TPPs - do you show RPAs?

[sloth]

To anyone who cares sorry I've not been on for a while, I've been very busy with moving house and general 'life things' (and yes, I know arbtalk should be a priority!). A quick look shows some good interesting topics since I was last on

 

Now, who does and who doesn't include RPAs on their TPPs? I've just been requested by a neighbouring lpa to add to my TPP before they'll approve it - even though it was all shown and work within RPAs justified and approved in the AIA!

I feel it isn't necessary a lot of the time and and that it clutters the drawing for those on the ground (hopefully) following it.

Thoughts...

[10 Bears]

I used to follow the TPP, RPA. AIA route with a long drown out report clearly stating how each element can successfully be met and why etc., and I subsequently learnt that this approach is close to useless on a building site.

 

I then changed this to a single A3 to A0 map (depending on site size and content) which had enough room to host the topo and the RPA, and then a large comment box for the TPP/AIA information that I wanted to include - all on the one document.

 

Basically, planners, architects and designers only want to walk around site with one piece of paper, and if you can do it in such a way that it also suits the LPO then you are laughing as you make the one document and send it to all interested parties.

 

Anyway, this is how I handle things nowadays...

[10 Bears]

I'm not on the right PC right now, but when I get a minute I will post an example...

[Paul Melarange]

Now, who does and who doesn't include RPAs on their TPPs?

 

This is a good question. I must admit I tend to leave the RPAs on the Tree Protection Plan.

 

However, I know quite a few consultants that don't include the RPAs. They feel that as a consultant you should be trusted to have put the fencing in the correct place, without having to show it in relation to the RPAs. I'm inclined to agree with this, particularly if you have included Tree constraints plans in your report.

 

I suppose I leave them on for transparency. I like to make it easier for the tree/planning officer to see the process that I went through in deciding where to position the protection measures.

 

It's horse for courses though really. If it's a large site with lots of trees, it might be clearer to omit the RPAs from the plan.

[sbyorkshire]

TPP - Ideally the RPA'S should be shown, if you have shown perhaps temporary TPF which might need removing for specific tasks, it is a remainder that its a no go area unless there is protection in place , to prevent compaction etc, easier for the workers on the ground to understand why the fencing is where you have shown it etc... other wise they may alter.

 

You could always provide a drawing set with and without by turning layers off , but this need referencing on the plan to avoid a mess up.....

[Chris at eden]

I always show the RPAs on the TPP, just for clarity. I've seen some consultants plot shading as well but not sure what the value of that would be on a TPP!!!

 

I sometimes provide 2 TCPs though with and without shading as that can be messy. TCPs though were always a design layout tool so more important for the architect than the LPA in my view.

 

Like 10 bears is saying I also plot tree works, phasing, fence spec, etc to the plan so its all in one place.

 

Cheers

[oslac]

I always include RPA's on the TPP. It allows the TO to see clearly that your location for the tree protection respects the RPA.

 

Paul mentioned that the information in relation to RPA's is shown on the TCP except that the TCP no longer (officially) exists and is no longer considered a planning document but an internal design document.

 

If the site is complex, I would draw it on a bigger bit of paper (larger scaled plan) or split the site into areas and show part of the site on each TPP.

 

Although it's a nice thought that tree consultants are believed by TO's when it comes to showing tree protection, as we know anyone and everyone can be a tree consultant and I can see why the TO would want their life made easier by giving the tree protection/RPA information on the same plan although, I don't think there is any requirement in BS 5837 to do so.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

I always include RPA's on the TPP. It allows the TO to see clearly that your location for the tree protection respects the RPA.

 

Paul mentioned that the information in relation to RPA's is shown on the TCP except that the TCP no longer (officially) exists and is no longer considered a planning document but an internal design document.

 

If the site is complex, I would draw it on a bigger bit of paper (larger scaled plan) or split the site into areas and show part of the site on each TPP.

 

Although it's a nice thought that tree consultants are believed by TO's when it comes to showing tree protection, as we know anyone and everyone can be a tree consultant and I can see why the TO would want their life made easier by giving the tree protection/RPA information on the same plan although, I don't think there is any requirement in BS 5837 to do so.

 

Just for balance....

 

We might consider the same is true of TO's no?

 

https://nationalcareersservice.direct.gov.uk/advice/planning/jobprofiles/Pages/arboriculturalofficer.aspx

 

A bit dated perhaps, but can anyone demonstrate a significant change to the findings presented at para's 161-166?

 

https://committeeadmin.lancaster.gov.uk/documents/s21579/Appx2_TreesInTowns.pdf

 

Is it appropriate for a TO to apply personal interpretation such that their life be "made easier" (possibly resulting in delay of an application or additional financial burden) on the basis of personal preference rather than a specified requirement in BS recommendation?

 

Hopefully, everybody would be looking to achieve efficiency and effective working relationships based on mutual trust and respect but variations in regional, personal and organisational requirements just make for confusion and frustration for all.

[Chris at eden]

The standard does state that trees to be retained and removed are to be plotted onto a plan and annotated where required. I see no reason why the TPP shouldn't superimposed over this. There is no additional cost.

 

Kev, I don't think access to a TO job is as easy as consultant no. I saw an AIA from a chap the other week who is not an arb, landscape architect, or anything related. I haven't worked out what he is yet but I think he may be a land surveyor. He had said the tree had 2 stems when in fact it has three. Coincidence that you can only see two on street scene? I don't think so. The RPA was about a quarter what it should be, the issues are too many to list on here. I know another one who advertises as an arb consultant and uses the post nominals BSc, what he doesn't say is his BSc is totally unrelated and he has no arb qualifications.

 

With a TO job you would get a person spec probably saying minimum L5 qualification, maybe L2 or 3 for junior TO. You would get the same if you applied for a consultants job with a large company. If they set up on their own though, probably nothing. When was the last time a client asked to see qualifications or insurance?

 

I work on both sides so see quite a lot. Yes there are some pretty bonkers TOs out there but some of the consultants you come across, they have no experience, no training, and no idea. One actually stood with me on site a couple of years ago asking what category the trees should be!! I answered the first couple and then advised him to hire an arb. I have never come across a TO that is that clueless.

[oslac]

I have come across TO's who have been generally useless and so involved in nit-picking minor points that I lose the will to live and I have come across TO's who are excellent and totally understanding of the planning system and where trees fit into this.

 

I have also come across consultants who are just the same. There is no legal protection to the title of TO or Arb Consultant. I also come across TO's who question my landscape proposals when the TO has no knowledge of landscape and I am a Chartered Landscape Arch . . that is a bit galling but the TO generally holds the power.

 

Sometimes and in fact all times, it is not appropriate to carry out some personal battle with the TO just because the TO is acting like a nob, all at your Clients expense.

 

My view is to be pragmatic. Fight your battles when you can and give way at other times and if the TO wants RPA's shown on the planning document, then let him/her have it.