Deferred Consent.

[Gary Prentice]

I've just lost an appeal on the grounds that its a big green thing that the public can see which overrides the compression forks, lifting block pavers and asymmetrical canopy due to repeatedly pruning back from the house. And it's a sycamore.

 

I'm not moaning, I realise that I look at the tree with arboriculturists eyes and look at long term tree management of the site. The TO admits that they probably wouldn't be able to defend an order on it if they reviewed the area order and identified individual trees, but from a amenitity value perspective it's big and green:biggrin:

 

So post appeal, we have reached an informal agreement to plant a couple of replacement trees and in 3-5yrs when these are successfully established we'll get consent to remove the sycamore.

 

The TO thinks we can agree it, but it wouldn't be binding - so if he and the planning officer move on in the interim we wouldn't have a leg to stand on. he planning officer doesn't know how to write it either and says he'll have to do some research.

 

I could enter into a management plan for the site/tree I think; year 1- plant trees, year 4-remove sycamore. But it would be a lot easier if there's a way of getting consent deferred until a specified date or some pre-determined criteria for establishment (from BS 8545:2014 probably).

 

The planning officer isn't the most experienced at how to provide anything outside the norm so it will be more of a case of me telling him(after you tell me:biggrin:) how to write it.

 

I hope this explains the situation relatively clearly.

 

Gary

[benedmonds]

I had a similar situation, Silver birch in conservation area with TPO, nothing amazing only 30-35 years old, but very close to the house. It will become more and more of an issue in the future. There is space to plant another tree a 4 or 5 meters further from the house that would be less of an issue.

 

I suggested felling and replanting but they wouldn't go for that. I also tried the can we plant one and remove the problem tree in 5 years once the new one is established and their answer was we would have to reapply to fell in 5 years.

 

The client did not want to be stuck with 2 protected trees in his front garden so we just cut it away from the building... I feel TO's are often way to protectionist, and don't think long term..

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Perhaps the compromise here is to get the replacement tree planted, and established, i.e. still alive and growing after say 5 years, and then apply to remove the original one. I acknowledge there would be an administrative burden on the TO to, in effect, make a new order (if applicable) but this should at least ensure continuity of tree cover.

 

Just "thoughts out loud."

 

cheers..

Paul

[Gary Prentice]

No we're not and yes we do. It is so much easier to keep the trees we have rather than plant replacements, that either never appear as promised, or then die. Any felling with a conditional replacement would not guarantee the replacement tree will survive. It wouldn't automatically be protected by the TPO, and will almost certainly be less than 75mm diameter at 1.5m above ground level. Here today gone tomorrow. Careful drafting of the condition would help, as would TPOing the replacement, as would time to go and check they're all there, as would time to deal with tree replacement notices and the consequential appeals against them, but we're pressed for time and every one thinks they're the only person we are dealing with. And lets face it, most urban tree planting fails.

 

So it's best to keep what we have got for as long as possible.

 

Ed

 

I often find myself telling a client how the TO will respond to any particular complaint about a tree, playing devils advocate gained through years of meetings, conversations and applications.

 

I wouldn't want your job for the world tbh. If we can work together better, with mutual respect and understanding about each others needs, job descriptions and aims it makes a hell of a lot run smoother. Clients are plentiful, well we have enough, but I'll be dealing with TOs again and again.

[David Humphries]

.........

 

So it's best to keep what we have got for as long as possible.

 

Ed

 

 

I think I agree with this view point Ed, certainly from the observational perspective of seeing replacement trees often fail, due to poor maintenance, neglect or propensity for failing to even materialise in the first instance.

 

Keeping the mature urban canopy intact until there's a more full proof system in place is where we need to currently be, is my opinion also.

 

 

 

.

[Mark Bolam]

I often find myself telling a client how the TO will respond to any particular complaint about a tree, playing devils advocate gained through years of meetings, conversations and applications.

 

 

 

I wouldn't want your job for the world tbh. If we can work together better, with mutual respect and understanding about each others needs, job descriptions and aims it makes a hell of a lot run smoother. Clients are plentiful, well we have enough, but I'll be dealing with TOs again and again.

 

 

But all those bloody leaves!

I love trees, but....

[Gary Prentice]

But all those bloody leaves!

I love trees, but....

 

The public lack tolerance to the disbenefits of trees and generally lack knowledge of all their benefits.

 

Education and promotion of the urban/peri urban canopy cover needs far more attention than it currently receives, but mention street tree/I-tree to most and it's a foreign language.

 

Some good opinions but still no solution to my question

[Gary Prentice]

I had a similar situation.

 

The client did not want to be stuck with 2 protected trees in his front garden so we just cut it away from the building... I feel TO's are often way to protectionist, and don't think long term..

 

Is this due the unavailability of a mechanism to condition the proposal? I think it's the way forward to create a sustainable urban canopy cover rather than trying to sustain an ageing urban population? Plant more species and get more age diversity.

[Kveldssanger]

No we're not and yes we do. It is so much easier to keep the trees we have rather than plant replacements, that either never appear as promised, or then die. Any felling with a conditional replacement would not guarantee the replacement tree will survive. It wouldn't automatically be protected by the TPO, and will almost certainly be less than 75mm diameter at 1.5m above ground level. Here today gone tomorrow. Careful drafting of the condition would help, as would TPOing the replacement, as would time to go and check they're all there, as would time to deal with tree replacement notices and the consequential appeals against them, but we're pressed for time and every one thinks they're the only person we are dealing with. And lets face it, most urban tree planting fails.

 

So it's best to keep what we have got for as long as possible.

 

Ed

 

I'll +1 this.

[Jake Andrews]

I've just lost an appeal on the grounds that its a big green thing that the public can see which overrides the compression forks, lifting block pavers and asymmetrical canopy due to repeatedly pruning back from the house. And it's a sycamore.

 

It's still green now!!! Must be warmer where you are😉