Conditioned TPO approval

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Its from the planning policy guidance but there are 6 tests as mentioned by Ed below. See link:

 

Use of Planning Conditions | Planning Practice Guidance

 

I found that a really useful read Chris, thank you!

 

It's all very confusing:confused1:

 

From the yesterdays Sheffield CC Appeal. Dillner, R (On the Application Of) v Sheffield City Council [2016] EWHC 945 (Admin) (27 April 2016)

 

Paragraph 149.

 

"The textbook Moore and Purdue "A Practical Approach to Planning Law" (12th Ed 2012) at [26.01] says that the cutting down of a tree does not appear to be development within the 1990 Act. That explains the use of Tree Preservation Orders, which would not be required if such works required planning permission and were thus acts of development."

 

 

What is the Government’s policy on the use of conditions in planning permissions?

Paragraph 203 of the National Planning Policy Framework states “Local planning authorities should consider whether otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable through the use of conditions”

 

Paragraph 206 of the National Planning Policy Framework states “Planning conditions should only be imposed where they are:

 

necessary;

relevant to planning and;

to the development to be permitted;

enforceable;

precise and;

reasonable in all other respects.”

 

The policy requirement above is referred to in this guidance as the six tests.

 

After reading another thread last night (about contacting tree owners who had made TPO work applications), I was wondering why our LA didn't publicize TPO application decisions. From Sheffield I now know:biggrin: (I think!)

 

Ummmm, I thought I "got it" until you posted this Gary.... Ummmm, thanks (I think) for making me read all of that as well! Head in hands after a very up and down day! It's a curse, the more you ask, the more you have to read and try and reconcile!

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

As time passes I've found that more and more often I'm playing devils advocate with the client, responding to their complaints from the Arb Officers point of view; "you have no right to satellite reception, collecting leaves - they're legally free agents, cleaning gutters - householders maintenance etc, etc etc etc

 

Admittedly, I'll still work in the clients best interests but won't waste my own time and energy pursuing the unobtainable. I fully understand and appreciate the TO's task 'to maintain and improve the canopy cover within the borough' and by and large attempt to work towards the same ends.

 

I certainly don't envy their position, I'm sure very few people ring up to enthuse about the LA tree outside their house, rather I know they receive endless complaints day after day which aren't mitigated by an explanation of the benefits that trees provide. Nimby's come to mind

 

At the end of the day, shouldn't we all: arborists, arboriculturists, consultants and planning officers all have a great deal of common ground and goals? This is a general post Kevin, I read yours this morning and it made me think all day about my own attitudes, relationships and the barriers that did exist earlier in my own career.

 

One of the "ups" from today Gary, after some email and telephone exchanges, I've met a TO from a neighbouring county that I hadn't met face-to-face before.

 

The scenario was always going to be a 50/50 (at the very best) chance of obtaining a TPO approval for a fell/removal. There were no credible (in fact there were just no opportunities) to present decay/dysfunction justifications for the removal. The only possible case for the application was "wrong tree, wrong place" and, with the benefit of hindsight, possibly a questionable decision to TPO the tree in the first place - lack of foresight for potential future 'complications' (drain runs/power/phone lines.)

 

After some issues with time to determine (non determination appeal) and site visits that didn't get up close and personal with the tree, we had a joint home owner, TO, arb meeting at the base of the tree today.

 

I have been absolutely open with the TO about understanding the potential difficulty in them being able to reach a decision that favoured the home owners desired outcome. And have made an extra effort to demonstrate the existing positive attitude towards trees and canopy cover that the home owner has, and the potential negative effect that a refusal could have on this person's future approach towards trees and TPOs.

 

My goodness, who ever expected to be so deeply involved in arbitration, mediation and ego management when they started cutting trees?

 

It's a fairly long and complex scenario cut down to the absolute minimum (for the benefit of not typing too much) the upshot is, I've met someone today that has made a massively positive impression. Despite the obvious difficulties of covering a merged LA area, staffing and recent IT (for upgrade - read problems!), a TPO scenario that was far from straight forward, but has (hopefully - subject to written confirmation) delivered a pragmatic and forward looking solution to a difficult problem, whilst taking into account not just his own considerations, but those of the home owner and the arb as well.

 

He who shall remain nameless - I hope you're reading this and getting a good feeling from someone that appreciates your time today!

 

Your final paragraph above Gary, I think we could all take a lesson from that!

[Gary Prentice]

One of the "ups" from today Gary, after some email and telephone exchanges, I've met a TO from a neighbouring county that I hadn't met face-to-face before.

