Demoralizing Survey..

[Arbocop]

I hate doing 5837 surveys, I know how they always end, the developer no matter how big or small, no matter there green credentials , always need to maximize their profit eg number/size of units.

 

Fom the planners point of view, they are under more pressure and less staff than ever before and the likelihood of having the time to catch them is very slim,

 

and as a consultant your durty is to your client, so no matter what you advise them in line with your breif.

 

Thats why training, and doing the work is in many ways so much less of a strain on the moral compass compared with consultancy

[daltontrees]

Well, we live in an age where morality and business are mutually exclusive.

 

The developer hasn't broken any laws though, has he? It is for the LA to foresee tree loss, assesswhether the trees contribute to the amenity of the area and if so consider TPOing them if it's expedient. All very well in theory and in law but if they go around TPOing trees where there is no threat of loss they are criticised. Personally I'd like to see the 'expedient' test given its widest possible interpretation so that LAs can literally go round their area and spot all the trees that are important for amenity and TPO them regardless of any real or perceived threats to the trees.

 

The question of whether the trees should be preserved for the amenity of the development is much more difficult because the people to whom the amenity will be provided don't yet live in the houses that haven't yet been built. Or, often, designed. 5837 says the survey should disregard development anyway.

 

Were the removed trees on this site visible to the public?

[Paul Barton]

Personally I'd like to see the 'expedient' test given its widest possible interpretation so that LAs can literally go round their area and spot all the trees that are important for amenity and TPO them regardless of any real or perceived threats to the trees.

 

Agreed. Buildings or heritage sites don't need a test for expedience as far as I know, so why should trees?

 

Chatting to a developer yesterday who wanted confirmation of the penalties for unlawful felling of a tree with a TPO. He considered a £20k fine a worthwhile investment to make a site work

[daltontrees]

I have had the same discussion with developer clients. I have to caution them that the fines are in theory unlimited and can be linked to the value the tree removal adds to the value of the property. See for example Poole v Dorset, or is it Dorset v Poole? Somewhere down that direction anyway.

 

And they have to replant if so directed. So the loss of public amenity is temporary and deferred.