planning conditions tpo's and construction sites

[Dean O]

Ive been led into what feels like a mine field

 

provided a quote for works based on a tree survey and the preliminary recommendations made within it.

 

asked to carry out works

got to site met with consultant and site official to go through works - became clear there was some additional works -

 

in the main this additional work has been the removal of 2 trees for the site access (a road coming into the site from what may be called phase 1 - already developed)

 

planning permission already granted..... so good to go on trees which require removal to facilitate the development?

 

developers obviously under pressure to get going - so therefor so are we.

 

we are told there is some clarification required with the to regarding trees that require pruning works - and the extent of this work so continue with removals.

 

we begin..... I return to office and it turns out there's a planning condition to have a pre works meeting regarding the arb work with the TO, this obviously hasn't happened, TO's obviously not happy.

Developer is not happy (delays and cost)

 

I'm not too pleased either.

 

reading into things this seems to be over the recommended line of pruning to trees which will end up in rear gardens - but as a result the whole site is covered by this condition.

 

my understanding is that the planning permission gives the go ahead to facilitate the development, however given this condition we have called off site (having already started works).

 

have I done the right thing?

 

I feel I need to do the right thing by the client but also need to respect the TO's stance that no work can carry on until the meeting has taken place and the developer has submitted an application to discharge the condition.

[ReubenHayes]

Depends on all the other conditions and what the tree report/plans showed. If they show trees to be removed or pruned on the plans, and these have been stamped approved then its ok. If not, I would certainly get further clarification from reading the approval notices.

 

As for the condition to arrange the site meeting, yes you would need to as its a condition. They are now in breach of that condition, so I would contact the TO asap and get them out to go over all the works. Also by getting them out, you will be clear on what you can do and not be pressured into doing something the developer wants you to do.

[daltontrees]

Ive been led into what feels like a mine field

 

provided a quote for works based on a tree survey and the preliminary recommendations made within it.

 

asked to carry out works

got to site met with consultant and site official to go through works - became clear there was some additional works -

 

in the main this additional work has been the removal of 2 trees for the site access (a road coming into the site from what may be called phase 1 - already developed)

 

planning permission already granted..... so good to go on trees which require removal to facilitate the development?

 

developers obviously under pressure to get going - so therefor so are we.

 

we are told there is some clarification required with the to regarding trees that require pruning works - and the extent of this work so continue with removals.

 

we begin..... I return to office and it turns out there's a planning condition to have a pre works meeting regarding the arb work with the TO, this obviously hasn't happened, TO's obviously not happy.

Developer is not happy (delays and cost)

 

I'm not too pleased either.

 

reading into things this seems to be over the recommended line of pruning to trees which will end up in rear gardens - but as a result the whole site is covered by this condition.

 

my understanding is that the planning permission gives the go ahead to facilitate the development, however given this condition we have called off site (having already started works).

 

have I done the right thing?

 

I feel I need to do the right thing by the client but also need to respect the TO's stance that no work can carry on until the meeting has taken place and the developer has submitted an application to discharge the condition.

 

You also need to protect yourself and your reputation and your potential liability for being an accomplice. Slightly at odds with RH advice, I would not call the TO out because that's not your remit. You seem to be the developer's contractor, not the dveloper's agent. Big, big difference.

 

I would tell the developer that he appears to be in breach and that if you are to proceed with removals you want his express instruction (in writing, even just an email). That will soon sort out whther he respects you or was hoping you would blunder on to get him what he wanted and a get-out-clause.

[Paul Barton]

 

I would tell the developer that he appears to be in breach and that if you are to proceed with removals you want his express instruction (in writing, even just an email). That will soon sort out whther he respects you or was hoping you would blunder on to get him what he wanted and a get-out-clause.

 

What to do if the client says carry on when you know he is in breach though? Just because you are a contractor not an agent doesn't mean you can claim ignorance (not that you have said that he should).

