Like most folk, I believe that more can be achieved in life by open and
transparent negotiation - laying ones cards on the table for a reciprocal
arrangement and courtesy. Unfortunately, like most things in life, there
will be times when one side will try and gain the advantage at the detriment
of the other party using this method. Nothing is more relevant to this fact
in Planning issues than TREES on or near a site that you want to develop
or extend.
I had an historic situation where a prime site ripe for an infill plot had
a bank of protected trees on its rear boundary. In the middle of the garden
was one sole Walnut tree of mature height that was not protected. Research
at the Planning Offices revealed that it was only protected by a very obscure
and old Planning Condition back in the sixties for the original estate that
required all mature trees on the site to be retained (non were specifically
identified).
The options of how to play this when entering into pre-application negotiations
with the Planning Dept. were put to the client which entailed either taking
a chance and removing the tree now to expose the plot for an obvious new
dwelling but at the risk of having to incur some sort of costs for Planning
rectification measures or leave the site as it is and start talking to the
Planners. The client did not want to take the risk so we left the site unaltered.
Upon entering into sketch scheme designs and negotiations with a Case Planning
Officer and their 'new' urban design team it soon became clear that the Planners
were resistant to a property on this site mainly for siting issues (not the
trees) but our approaches to the Councils Tree Officers were unusually
non-responsive. After 4 weeks of messages and non-returned calls I was eventually
told that the Walnut tree had now been issued with a Tree preservation order
(TPO) without any form of discussion from them. Even half expecting this
as the 'worst case scenario' it was still very shocking and upsetting to
find that your trust of fair play in the system had been well and truly shat
on. Also, that a perfectly good site had now received another layer of problems
to overcome. It was also clear that 'internal events' had taken place between
all sections of the Planning Dept. in order prevent development on this site
due to the initial negative response from the Case Planning Officer.
I wouldn't want to go so far as to indicate that 'dark powers were at work'
but it is clear that in the close knit 'chummy' atmosphere of the Council
Offices, Planners and other consultation specialists had conspired together
to form a united front against development on this site even though we had
tried to negotiate separately on the tree issue.
The conclusion to all this is clear - Don't trust any part of the Planning
system during pre-application negotiations when trees are involved. On this
particular site we had now entered into an adversarial position not of our
own making. We would have been no better of if we had simply removed the
tree first and argued about the legality of this action afterwards after
all it was not formally protected. You can understand why some arrogant
developers do this - Honesty and openness simply doesn't pay when dealing
with some aspects of Planning.
Our 'Maximum Build Planning Guide' explains this tree issue in more
detail and sets out various risk assessment procedures that you can incorporate
within your scheme when dealing with trees. I would not advocate removing
any trees from a site until you have accurately identified the problem areas
- some trees on a site will actually assist your Planning application so
an overall assessment and the formation of a plan is vital if you are to
avoid further TPO's being applied to your site. The TPO route is one of the
best tools Planners have in preventing your development - it's fairly quick
to implement, it's in-house and it's secretive until the day the order is
placed - you have been warned. Planning permision and planning approval.