Randomiser

Members
  • Content Count

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Randomiser

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. "The boss of the company, Enzo Sauro, said the giant redwood had been cut down by mistake and they would "replace it with a mature replica tree"." So they are looking for an enormous plastic tree? 😅
  2. Randomiser

    Are TPO consents time limited?

    Thanks again, posts must have crossed.
  3. Randomiser

    Are TPO consents time limited?

    Don't worry, have found it myself. Looks like it is Part 4, Regulation 17 of the Town & Country Planning (Tree Preservation) Regulations 2012. Thanks again. Randomiser.
  4. Randomiser

    Are TPO consents time limited?

    Thanks for the reply. When you say "normally", where is that defined, is it part of any legislation? Randomiser.
  5. I'm looking at a site which has a tree with a TPO on it. In 2015 consent was given for a replacement dwelling, this had a condition that work must commence within 3 years and the consent has now lapsed. A few weeks later a separate application was submitted for work on a tree on the site with a TPO on it, this was to raise the crown. In the officer's report recommending approval it included in the description of the application "(subject to three year condition)". However, in the recommended conditions at the end of the officer's report and in the decision notice issued in February 2016, unlike the consent for the replacement dwelling, the approval of the tree work did not have a condition setting a three year time limit for the work. What is the situation with this TPO consent? Is there a blanket time limit for TPO consents? As there is no time ljmit condition on the consent is it effectively open ended? Would appreciate anyone's thoughts or experience relating to this. Randomiser.
  6. I had always understood demolition to be considered somethjng which does indeed mean development has started. When I previously asked a local planning officer they printed this page from the Town & Country Planning act off to show me that it was. ===== 56Time when development begun... ...(2)For the purposes of the provisions of this Part mentioned in subsection (3) development shall be taken to be begun on the earliest date on which any material operation comprised in the development begins to be carried out... ...(4)In subsection (2) “material operation” means— (a)any work of construction in the course of the erection of a building; F4[(aa)any work of demolition of a building;] (b)the digging of a trench which is to contain the foundations, or part of the foundations, of a building; (c)the laying of any underground main or pipe to the foundations, or part of the foundations, of a building or to any such trench as is mentioned in paragraph (b); (d)any operation in the course of laying out or constructing a road or part of a road; (e)any change in the use of any land which constitutes material development. ===== So I would say development has commenced, but there is then a question as to whether there is a breach of the planning consent by commencing development if all the pre conditions have not been satisfied. Irrespective of a planning consent do you not usually need a demolition order for demolition of more than a certain cubic meterage? Do you not also need to submitted a demolition methods statement as a pre condition. Randomiser.
  7. I read the links to the Martin Goodall blog with interest, it seems two apply to new legislation that has come in to force after the permission was granted so I presume it is only the 2011 post that is specifically relevant. It was mentioned that it is hard to be generic without more detail of the conditions applied. I believe 2 would have a bearing. The first is a general condition that includes two documents relating to the trees: "The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority:... Arboricultural Impact Assessment, Tree Protection Plan" The second relevant condition is much more specific to the tree issue: "Protective measures, including fencing, ground protection, supervision, working procedures and special engineering solutions shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan. Any deviation from the works prescribed or methods agreed in the report will require prior written approval from the Local Planning Authority." Reflecting on the Martin Goodall blog I assume that these conditions do not come in to effect until development starts, so there is nothing here that stops a tree being taken down. However, as I read the conditions if the council felt ill disposed to me (as they may if I had just had one or more trees taken out and said, "tough, the development had not started") they could say it does not matter that the tree is no longer there, I would still have to comply with the condition by using the various protective measures even though the tree they were designed to protect is no longer there. Does that make any sense? It therefore seems to me that unless the owner takes down any of the trees before we purchase the site (which I think is highly unlikely), then being seen to be reasonable by the council is the best approach. One of the restricting trees is a very big one and I am sure would be seen as a bit of a local feature, the other is a fairly ugly specimen that even the tree survey described as being in only fair condition. So I am thinking that getting the tree surgeon in to see if they would be willing to go on the record saying it would be best to take it down may be the best approach. Randomiser
  8. Everything you say is very sensible, except, as soon as the house is signed off as finished the trees can be cut down as there is nothing that conditions retention of the trees after the tree protection fencing comes down. So it all seems a bit odd. But as somebody else alluded to, my mistake may be in looking for something that is logical 😅 Randomiser.
  9. Thanks Ferdinand that is very helpful, I guess it would be a variation of the condition rather than removal as the arboricultural method statement included in the condition covers move than just that bit of driveway. It does seem that the council have missed a trick in not putting a retain or replace type condition in the consent. What I may do is to get a tree surgeon to look at the particular tree, in the original report it was described as only being in "fair" condition and whilst not mentioned in the report it is covered in ivy, which can't be helping its condition. If I can get the tree surgeon to say the tree is unhealthy / a bit dangerous that may mean the action of taking it down is viewed more sympathetically (I don't want to put the council off side before I even start!). Randomiser
  10. Rather than 'hijack' somebody else's topic on RPAs I thought it best to start a new one. The consent on the site we are close to exchanging on had a condition that the house be built in line with the arboricultural methods statement submitted with the application. That statement identified the RPA of a number of trees on the site and specified the need for fencing off of some parts of the site, an area of foundation that needs to take account of the RPA and a small area of the proposed driveway that needs to be of 'no dig' construction. The site is not in a conservation area and the trees that create these requirements do not have TPOs on them. I had assumed that this meant the trees could not be touched, but in the RPA topic PeterW has said that given there is no TPO and the site is not in a conservation area the trees could be removed. I can see how this makes sense as otherwise you could presumably not touch the trees even if the house were not built. But this comment does open up a can of worms that I would be interested in views on: If we were to take down the tree which has the RPA that creates the need for a small section of 'no dig' construction on the drive would we be in the bizarre situation that even though the tree were no longer there we would still have to make that section of drive using 'no dig' construction to comply with the condition in the planning consent? It would have been simpler to remove the tree before making the application, but maybe the screening it provides was important in getting the consent through. Has the council therefore made a mistake in not applying a condition that the tree needs to remain and / or be replaced if it is removed (replacement is a condition I have seen on consents for other sites we have looked at)? The situation is bizarre as given the lack of TPO and conservation area as soon as the house is signed off as complete presumably the offending tree could just be removed anyway, so protecting it now seems to make no sense. This is something I would not want to discuss with the council as presumably they could just put a TPO on a tree and then it could not be removed - I have heard stories of councils doing this within an hour when somebody has reported that a tree is about to be cut down. Any thoughts much appreciated. Randomiser.
  11. If I can avoid any CIL liability I would like to do that. There is some talk of my employer moving the department I work in to another area, nothing like certainty so I can't let the rumours rule my life but would hate to have to move in less than 3 years and trigger a CIL claw back. What I find a bit odd is that I would have thought it would be a simple question to answer with a google search, but so far I can not find anything on whether you can apply to extend a house before it is actually built. VAT is a good point and I will look in to that further. Randomiser.
  12. Thanks for that, I have been through that guidance and I am certain what we would want to do is within the scope of Permitted Develeopment. But from what I have read on this forum those Permitted Developmet rights do not exist until the house is built. So, at this stage the initial simple question is - can an application for an extension to a house be made before a house has been built? Randomiser.
  13. Randomiser

