Planning Inspector vs LA Tree Officer

[Mark Cattell]

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

 

This is my understanding ...

 

 

Sent using Arbtalk Mobile App

[458 Lott]

It's always annoyed me that we have to 211 notice but the l p a don't joke really with some of the work they do

Either to little wasting our money working to bs3998 instead of getting on with the job to a cost benifit

Or dropping trees with visual amenity cause of a highway issue

Shoot straight stay alive

[oslac]

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?

 

I am a bit confused with this.

You say a planning application was made, the TO objected on the grounds of trees and the ap was subsiquently refused.

 

After appealing the decision, the Planning Inspectorate allowed the development. That all sounds normal. Whats more the Inspectorate's decision is the planning decision and any Conditions are the conditions.

 

But then you go on to say that a new application is submitted. Why is there a new ap when the Planning Inspector has already made a decision. The only reason a new ap is submitted, is because the scheme has fundamentally changed and is no longer the previous and agreed scheme.

 

In any event should the outcome be that the development can go ahead, there is no reason why a condition cannot be included to require tree protection measures and methodology. In fact the TO would probably be very wrong not to require such a condition.

[Sylvia]

Thanks - my biggest worry is what the LA's intentions are - the wood's been thriving left to its own devices for 25 years - only tree creepers I've ever seen -

a tree survey done for the last would-be developer judged only by something called amenity value and it seemed trees are only valuable if they look nice from a public road; the recommendation was to remove all ivy - the ivy is always full of birds and insects and dead or fallen trees are ecologically as valuable as standing ones?

Ones with holes that birds love seem marked for removal?

The Parish Council have accepted it will be built on - I've seen builders clearing other "brownfield" land hereabouts - anything goes/everything goes/scorched earth.

[Sylvia]

To Oslac - sorry- it got complicated/?boring..... I oversimplified.

The resident had already removed trees and hedges on his property - goodbye Pickfords and out with the chainsaw... soon after that he notified the local authority of his intention to fell trees on LA land but was stopped - but allowed to cut back to his boundary.

He then applied to build an extension - his application form said there were no trees involved.

That application was refused by the LA planners because of - amongst a good few other things - the threat to offsite trees; the resident appealed to the Planning Inspectorate.

Not waiting for the appeal decision, the resident immediately submitted another similar planning application but leaving out the "offsite tree threat extension" .

The planning inspector then dismissed the appeal against the refusal of the first application; it was dismissed on several grounds but - overruling the LA Tree Officer - the inspector ruled there was no threat to offsite trees from the proposed extension so the resident then amended his ongoing application, re-instating the extension that the tree officer had previously objected to as a future source of conflict/harm to the trees. No objection has been raised by the Tree Officer to this second application.

[oslac]

Thanks Sylvia.

 

All makes sense, although the tree officer should still condition tree protection for the off site trees if the development or means to develop is within their RPA.

[Sylvia]

We're waiting for the decision - thanks for all your insights.

The effect of the cutting back to boundary has been a bit of a shock - the most visible from the road was a fine big sycamore - TO allowed : "draw back crown on house side to no further than the boundary to suitable branch unions."

That was interpreted as cutting off all branches overhanging the boundary back to the trunk - now in leaf it's half a tree.

[Gary Prentice]

We're waiting for the decision - thanks for all your insights.

The effect of the cutting back to boundary has been a bit of a shock - the most visible from the road was a fine big sycamore - TO allowed : "draw back crown on house side to no further than the boundary to suitable branch unions."

That was interpreted as cutting off all branches overhanging the boundary back to the trunk - now in leaf it's half a tree.

 

Shouldn't be a difficult decision for the magistrates to come to then:thumbdown: