Getting the AIA, topo survey, AMS in the correct order

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Here's a tricky situation.

 

My mate the architect is almost getting the order of events right and it came as a disappointment to find he had made things a bit awkward on one recent project.

 

He didn't initiate an AIA prior to drawing up and submitting plans, the topo showed trees in, and adjacent to the project footprint, plans were submitted and approved (with conditions - one of which was the production of an AMS for trees.)

 

Had there been an AIA it's possible that the likely outcome would have been categorisation U or C for the trees in question.

 

So now the architect needs an AMS to discharge the condition but there is no formal approval of tree categorisation from which to decide which trees might be retained / protected and those which might not.

 

The architect has got it in the wrong order, the LA have approved the proposed plans where they should probably have been abated until inclusion of AIA.

 

So to pick up the pieces, I'm thinking, talk to the TO (who will not have had an opportunity to consult on categorisation) and see if, under the circumstances, he would agree with categorisation or propose something else.

 

Any words of wisdom or previous experiences of this kind of thing??

[oslac]

Here's a tricky situation.

 

My mate the architect is almost getting the order of events right and it came as a disappointment to find he had made things a bit awkward on one recent project.

 

He didn't initiate an AIA prior to drawing up and submitting plans, the topo showed trees in, and adjacent to the project footprint, plans were submitted and approved (with conditions - one of which was the production of an AMS for trees.)

 

Had there been an AIA it's possible that the likely outcome would have been categorisation U or C for the trees in question.

 

So now the architect needs an AMS to discharge the condition but there is no formal approval of tree categorisation from which to decide which trees might be retained / protected and those which might not.

 

The architect has got it in the wrong order, the LA have approved the proposed plans where they should probably have been abated until inclusion of AIA.

 

So to pick up the pieces, I'm thinking, talk to the TO (who will not have had an opportunity to consult on categorisation) and see if, under the circumstances, he would agree with categorisation or propose something else.

 

Any words of wisdom or previous experiences of this kind of thing??

 

Not sure the Architect is responsible for initiating the AIA.

As long as everything is above board ie, trees were accurately shown on the supplied plans and the application form identified that trees were present. The council should have refused to register the application until sufficient information (about trees) were submitted. As they did not require this information, it can be assumed that they had sufficient information to approve the application. The council has acknowledged the presence of trees on the site by conditioning an AMS.

 

My view would be to attend site, carry out basic measurements of trunk, crown , species etc. overlay this information including the RPA onto the approved plan and produce method statements and Tree Protection Plan.

 

Approval for the development has been given and as such, the development will be constructed. You only need to work out how. There should be a proposal plan which shows the proposed building, driveways etc and this plan should show trees. From this it can be assummed that no tree needs to be felled.

 

If you want to remove trees, you will need to survey the trees (condition report) and either include this within your documentation and see if it will be approved or speak with the TO. A 'U' cat tree is a 'U' cat tree is a 'U' cat tree. NOT to be kept. If there is sufficient space to carry out the approved scheme, why remove any other tree.

 

Unless you have shown on an approved plan that you are going to remove a tree, you will not normally be able to remove a tree.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

(1) Not sure the Architect is responsible for initiating the AIA.

(2) As long as everything is above board ie, trees were accurately shown on the supplied plans and the application form identified that trees were present. (3) The council should have refused to register the application until sufficient information (about trees) were submitted. (4) As they did not require this information, it can be assumed that they had sufficient information to approve the application. The council has acknowledged the presence of trees on the site by conditioning an AMS.

 

My view would be to attend site, carry out basic measurements of trunk, crown , species etc. overlay this information including the RPA onto the approved plan and produce method statements and Tree Protection Plan.

 

Approval for the development has been given and as such, the development will be constructed. You only need to work out how. There should be a proposal plan which shows the proposed building, driveways etc and this plan should show trees. (5) From this it can be assummed that no tree needs to be felled.

 

If you want to remove trees, you will need to survey the trees (condition report) and either include this within your documentation and see if it will be approved or speak with the TO. A 'U' cat tree is a 'U' cat tree is a 'U' cat tree. NOT to be kept. If there is sufficient space to carry out the approved scheme, why remove any other tree.

 

(6) Unless you have shown on an approved plan that you are going to remove a tree, you will not normally be able to remove a tree.

 

(1) Wouldn't you consider the architect as the project coordinator? If not him then who... The home owner? This particular scenario is a small (single new build) domestic project rather than a large or complex set-up.

 

My usual course of events is, architect gets an enquiry from his prospective client, if trees present he asks for AIA (hopefully) before he offers design options (5837 fig 1)

 

(2) Yes, I'd say so, although topo shows some elements that wouldn't normally be included in AIA (sub 75mm diameter trees)

 

(3) That's what I would have thought.

 

(4) Is it safe to assume that, or could it equally be assumed that the PO missed the requirement for AIA?

 

(5) It might be that they don't need to be, but, due to some shocking previous 'tree surgery' they aren't 'keepers' in the long term. I did try and upload some pics earlier but had an error message.

 

(6) Separate to this particular issue, a general question, if you have a building project approved and it's started, say the footings are laid, am I right in thinking you have an indefinite period to complete the work before planning expires?

 

If that is true, and say, 5-10 years after starting a project where a tree has been identified for retention, the tree declines significantly. If it weren't for the planning application / approval, and assuming there were no other constraints such as TPO / CA, the landowner would be at liberty to reduce / fell the tree.

 

How would they stand if the same tree were included within the conditions of a planning approval? Would they equally be at liberty to reduce / fell?

 

Thanks for the feedback! I think I'm going to have a chat with TO next week to get his perspective.

[oslac]

(1) Wouldn't you consider the architect as the project coordinator? If not him then who... The home owner? This particular scenario is a small (single new build) domestic project rather than a large or complex set-up.

 

My usual course of events is, architect gets an enquiry from his prospective client, if trees present he asks for AIA (hopefully) before he offers design options (5837 fig 1)

 

(2) Yes, I'd say so, although topo shows some elements that wouldn't normally be included in AIA (sub 75mm diameter trees)

 

(3) That's what I would have thought.

 

(4) Is it safe to assume that, or could it equally be assumed that the PO missed the requirement for AIA?

 

(5) It might be that they don't need to be, but, due to some shocking previous 'tree surgery' they aren't 'keepers' in the long term. I did try and upload some pics earlier but had an error message.

 

(6) Separate to this particular issue, a general question, if you have a building project approved and it's started, say the footings are laid, am I right in thinking you have an indefinite period to complete the work before planning expires?

 

If that is true, and say, 5-10 years after starting a project where a tree has been identified for retention, the tree declines significantly. If it weren't for the planning application / approval, and assuming there were no other constraints such as TPO / CA, the landowner would be at liberty to reduce / fell the tree.

 

How would they stand if the same tree were included within the conditions of a planning approval? Would they equally be at liberty to reduce / fell?

 

Thanks for the feedback! I think I'm going to have a chat with TO next week to get his perspective.

 

I normally tell the Architect/Planning Consultant/ Client what he is likely to require and why. If I am ignored or if the application has already been submitted and approved, I pick up the pieces. The issue isn't about the Architect but about the LPA who has determined the application without sufficient information. It may be that the TO wasn't even aware but we are where we are and the bottom line is that, no BS survey was carried out, the application was approved and an AMS is required.

 

In a perfect world, perfect things happen but we often get applications similar to this. There is no point blaming anyone. If you think the Architect/Client is a numpty then add a numpty charge onto your fee. At least you will be smilling whilst you sort out the mess.

 

If you think that trees need to come out, check the planning condition and if no mention is made of retaining trees then remove them as PD rights. If you are required to retain the trees (which sounds the case), you will need to submit a minor amendment to the application or chat up the TO and see what you can do. The TO may come back with the thought that the application was approved on the understanding that trees remain. The trees may be seen as screening or structural. If this is the case, you could offer up a landscape replanting scheme but all of this is outside of the approval and has no place in planning law. Any informal agreement could not be enforced.

 

Once a material start has begun, you have indefinate time to complete the development. Normally planning conditions require a material start within 3 years but not completion. Normally planning conditions last for 5 years and if the retention of trees is required as part of the approval, once the five year period is up, you are free to fell as long as the tree is not protected in some other way.

 

What is the LPA? I find that we deal with numerous LPA's but generally they have completely different requirements from one TO to the next and from one LPA to another. Generally TO (in my opinion) are a bunch of nutters but sadly a bunch of nutters who have too much power and spend too long dealing with trivial planning issues. There are, of course, one or two who are very good but generally . . nutters

[oslac]

Oh! and if any Tree Officer is reading this . . I think you are all very fine people, doing a very important job and I have full respect for you and any decision that you may come to . . .

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

:thumbup:Made me laugh a lot! Thanks!!