Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About StudioS

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hello We have gained planning permission for a replacement dwelling with an attached garage. Part of the garage sits within the RPAs of a Lime Tree (T3 - please refer to the attachment) and a series of Beech trees (G7). Please note, trees T1, T2 and T3 are subject to TPOs. Whilst the encroachment has been deemed acceptable by the Council’s Arboriculturist, we are seeking advice on where to navigate the surface water off the main house and garage. Obviously we would want the development to cause as little harm as possible to the Lime Trees, however, it seems as though we have no choice but to place the soakaway(s) within the RPAs of the Lime Trees. The question is then, is it generally acceptable to build soakaways within the RPAs of the Lime Trees? And if the answer is yes, does anyone have any suggestions as to where to place the soakaways for the front of the development? Many thanks Soakaway.pdf
  2. Whilst I appreciate the comments and feedback on the scheme, I am yet to receive an answer to my original question...
  3. Thank you for your responses, much appreciated. An initial proposal was created, after which point an Arboriculturalist was instructed to create an AIA, AMS and advise on the scheme. The only recommendations received were to move the garage further from G7, which was done. The arb made no mention of issues building so close to T3 or T6. Due to the shape and size of the site, there is no scope for re-jigging the scheme. The main house may appear quite large, but it is in keeping with the rest of the area. Planning have stated that there are no issues regarding the size of the proposal, the only problem is the impact on trees. Please find attached the entire TPP.
  4. We have submitted a planning application for a replacement dwelling with an attached garage. Part of the garage sits within the RPAs of a Lime Tree and a series of Beech trees (please refer to the attachment). Because of this, we have received a refusal from the Arbroiculturalist advisor within the Council. He stated that the only way to get planning is to either: a) Amend the scheme to remove the garage, or b) Provide overriding justification for construction within the RPA of the trees, as per 5.3.1 of BS 5837. For reference, BS5837 states: "5.3.1 The default position should be that structures (see 3.10) are located outside the RPAs of trees to be retained. However, where there is an overriding justification for construction within the RPA, technical solutions might be available that prevent damage to the tree(s) (see Clause 7)..." 1. Does anyone know of any examples of an overriding justification that has allowed construction within the RPA? Thank you.


Arbtalk.co.uk is a hub for the arboriculture industry in the UK.  
If you're just starting out and you need business, equipment, tech or training support you're in the right place.  If you've done it, made it, got a van load of oily t-shirts and have decided to give something back by sharing your knowledge or wisdom,  then you're welcome too.
If you would like to contribute to making this industry more effective and safe then welcome.
Just like a living tree, it'll always be a work in progress.
Please have a look around, sign up, share and contribute the best you have.

See you inside.

The Arbtalk Team

Follow us

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.