TPPs - do you show RPAs?

[Chris at eden]

The nit picking a tree hugging seems tome to be the main issues you come across with some TO's. As you say some are good, some bad.

 

I did a 5837 a year or so ago and classified an old oak as B3. It had some wildlife interest but not a vet. The TO insisted it was and said it should be A3 due to its vet status. My problem with that was that I couldn't realistically assess its retention potential at 40+ tears so cant be A. For the record I had considered another 2 on the same site as veterans. Both as Cat A3.

 

He was having none of it and conditioned a management plan for all three vets! I recommended the client use a leading company (mentioning no names) for the management plan due to the issues experienced which they did. They didn't get a lot of change out of £2k. The report came back saying that only two were vets and the other was mature.

 

We were not even recommending felling any of them!!!

[10 Bears]

This very morning I have received an email regarding the BS5837 work I have done in relation to a development that is still being considered.

 

My TPP included the RPAs - however, the TO is adamant I have misinterpreted 5837 in relation to the RPAs.

 

On one side of a wall, is a large field area (former cricket field), and on the other side, is a minor unadopted road with a foundation depth of around 25cm. The TO objects to my view that the trees between the road and the wall/field will in fact be rooting beneath the road, and as such I have drawn the RPAs in a circle.

 

Despite the fact that there is a massive amount of porous surface, letting in soil-air/moisture exchange, an insignificant amount of sub-soiling work in relation to the road, and absolutely no evidence of surface rooting from the trees next to the road area - all indicating that the roots will be under the road in my opinion, the TO still suggests that my RPAs are incorrect, and they want me to apply them as an offset polygon.

 

TBH, I will just redraw the maps if they are immovable, but I have responded and invited further comment in light of my evidence based observations as above, which I feel the TO has not considered properly.

 

Perhaps I should have left the RPAs off the map then?...

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

This very morning I have received an email regarding the BS5837 work I have done in relation to a development that is still being considered.

 

My TPP included the RPAs - however, the TO is adamant I have misinterpreted 5837 in relation to the RPAs.

 

On one side of a wall, is a large field area (former cricket field), and on the other side, is a minor unadopted road with a foundation depth of around 25cm. The TO objects to my view that the trees between the road and the wall/field will in fact be rooting beneath the road, and as such I have drawn the RPAs in a circle.

 

Despite the fact that there is a massive amount of porous surface, letting in soil-air/moisture exchange, an insignificant amount of sub-soiling work in relation to the road, and absolutely no evidence of surface rooting from the trees next to the road area - all indicating that the roots will be under the road in my opinion, the TO still suggests that my RPAs are incorrect, and they want me to apply them as an offset polygon.

 

TBH, I will just redraw the maps if they are immovable, but I have responded and invited further comment in light of my evidence based observations as above, which I feel the TO has not considered properly.

 

Perhaps I should have left the RPAs off the map then?...

 

 

That's quite interesting... Was it 'advantageous' (for want of a better word) to the developer to have circular rather than elliptical RPAs?

 

Reason I ask, is that I've experienced a near opposite and I wonder if it is actually aversion to development rather than application of common sense or observable detail that tends to creep into the decision making cycle....?

 

My example was an historic industrial rail yard (mining heritage area) where there was an existing concrete cap for pre-fab domestic car garage + turning / parking over the site which was formerly used for slag / coke tipping and was incredibly compacted and inhospitable for root development.

 

Proposal was removal of derelict pre-fab garages, sympathetic renovation of heritage site building and addition of contemporary extension.

 

On the boundary adjoining the site, with a 2m level change up, growing atop of the dry stone wall stood a TPO'd mature Beech.

 

I argued that RPA should be elliptical given the topography, current and historical ground composition. TO insisted it be circular.

 

It was an argument that didn't need to fought to conclusion because, whilst inconvenient, the circular RPA didn't overtly impinge on the potential development - just made it more difficult and costly in terms of management of the site (and gave the impression of a last ditch attempt to block a development that had been in the planning mire for many years!

 

The project is almost finished now and, to my mind, has brought several more generations of use from a formerly derelict historically significant building.

[10 Bears]

That's quite interesting... Was it 'advantageous' (for want of a better word) to the developer to have circular rather than elliptical RPAs?...

 

...just made it more difficult and costly in terms of management of the site (and gave the impression of a last ditch attempt to block a development that had been in the planning mire for many years!

 

I suppose, yes, it is more advantageous for the developer to have the RPAs as circles and not polygons - but I don't think that is the problem here. I have calculated the RPAs on the basis of what is correct for the site and genuinely have not considered the developers POV in my decision.

 

I think the real issue is that the TO has not properly considered the evidence on site, and tried to hinder the development as much as possible - just like your situation as described above.

 

This is a third stage planning application and there as been quite a bit of bad blood locally over the issue - it has certainly caused a rift and most folk are steadfastly either for or against the development.

