UKTC Archive

Re: Building Consent and afterthought T.P.P.s

Subject: Re: Building Consent and afterthought T.P.P.s
From: andersonarb
Date: Jan 26 2012 18:18:49

 


The building design, tree constraints, method of 
protection measures had all been submitted on the single plan like it had 
already been agreed in principle, how presumptuous!!

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Brewster <Ian.Brewster@xxxxx.gov.uk>
To: UK Tree Care <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Sent: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 15:57
Subject: RE: Building Consent and afterthought T.P.P.s

I have occasionally been involved with "old school" negotiators whose 
approach to any sort of negotiation is never to give an inch and to get 
entrenched before you even start. While you might very well feel liking 
telling them where to stick it, the "I couldn't agree more.... but perhaps if 
it was done this way it might save you some money" approach is sometimes 
better, and perhaps ultimately more satisfying.

The Blue Book does tell us that we shouldn't ask for more information than is 
needed to make a decision, and I assume similar logic is applied elsewhere in 
the planning process. I've just been on the phone to an Architect who tells 
me that one of his recent applications was not validated because North wasn't 
clearly shown on a plan, despite everybody concerned knowing where North 
was.... There appear to be some Planners who are very keen to stick hurdles 
in front of applicants, often to no discernible purpose.

Ho hum,
Bill.


From: Howe, Ron:

Ian, I don't know the answer to your question, but surely a tree 
impact/implication study, where appropriate, is sufficient at that point and, 
usually, the arb consultant should've done a constraints plan at that stage 
otherwise how can they advise on issues! That to me is fine to assess a site. 
We 
have to be careful not to require too much costly stuff at the outset as that 
is 
unreasonable and liable to compensation in the name of unnecessary expense 
... 
It really is no hardship to get the finer details later if the scheme is 
consented.
______________________________________________________________________

Yes I can see an implication assessment would be valid following a site 
meeting/chat with the TO to determine what could be realistically achieved in 
light of the proposed build. Saves all the hassle later on re-jigging the 
design/reducing unit numbers to accommodate good trees etc. 

The example I gave to Tom was where a TCP was received from a developer that 
failed to acknowledge trees worthy of retention, omitting them, their Crown 
Spread/Dbh... from the plan. The building design, tree constraints, method of 
protection measures had all been submitted on the single plan like it had 
already been agreed in principle, how presumptuous!! Where a simple tree 
survey 
would have been most useful without the hatched lines and architects building 
info. The developer appeared to downgrade trees in favour of this development 
and was not prepared to work with the Planning Department, even to shift the 
design a few metres away (there was room) thus avoiding conflict with good 
trees. This would have made the design valid from an arboricultural 
perspective. 


I expect most Tree Consultants confident in the building design, apart from 
the 
tree survey, would also carry out the implication assessment, method 
statement 
and protection plan during the single visit. Those that find themselves 
having 
to provide something for a developer at the latter stages, without seeking 
prior 
tree advice must feel very awkward with BS principles thrown out the window 
and 
two fingers crossed that they'll still get paid when it starts to get 
complicated. 

http://www.arun.gov.uk
NLPG UPRN 100062237016
DX 57406 Littlehampton

Important Notice
This e-mail is intended exclusively for the addressee and may contain 
information that is confidential and/or privileged.
If you are not the intended recipient (or authorised to receive it for the 
addressee), please notify the sender and delete the e-mail immediately; 
using, 
copying, or disclosing it to anyone else, is strictly prohibited and may be 
unlawful.
Any views, opinions or options presented are solely those of the author and 
do 
not necessarily represent those of Arun District Council.
The information in this e-mail may be subject to public disclosure under the 
Freedom of Information Act 2000, therefore we cannot guarantee that we will 
not 
provide the whole or part of this e-mail to a third party.
The Council reserves the right to monitor e-mails in accordance with relevant 
legislation.
Whilst outgoing e-mails are checked for viruses, we cannot guarantee this 
e-mail 
is virus-free or has not been intercepted or changed and we do not accept 
liability for any damage caused.
Any reference to "e-mail" in this disclaimer includes any attachments.
**********************************************************************




-- 
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/