If you are dealing with a development site you run up against PPG3 and
minimum densities. We asked the ODPM to what extent we could remove the
land required by trees from density calculations for the number of
houses to be crammed onto the site. We were told that only significant
landscape buffer strips could be abstracted, not individual trees or
groups within the development. For this reason, a significant proportion
of contemporary developments will have no trees of any substance in 30
years time despite much handwringing and fine words from arb
professionals.
So my feeling is that any such policy would be indefensible.
History will not judge us well.
Gilbert Addison
Tree and Countryside Officer
Breckland Council
Tel: 01362 656243
Fax: 01362 656297
-----Original Message-----
From: Dominic Scanlon [mailto:dom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.co.uk]
Sent: 27 February 2006 08:46
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: RE: Separation distances.
Collette wrote:
<I have a theoretical question for both tree officers and consultants.
My
question is:
If a Council were to stipulate a 20m minimum separation distance between
mature trees and newly built dwellings, would it have any problems with
enforcing this? Also would the council be justified in increasing this
distance where trees exceeded 30m because they were worried that a tree
might hit a house in the future (even if the trees are not in council
ownership)?>
I previously worked for a council that had a policy that stated that no
dwelling should be within canopy spread + 5m of the mature spread.
This was over turned at appeal on more than one occasion. Whilst it had
some benefits - it was clear to developers, it was to ridgid and many
situations didn't justify it. My predecessor had a major problem with
it as
most new planting on sites automatically breached the policy (it was +5
of
mature spread) - he had a point and it demonstrates the inflexibility of
the
policy.
When working out reasonable distances I often found that the distance I
thought reaosnable happened to be canopy +5. But it doesn't take into
acount so many issues e.g. orientation of the site, shape of the tree
etc
etc. A side elevation withi that distance with no windows is ofetn
reaosnable, subjetc to the rest of the site not being dominated.
If the Coucnil in question are purely concerned about trees falling over
then the policy is excessive and they may want to consider a quantified
tree
risk assessment approach.
Dom
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre
http://www.arborcentre.co.uk/
********************************************************************
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the contents of this e-mail are
confidential, represent only the views of the sender expressed only
to the intended recipient and are not intended to impose any legal
obligation upon Breckland Council.
If you are not the intended recipient, you are asked to notify the
sender and delete the message as soon as possible.
This message has been scanned for viruses by BlackSpider MailControl
********************************************************************
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
The UKTC is supported by The Arbor Centre
http://www.arborcentre.co.uk/