 

It all points towards the risk of losing this client if they show no scruples....in which case are you happy that your reputation is worth more than the value of the work?

[Chris at eden]

You can't claim ignorance anyway, TPO contravention is a strict liability offence so no hiding behind 'I didn't know'. That is if they are TPO'd.

 

Its the developer that will get the stop notice or breach of condition notice so for me they should sort it and get you the go ahead from the TO. You should be on site for the meeting though. If you have a well written spec for the pruning I don't see why you would need to meet! So you can point at branches and say yeah, that one. Doesn't sound like a great approach to me. It would be like meeting on site and saying yeah, go on then, build it there.

 

LPA's can ask for some strange things sometimes. I've been asked to write an AMS this afternoon for an AIA I wrote last week. Its not yet been decided which trees can be removed and tree retention will directly influence the driveway specification. i.e. no dig if one of the trees retained. I wrote the AIA with both options and evaluated which is fine in my view but the AMS is a specification and therefore what is going to happen exactly. You can't condition implementation of two different final layouts, that makes no sense!!!

 

Is it me?

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Sounds like a 'strange' condition? Is the condition just that a meeting should be held?

 

If so, just having a meeting (whoever ends up attending) satisfies the condition regardless of any discussions / opinions expressed at the meeting?

 

Does the condition specify who should attend and who has executive authority to make decisions? If not, surely it's a pointless condition (stranger things have happened!)

[Dean O]

thanks for your input guys

 

the discharge of the condition - particularly with regards to the removal of trees for site access - seems a little protracted to me, the La surely know the score here when they say yes you can build .... but

 

the client cant even realistically get the rpa fencing into the site without site access so its a little bit of a chicken and egg scenario.

 

the TO has said no works till the condition has been discharged - which I assume will require the meeting to agree works then an application for the discharge of the condition to be made. (how long will this take)

 

my personal feeling is that we shouldn't go in and carry out works until all this has been settled.

I cant claim ignorance now that the TO has made me aware of their stance so I really cant continue.

 

I would prefer not to loose this client although - this seems to be a problem of their own making however I'm going to look like the baddie to both the la and the client at the meeting tomorrow - its going to be like attending my own funeral.

[daltontrees]

What to do if the client says carry on when you know he is in breach though? Just because you are a contractor not an agent doesn't mean you can claim ignorance (not that you have said that he should).

 

Then carry on, wiht a copy of his written instruction and your advice of caution safely back in the office. The contractor is not the agent but he is not the police either. Unlike a TPO situation, there is no ppossibuility of statutory fines for the contractor because the only penalty here will be for breach of planning conditions and the legal action to resolve that would involve establishing who was in the decision-maker, not who did the act.

[Paul Barton]

Then carry on, wiht a copy of his written instruction and your advice of caution safely back in the office. The contractor is not the agent but he is not the police either. Unlike a TPO situation, there is no ppossibuility of statutory fines for the contractor because the only penalty here will be for breach of planning conditions and the legal action to resolve that would involve establishing who was in the decision-maker, not who did the act.

 

Good point, thanks Jules.

 

I can understand Dean O's reluctance to carry on though, even if he may not be officially culpable.

 

I find these moral dilemmas fascinating - I've had a few myself re development site surveys recently. It's a fine line to tread often.

[daltontrees]

Good point, thanks Jules.

 

I can understand Dean O's reluctance to carry on though, even if he may not be officially culpable.

 

I find these moral dilemmas fascinating - I've had a few myself re development site surveys recently. It's a fine line to tread often.

 

I've been known to park my truck a street away so that I don't get a bad reputation. I really want to put a huge sign up that says 'I know this is probably wrong but don't blame me I'm only following orders".

 

On Arbtalk, which in my view is not known for being a bastion of morals, the general view seems to be that morals and business don't mix. If Dean O won't do the work someone else will. And they will get the next job from that customer, and the next...