Demoralizing Survey..

[benedmonds]

I had a call today asking me to redo a survey I had done in November last year.. A number of the trees had been removed.. I spent ages recording all the trees, what a waste of time that was. I guess the 5837 survey restricted their layout.

Took them a week apparently over 60 trees, done by a farmer and demolition man.... All burnt onsite, they have upset a few neighbours..

 

Some lovely mature trees including, walnut, tree of heaven, zelkova, persian iron woods, japanese maples..

[William]

Would this amount of works not require a felling licence?

[Jesse]

5837: 2012 trees no longer matter, you should know that. The proposal comes first along with the financial constraints of the developer.

[treebloke]

I find the enforcement of BS 5837 is a complete and utter joke, the amount of developers that get away with inadequate TPF is beyond belief. I turned up on a site on Monday to find the TPF gone (which was not to spec anyway) and a 30 tonne digger merrily working away within the TPZ, several branches had been ripped off a 200 year old Oak. I see this type of thing on a regular basis.

[benedmonds]

5837: 2012 trees no longer matter, you should know that. The proposal comes first along with the financial constraints of the developer.

 

It was a shame that all the trees were felled, but I can't say I wouldn't have done the same if I had inherited the land.. Had the planners seen the trees they would have protected them and the land would have been more difficult/expensive to develop. One of the issues with 5837 IMO is that it is easier to get rid of everything at the start rather then risk having to work around enforced protection measures..

[daltontrees]

Looks like a lot of Cs in the original survey. A developer could take that as some sort of justification for preliminary removal?

[ScottF]

Quite a few C's gone, but many B's a well, eh? The common feature of the trees removed would seem to be that they would possibly constrain future development of the site.

 

I sympathise, Ben. I've had 14 years of this sort of thing now and it still makes the blood boil.

 

If it makes you any better, even if you'd briefed these people about the benefits of retaining mature trees on a site, about how it's possible to design around trees etc etc they may well have done this anyway. There's nothing you can do about certain people perceiving trees as nothing more than a limit to their earnings potential in the short term. Most developers want a clear site to squeeze in as many houses as possible.

 

It's part of the reason I mostly work in infrastructure rather than the housing market.

[Sylvia]

I'm very worried about this happening to the nearby woodland garden of a big old house owned by the local council designated brownfield for residential development and being actively marketed again now.

There was a very "protective" [as we saw it] tree survey done about 10 years ago by the local council as part of the marketing brief then - numbered discs appeared on trees. Then for the next marketing a new survey done about 3 years on from that one but now for a prospective developer was much less optimistic - a lot of trees seemed now to be either dead, dying or of no amenity value particularly in the flat areas near the road where it would be easiest to build.

I rang the council today - i spoke to the Landscape Dept - I asked if an ordinary citizen - ie me - could put a TPO on the whole woodland - he didn't laugh -? well trained - anyway he asked me to put the request in an email and send it to the Tree Officer - is there any point?

[daltontrees]

There may be a point.

 

The situation is a bit more complicated with Council-owned land. Councils are encouraged not to TPO their own land, but legally they can. But in cash-strapped times it is not unheard of for Councils to compromise their own planning policies by allowing development on land they are selling that otherwise they would resist or control tightly. In the end less conditions means more capital receipt.

 

I am maybe being too cynical, Councils can sell land with conditions attached that are more enforceable than planning conditions. They can also sell land subject to a development brief that can specify from the outset that a formal Planning Agreement will be put in place. This is like very firm planning conditions but in a deed that is recorded and runs with the land and which is more enforcable than planning conditions. Maybe that's what is proposed.

 

Maybe the right thing to ask the Council is what measures have been put in place, and are proposed, to make sure that no trees are lost prior to planning applications, to make sure that trees are properly taken into account as part of the site design process and to protect trees during and after construction. And copy it to your local councillor(s) and MP.

[Sylvia]

Thank you for that advice which I will follow.

I have no experience of acting to protect trees but straws in the wind show us the council will show much more flexibility than previously.