UKTC Archive

RE: NPPF Feb 2019

Subject: RE: NPPF Feb 2019
From: Matt Searle
Date: Mar 01 2019 12:34:30
Here's my interpretation:

Following a technical consultation, the Feb 2019 revision supersedes the 2018 
NPPF bringing forward relatively minor clarifications to housing need and the 
basis for calculating a 5 year housing supply and most relevant to UKTC, I 
guess, an amendment relating to habitats and biodiversity (paragraph 177). No 
changes are made to the paragraphs covering ancient woodand and veteran trees 
or indeed trees outside of these areas.      

The change to Paragraph 177
 
2018 said ‘ The presumption in favour of sustainable development does not 
apply where development requiring appropriate assessment because of its 
potential impact on a habitats site is being planned or determined’

2019 now says ‘    The presumption in favour of sustainable development does 
not apply where the plan or project is likely to have a significant effect on 
a habitat site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), 
unless an appropriate assessment has concluded that the plan or project will 
not adversely affect the integrity of the habitat site’.

What does this mean?

Provided impacts upon a habitat site can be successfully mitigated, the 
presumption now applies to development in habitat sites too. 

One can now take into account mitigating measures at the screening stage (of 
a Habitats Regulation Assessment). Before February 2019, one couldn’t.


Matt Searle Bsc (Hons) MRTPI, MICFor
Principal Arboricultural Consultant
Treework Environmental Practice
Tree Experts Across the UK
Winner of Trees & Development Award 2018

Mobile: 07903XXXXXX
Southeast: 0207 XXX XXXX
Head Office:  0117 XXX XXXX 
www.treeworks.co.uk



Treework Environmental Practice is the trading name of Treework Services Ltd.
Registered Office & Place of Registration: Treework Services Ltd, Monarch 
House, 1-7 Smyth Road, 
Bedminster, Bristol, BS3 2BX

Reg No.: 1621606
VAT No.: 397 XXXX XX
  
This email including attachments is intended for the addressed recipient 
only.  It may contain confidential information and may be subject to legal, 
professional or other privilege.  
It must not be copied, disclosed or used by any other person.  If you are not 
the intended recipient, please notify the sender and then delete from your 
system immediately. 

Treework Environmental Practice does not guarantee the attachments or 
enclosures are secure or virus-free.





-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info 
[mailto:uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info] On Behalf Of Trees are Good
Sent: 22 February 2019 20:05
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: Re: NPPF Feb 2019

Thanks Tim. Very useful. Bill, I refer to it as the current NPPF.

Cheers

Moray

On Fri, 22 Feb 2019, 12:34 pm Bill Anderson <anderson.arb.original@xxxxxx.com
wrote:

My understanding is that it's NPPF2 in the Planning world, I agree that the
changes appear insignificant Tim, but I was just wondering. I'll stick with
NPPF2 for the moment.
BTW that "compare-tool" is pretty clever although my quick scan through
seems to suggest that the majority of the differences it found are dates of
the revision. Paragraph 44 hasn't changed either, but Mr Pickles's idea of
getting planning law down to 50 pages has gone out the window, it's already
been increased by 25 pages.....

On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 at 07:51, Tim Moya <tim.moya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.co.uk>
wrote:


Bill - the changes are pretty minor and I'm not sure that it qualifies as
a significant revision.
I suggest just refer to it as NPPF 2019
Tim Moya
-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info <
uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
On Behalf Of Bill Anderson
Sent: 21 February 2019 15:49
To: UK Tree Care <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: Re: NPPF Feb 2019

Having not got used to calling the 2018 revision NPPF2, should we now be
referring to NPPF3?

On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 18:30, John Cheetham <liverbirds1968@xxxxxx.com>
wrote:

Thanks Tim

Regards

John



On Wed, 20 Feb 2019, 16:31 Tim Moya <tim.moya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.co.uk
wrote:

For those who are interested the NPPF was updated again yesterday
Not much has changed since last year's update and para 175 remains
the same.
Here's a handy tool for comparing the two versions.
https://draftable.com/compare/KJIChxwkzTTO
Tim



--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/




--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/




--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/



--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/




--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/




-- 
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/



-- 
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/