UKTC Archive

RE: Tree survey & constraints plans - validation period

Subject: RE: Tree survey & constraints plans - validation period
From: Addison, Gilbert
Date: Feb 23 2009 10:04:12
Jim - I hope I misunderstand what you're saying. Your analysis seems to
rest on assumptions of honour, professionalism and integrity that are
hard to sustain when viewed from the front line. Furthermore, the
current requirements of 1App and whatever local requirements the LPA
(I'm thinking of myself here) has added, clearly require the applicant
to supply whatever information is pertinent to the proper determination
of the proposal. Are you implying that LPAs should do their own surveys,
TCPs AIAs etc without the benefit of the applicant's own 'working out'?
I don't think this is either legal or resource appropriate. 


Gilbert Addison | Tree and Countryside Officer |Breckland Council
Office: 01362 XXXXXX Fax: 01362 XXXXXX 
DDI:   01362 XXXXXX | Mobile: na
Elizabeth House, Walpole Loke, Dereham NR19 1EE

gilbert.addison@xxxxxxxxxx.gov.uk |www.breckland.gov.uk

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Quaife [mailto:jq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.co.uk] 
Sent: 21 February 2009 11:24
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: RE: Tree survey & constraints plans - validation period

We provide a plan of the existing site layout based on a topo.

We then work through a design with the client (ideally starting with a
TCP, but more often being presented with the proposal), and once an
application scheme is agreed (where possible in consultation with the
TO) we will then prepare the supporting statement.

A TCP (by the way we have never called it that, I prefer the title
Development Scope Plan even when 5837 caught up) is NOT a plan that
should take the place of an existing layout.  The whole point is that
someone (and one hopes that it is the arb) needs to decide which trees
are to be retained.  I'm not sure why the superimposition of a proposals
plan onto a topo is a TCP.  The sequence is Topo - TCP - Proposal.
Surely (I know your name is Luke!) the implications assessment applies
to the proposal?

The TCP may describe the eventual proposal plan, but it is more likely
to be the prompt for serious discussion.  If you are going to rest your
reputation on the report supporting the proposal, why is it necessary to
submit a TCP with the application?

We all go about things in our on way and the process you are describing
clearly suits you.  That doesn't make you right and me wrong or vice
versa, provided that the end product achieves its purpose.

My argument is simply that the need to submit a design tool with a
planning application is almost never necessary (nothing about trees is
absolute!) if the supporting statement is comprehensive. 

Jim

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Luke Steer [mailto:luketreescapes@xxxxxxxxxxx.com]
Sent: 21 February 2009 10:42
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: Re: Tree survey & constraints plans - validation period

 

Hi Jim,

I agree with much of what you say but a TCP does describe what is there
now and and in combination with the other plans what will be lost and
why it will be lost if the proposals are implemented which can be useful
information for a TO.  I often superimpose the proposals onto the topo
on which the RPAs are also drawn.  This in effect is a TCP and also an
implication assessment.  The TPP and proposed items to be included in
the method statement come next.  Are we talking about the same thing?

 

Luke

 

 

 

 

________________________________

From: Jim Quaife <jq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.co.uk>

To: UK Tree Care <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>

Sent: Saturday, 21 February, 2009 10:13:30 AM

Subject: RE: Tree survey & constraints plans - validation period

 

It is perhaps a sad reflection on the quality of submissions that the

issue of out-of-date data is a subject of conjecture, but as with

virtually everything to do with trees it is a matter of justification.

If an applicant is so lazy (or brow-beaten by a client) that

sub-standard data are submitted then the TO's response should be quite

clear.

 

I am quite happy for sample measurements of trees to be sufficient for a

general indication of growth where the re-surveying of a large number of

trees is not justified.  Clearly the sample selection is critical, but

common sense comes into play.  Because we use our system of RPA

calculation that rounds the dimension upwards, I am satisfied that the

inbuilt margin for variation is perfectly adequate.

 

I am more interested in the notion that a tree constraints plan should

be included in a panning application.  Richard Nicholson said that it is

a design tool and as such should not be part of an application

submission. He did add as an afterthought that if the TO was non-plussed

by how the application layout was derived, sight of the TCP might be

useful.

Again, there is no hard and fast rule and it all depends upon the degree

and calibre of co-operation between the applicant's arb and the TO, but

actually this is missing the point entirely.

If a TO does not understand the application layout the fault is either

with the TO or the arb.  In my view the fault is actually almost

invariably with the latter because if a report is not clear then it

deserves to be thrown out.  The TCP is a design aid and in the same way

that the architect doesn't submit all the discarded schemes with an

application, nor should an arb.

Frankly, the arb report should be a stand-alone document and (here I

must ask that you forgive the chest-beating) if the reader of a report

has a substantive question about it within the terms of reference then

I'm afraid that the report is simply sub-standard.  All the

justifications for the proposal should be in the report - not

necessarily detailed engineering calculations or precise specifications

if feasibility can be demonstrated without them - such that when the

reader finishes reading it he or she understands what is advanced.

Whether the reader agrees with it is another matter entirely ... (!)

 

One could argue that if a TCP needs to be included then the report is

deficient.

 

The fundamental consideration is whether one regards BS5837, despite all

its errors and faults, as a useful basis for interpretation, or the

pinnacle of arboricultural understanding.

 

Jim

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Addison, Gilbert [mailto:Gilbert.Addison@xxxxxxxxxx.gov.uk] 

Sent: 20 February 2009 13:33

To: UK Tree Care

Subject: RE: Tree survey & constraints plans - validation period

 

I have been asked the same question and my reply was that while I might

accept the dimensions as near enough, I would need amended tree

condition surveyed within the past 12 months or if the site was under

active change then perhaps more recently.

 

 

Gilbert Addison | Tree and Countryside Officer |Breckland Council

Office: 01362 XXXXXX Fax: 01362 XXXXXX 

DDI:  01362 XXXXXX | Mobile: na

Elizabeth House, Walpole Loke, Dereham NR19 1EE

 

gilbert.addison@xxxxxxxxxx.gov.uk |www.breckland.gov.uk

 

 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: DAVID FAWCETT [mailto:dkfaw2@xxxxxx.co.uk] 

Sent: 20 February 2009 12:50

To: UK Tree Care

Subject: Tree survey & constraints plans - validation period

 

Once again, thank you all for your responses in advance.

 

I have been given conflicting opinions - but no firm advice based on

legislation/ guidance.

 

if i were to submit a report & plan prepared in line with 5837 2005 that

was prepared in 2006 as part of a planning application; would the report

be accepted as part of the application? Or... would the survey/ report

be expected to be more up to date? And if so, how long is a report

considered to be valid from a planning perspective?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--

 

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.

 

********************************************************************

 

 

 

 

-- 

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/

----------------------------------------------------------------------

------------

Email the way you want it - scanned for viruses and spam by emailsystems

 

If you believe this email is spam, please forward to

spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.com

 

 

 

 

-- 

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/

 

 

 

-- 

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/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------

Email the way you want it - scanned for viruses and spam by emailsystems

 

If you believe this email is spam, please forward to
spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.com




--

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/




-- 
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/