 

I suppose the TO is just trying to cover their backs as much as possible in light of the associated bad press with the development - but I object in principle that they publicly state that I have incorrectly applied BS5837 - whereas I believe that the roles are reversed and the TO as the wrong end of the stick as they have not properly considered all likelihood of where the roots actually are. They have just used a blanket, there is a structure (no matter how minor) so it must be impeding the roots.

 

Actually, I think if the TO did their homework, they would find that minor structural works, as in this case, can provide safe passage for roots - similar to 'structural soils' where the gaps and pores in the UG structure actually protect the roots.

 

I've not heard anything back, so I guess we will have to have a difference of opinion, and I just redraw the RPAs...

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Your paragraph 2 & 3 sound very familiar and similar (but applying the opposite logic) in an attempt to suppress the potential development.

 

1 set of guidelines / recommendations - 2 completely different interpretations.

 

It's a funny old game.....

[10 Bears]

Ed, I think you may be right, but at the same time, it may be open to interpretation, hence these little problems with TOs...

 

Para 4.6.2 says you should initially "plot" a circle based on the centre of the stem, or if its asymmetric to produce "a polygon of equivalent area". Now reading that one way could just mean while you are calculating the RPAs - do this for your own understanding of where they are, but I assume that as many TOs (IME) still want to see RPAs on the map, that they are interpreting 'plot' and 'produce' as literal statements.

 

Just for interest concerning my situation described above, my TPP also has the offsets on it, but I tend to use exact structures eg corner of a wall or access cover, rather then those funnily shaped wooden pole things. I think it makes the measurement/establishment of the fence line less open to interpretation. Also, I include in a grid, the RPA values for each tree on that area of the map, as an added layer of information so my calculations can be double checked if needed.

 

Alas, in my recent case, it seems my efforts have gone to the wall in any case!

[10 Bears]

I have just had further response from the TO regarding my situation and the supposed improper RPAs. In short, they will not back down over the requirement that the RPA (in the site circumstance) absolutely has to be an eccentric polygon. It has become clear to me that the justification for this is purely to claw an extra few inches for the protection of the trees. While I applaud the intention, I still feel that this is a misinterpretation of the situation (or ignoring the evidence?) by the TO.

 

Just for a matter of interest, I also posed the question to the TO, do I really need to show RPAs on the TPP, even with a protective fence-line and annotated offsets showing on the plan? and in short, I have received back a quite direct - 'yes'.

 

So, it seems that in my case the TO has their own interpretation of the regulations and how to apply them. At least now with this bit of extra insight on their interpretation, I will be able to produce work in line with their individual expectations (irrespective of what BS5837:2012 actually says).

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

I have just had further response from the TO regarding my situation and the supposed improper RPAs. In short, they will not back down over the requirement that the RPA (in the site circumstance) absolutely has to be an eccentric polygon. It has become clear to me that the justification for this is purely to claw an extra few inches for the protection of the trees. While I applaud the intention, I still feel that this is a misinterpretation of the situation (or ignoring the evidence?) by the TO.

 

Just for a matter of interest, I also posed the question to the TO, do I really need to show RPAs on the TPP, even with a protective fence-line and annotated offsets showing on the plan? and in short, I have received back a quite direct - 'yes'.

 

So, it seems that in my case the TO has their own interpretation of the regulations and how to apply them. At least now with this bit of extra insight on their interpretation, I will be able to produce work in line with their individual expectations (irrespective of what BS5837:2012 actually says).

 

Have you considered having the conversation with the planning case officer?

 

(I'm guessing it would only be worth a punt if, on the one hand you have a TO (as, I think you're suggesting) clawing as much RPA as possible, even if you don't agree with the logic but maybe passively do agree with the motive, and on the other hand, have an architect or land owner facing significant reduction of concept design potential?)

 

Potentially a double edged sword but there have been occasions where I have been unable to reach a mutual agreement with a TO, but found the PO to be much more approachable and receptive to a well presented argument.

 

TO = consultee

PO = executive decision

[10 Bears]

That's very insightful Kevin, and TBH, you are absolutely spot on with the comments regarding my not agreeing with the logic, but passively with the motive. I suppose I have taken affront to the fact the TO justified their decision by (publicly) stating I have applied BS5837 incorrectly and my justifications/evidence are not robust enough. I suppose I will have to let my ego ride that one out!

 

In this case I won't go down the PO route as a simple redraw of the maps, however I don't agree with the justifications, will resolve the issue. Locally, there has been a significant split in terms of the folk who are for, and others being strictly against it, so there has been plenty of local press, and many voices heard. I have acted appropriately, impartially, and in the circumstances, in the best interests of the trees affected by the development - however I feel the TO is just playing the game at my expense and trying to deflect any potential/future bad press should all this go ahead.

 

Well, a lesson learnt. So to get back to the OP - yes I show RPAs on my TPP!