 

The scenario was always going to be a 50/50 (at the very best) chance of obtaining a TPO approval for a fell/removal. There were no credible (in fact there were just no opportunities) to present decay/dysfunction justifications for the removal. The only possible case for the application was "wrong tree, wrong place" and, with the benefit of hindsight, possibly a questionable decision to TPO the tree in the first place - lack of foresight for potential future 'complications' (drain runs/power/phone lines.)

 

After some issues with time to determine (non determination appeal) and site visits that didn't get up close and personal with the tree, we had a joint home owner, TO, arb meeting at the base of the tree today.

 

I have been absolutely open with the TO about understanding the potential difficulty in them being able to reach a decision that favoured the home owners desired outcome. And have made an extra effort to demonstrate the existing positive attitude towards trees and canopy cover that the home owner has, and the potential negative effect that a refusal could have on this person's future approach towards trees and TPOs.

 

My goodness, who ever expected to be so deeply involved in arbitration, mediation and ego management when they started cutting trees?

 

It's a fairly long and complex scenario cut down to the absolute minimum (for the benefit of not typing too much) the upshot is, I've met someone today that has made a massively positive impression. Despite the obvious difficulties of covering a merged LA area, staffing and recent IT (for upgrade - read problems!), a TPO scenario that was far from straight forward, but has (hopefully - subject to written confirmation) delivered a pragmatic and forward looking solution to a difficult problem, whilst taking into account not just his own considerations, but those of the home owner and the arb as well.

 

He who shall remain nameless - I hope you're reading this and getting a good feeling from someone that appreciates your time today!

 

Your final paragraph above Gary, I think we could all take a lesson from that!

 

:biggrin:

 

I think it's all about building bridges, particularly with TO's with an attitude that not every tree has to be saved.

 

If replacement can be confidently assured, continuity, different age classes and variety can be introduced. Where's the downside in that?

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

:biggrin:

 

I think it's all about building bridges, particularly with TO's with an attitude that not every tree has to be saved.

 

If replacement can be confidently assured, continuity, different age classes and variety can be introduced. Where's the downside in that?

 

Sounds like you read the application Gary.....

 

"...Notwithstanding the absence of notable defects, decay or dysfunction which might normally be associated with an application to fell, it is suggested that the long term diversity and sustainability of the tree’d landscape might be better achieved by proactive environmental management:

 

- Removal of a tree which is currently presenting (likely remain / increase) an intolerable level of conflict / administrative burden.

- Pre-empt and avoid potential future financial liability for local authority should damage occur after refusal of TPO application.

- Selection of a species and new planting location which allows for unimpeded growth to maturity.

- Facilitate new / additional compensatory planting with the associated benefit of diversifying the area species composition.

- Address the age class imbalance...."

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

I've just thought of a useful 'Informative" (acknowledged, rather than as a condition which has been previously challenged and successfully upheld) LPA's may wish to consider:

 

"The Arboriculture Association operate an accreditation scheme for tree surgery contractors should you require assistance in appointing a qualified person - see Arboricultural Association - ARB Approved Contractor Directory "

 

Good idea, no?

 

Interesting post / thread, thanks

Paul

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

I've just thought of a useful 'Informative" (acknowledged, rather than as a condition which has been previously challenged and successfully upheld) LPA's may wish to consider:

 

"The Arboriculture Association operate an accreditation scheme for tree surgery contractors should you require assistance in appointing a qualified person - see Arboricultural Association - ARB Approved Contractor Directory "

 

Good idea, no?

 

Interesting post / thread, thanks

Paul

 

Cheeky monkey! That's a blatant sales pitch!! And, likely to re-ignite a whole nuther line of debate!!

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Cheeky monkey! That's a blatant sales pitch!! And, likely to re-ignite a whole nuther line of debate!!

 

Hornets nest stirred, no?

 

Av'a'gud'un..

Paul

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Hornets nest stirred, no?

 

Av'a'gud'un..

Paul

 

:thumbup1:

[Chris at eden]

I've just thought of a useful 'Informative" (acknowledged, rather than as a condition which has been previously challenged and successfully upheld) LPA's may wish to consider:

 

"The Arboriculture Association operate an accreditation scheme for tree surgery contractors should you require assistance in appointing a qualified person - see Arboricultural Association - ARB Approved Contractor Directory "

 

Good idea, no?

 

Interesting post / thread, thanks

Paul

 

Good idea - yes. Will it happen - I doubt it. LPAs have been stung for the additional costs of tree works previously so a lot don't have recommended lists anymore.

 

Shame really.