planning conditions on unprotected trees

[jose]

Just more for my own interest as its not affecting me directly.

I recently went to a site where they have put in a application to build a building.

It would require removal of some trees. The entire site has no TPOs and not in a conservation area.

The submitted planning and the council have come back and is saying that they must leave the trunk of a large Oak standing and also create an eco pile from another silver birch tree which is to come down.

 

These trees are on the border of a massive woods with thousands of trees and a very large amount of fallen trees left inside these woods in piles and also natural fallen state. There are also a very large amount of rhododendrons covering most of the area so most is not accessible to people to walk around.

 

My question is that if there is no TPOs then why cannot they fell the trees completely.

Once the planning state the conditions/ requirements of things to be left is this a legally binding situation or more of a recommendation?

 

I dont know the exact details 100% as i am unable to see the paperwork ( Not my bussiness).

Just curious i guess and thought i would ask.

Many thanks

[Gary Prentice]

It's a condition of planning consent, so they can condition what they want. You can comply or submit for a change in the conditions. I think you can also appeal to the planning inspectorate, if you feel the condition/refusal etc is wrong or unreasonable

[hamdogg]

Better to fell trees before applying for building works!

[Gary Prentice]

Depends how quick planning can serve an order!

[jose]

Thats what i would have suggested hamdogg but it was done initially by the previous Busur and then and the new one has inherited the problem.

 

Thanks the for reply.

Like i said its really their problem tbh but i wanted to know more for my own knowledge.

[MATTMOSS]

Interesting question, I don't know the answer but agree mostly with what gaz has said however, if there is no protection afforded to the trees, then what apart from a possible requirement for a felling licence (dependant on the amount of trees being felled) could stop you felling the trees and then reapplying for planning permission?

I may seek further clarification on this myself.

[jose]

Let me know what you find.

In this case the silver birch is tiny ( 10 minutes to chip the brash) and the oak is a decent size but the canopy is one sides and i could have it stripped in about 30 mins.

Nothing else to come out so no license needed.

[hamdogg]

Fell and grind

[Gary Prentice]

Interesting question, I don't know the answer but agree mostly with what gaz has said however, if there is no protection afforded to the trees, then what apart from a possible requirement for a felling licence (dependant on the amount of trees being felled) could stop you felling the trees and then reapplying for planning permission?

I may seek further clarification on this myself.

 

Probably the cost of submitting a new planning application would make you think twice. They're not free like tree apps (currently) are. A change of use- to a kids nursery with a rebuild of an existing structure I was involved with was several hundred pounds.

 

A reasonable, well supported, change of condition wouldn't be anywhere near that, and in this particular case should get agreed.

 

I got a condition, for a felling app, to replant with two holm oak once (from a council not a million miles away) argued my case and didn't have to plant at all.

[skyhuck]

Depends how quick planning can serve an order!

 

Not very fast on a Sunday, IME