    Root protection zones

    The site we are in the process of buying has a number of trees around it, a couple with TPOs but others without TPOs. As part of the application a detailed arboricultural methods statement was submitted. In this report the arborculturalist said that no distinction was made between trees with TPOs and those without as detailed planning consent overrides any TPO protection. The planning consent says the consent must be implemented consistent with the arboricultural methods statement. So if this is correct, then once a consent is in place for a site whether a tree has a TPO or not seems irrelevant for the purpose of the build. What is not clear to me is whether that changes the status of the trees more generally. Before the consent, as the site is not in a conservation area, I peesume the owner could just have taken down many of the trees. So what happens now if one of the trees is taken down and the consent is then only implemented a year later, has a planning condition been breached? What if a tree is taken down and then the consent is not implemented, has an offence been committed? How on earth that works when the tree is not on your land would be interesting to understand. The foundations for the approved house on our proposed site encroach on one of the RPAs but have been approved on the basis that this section will have to be 'no dig' / constructed under arborcultural supervision. So you can build in an RPA, but I think it is a complex area that you will need expert input / justification for. Randomiser. So in short it seems a very
  14. Hi All My first post, so please be gentle. We are close to exchanging contracts on a site with detailed consent already in place. One of the positives about the site is that the consent was granted before the local authority had its CIL in place, there is also no s.106. Now we are having a bit of a wobble as we think that a couple of the bedrooms may be a bit small. But, if we go back and try to get consent for a slightly larger footprint the new consent will have a CIL attached to it. We think if we do that we are in effect paying twice, as the price we are paying for the site includes some premium for the fact there is no CIL or s.106. I had thought to myself that one option would be to make the house a little bigger under Permitted Development, we only want to push the rear wall back by somewhere around 1 to 2 metres. But having read a recent thread here I now understand that those Permitted Development rights will not come into existence until the house is complete. This does not really help as clearly we do not want to build the house as approved and then immediately afterwards knock the back of it down and extend by 2 metres, that would be a silly idea from a timetable and budget perspective. I am now wondering whether it is possible to apply for an extension to the house before it is built and then effectively build this at the same time as the house as approved. Or is this like Permitted Development and you are not able to extend something that is not yet built? If it is possible to apply for an extension now there is logical discussion to be had with the planning department, given that if it is not apprived it can be built under Permitted Development anyway (the consent did not remove the Permitted Development rights). Maybe the planners rely on the extra cost and time to enlarge under Permitted Development immediately after a new house is built to stop this happening. But then in most cases a new application could be made, as there would already be a CIL in place and so the incremental cost would not be that great. I would be interested in any thoughts that others have on this topic. Thanks, Randomiser.