UKTC Archive

Re: Availability of sunshine

Subject: Re: Availability of sunshine
From: Bill Anderson
Date: Aug 01 2019 10:03:30
I thought we thrashed this one to death in 2005 when somebody pointed out
that the suggestion within 5837 was wrong. Chris Skellern had some nice
illustrations on AIE which I've copied somewhere. The result is I don't
bother mentioning sunlight unless it's an obvious issue.

Rodney reviewed the latest version of the sunlight publication in the
Journal a few years ago and concluded it wasn't worth buying IIRC, I think
I've got a copy of one of the versions, but it's at home so I'll have a
look for it tonight and see what I can send you Julian.


On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 at 10:08, Julian Morris <> wrote:

Does anyone have a copy of "Availability of sunshine" (CP75/75 - AP 155)
by BRE (01-Jan-1975) that I could have a look at? It is referenced in
BS5837:2012 (Clause 5.2.2) but was withdrawn by BRE and is not available to
buy, even from BRE. I don't need to HAVE a copy, i would just like a flick
through it to confirm it says what I think it says. Any help appreciated.

As a separate question, how many consultants doing 5837 reports present
the shadow segments in their tree constraints reports? Personally I do not
do it, I offer it as a service (or full BS8206 daylighting assesments),
no-one has ever asked for it and no-one has ever protested that I haven't
included it in my reports.

Julian A. Morris - Professional Tree Services  and
0778 XXX XXXX - 0141 XXX XXXX

Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 6:21 PM
From: ""nick harrison" (" <>
To: "UK Tree Care" <>
Subject: Re: Tree works apps consents and appeals

 Sorry for the delay in replying... been a busy week!
I'm a tree officer myself and have asked this question due to some
recent changes at my LA. The head planner has instructed me to only issue
split decisions when, for example, an applicant proposes to fell tree A and
prune tree B and I wish to approve the work for tree B but not tree A. My
previous experience at other LA's has been to use split decisions for that
type of scenario but also for lesser works as in my example in the OP. The
chief planner has countered this by saying it is not a fair process to do
this as the applicant is unable to appeal  this type of approval.
My logic knew this to be wrong but wanted to check with fellow arb
people out there to be sure I wasn't missing something so thank you for the
helpful comments although I suspect it will fall on deaf ears in the
planner's office
    On Monday, 22 July 2019, 14:01:43 BST, HUDSON, Chris <> wrote:

The Grounds for Appeal are given in the Planning Inspectorate Guide for
Appellants which states an Appeal against a Council's decision may be made
against the following :-

* the council's refusal of consent;
* any condition attached to the council's consent;
* the council's refusal/failure to notify the applicant of their
decision within 8 weeks from the date they received the application, (in
these circumstances the application is deemed to have been refused).
* The council's failure to agree a matter that required their agreement
under the terms of a condition of consent

In your example any appeal would be against the refusal element  (the
20% reduction).

What I understand you are saying is that you which to appeal against the
lesser element (the approved element) as presumably you consider this to be

In essence you can't appeal against a consent (unless it relates to an
attached condition) however in my experience should you appeal against the
refusal element of the decision, the Inspector will also consider the
approved element in his/her Appeal Decision.

The decision the Inspector has to make is whether the proposed work to
the tree would have an adverse impact on the amenity of the area and
whether the reasons submitted in support of the application justify the
work submitted. The latter consideration you need to look at carefully as
if the reasons submitted are somewhat vague then the LA may be vindicated
in their decision

I have had a number of Appeals similar to this and I believe the
Inspector would in all likelihood  be required to consider the merits (or
otherwise) of the two options in any event.

Chris Hudson
Principal Forestry and Arboricultural Officer
Environmental Planning
Development Management
Cheshire East Council

Tel (01625) XXXXXX


Confidentiality: This email and its contents and any attachments are
intended only for the above named. As the email may contain confidential or
legally privileged information, if you are not the above named person or
responsible for delivery to the above named, or suspect that you are not an
intended recipient please delete or destroy the email and any attachments

Security and Viruses: This note confirms that this email message has
been swept for the presence of computer viruses. We cannot accept any
responsibility for any damage or loss caused by software viruses.

Monitoring: The Council undertakes monitoring of both incoming and
outgoing emails. You should therefore be aware that if you send an email to
a person within the Council it may be subject to any monitoring deemed
necessary by the organisation from time to time. The views of the author
may not necessarily reflect those of the Council.

Access as a public body: The Council may be required to disclose this
email (or any response to it) under the Freedom of Information Act, 2000,
unless the information in it is covered by one of the exemptions in the Act.

Legal documents: The Council does not accept service of legal documents
by email.

To find out how we use your information see our privacy notice.

The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy

The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy

The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy

The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy