cynic in me says the existence of trees will not stop them. LAs are actually not directly accountable for not protecting trees on their own land against loss or damage due to development.

Edited May 18, 2013 by daltontrees