On planning conditions having to be enforceable…

[Dreadnaught]

I just read @Sensus mention in another thread that: "the rules are that [planners] should not impose Planning Conditions unless a number of tests can be met - one of which is that the Condition must be enforceable, which it is not" (my emphasis). It was not in that case because it related to influence over an object (a wall in that case) on land which the subject did not own or control.

 

In my case, I have the planning requirement shown below. However, none of the trees near my plot are actually on the land I own, they are all either in neighbours' gardens or in the access road outside my plot. (At least the tree's trunks above ground are not on my plot. Their roots extend under my plot of course.)

 

I wonder, does this requirement therefore not apply to those trees in my case? Can it only relate to trees that are on land I control?

 

Quote

12. If any tree shown to be retained on the approved tree protection methodology is removed, uprooted, destroyed or dies within five years of project completion, another tree shall be planted at the same place and that tree shall be of such size and species, and shall be planted at such time, as may be specified in writing by the local planning authority.

 

Edited November 9, 2019 by Dreadnaught

[Dreadnaught]

Thanks @Sensus. Very interesting. 

 

Should I just leave the condition there and challenge it only if it was ever used against me regarding a tree not on my land?

 

Or would it be better to have the condition removed, because there are actually no trees on my land to which it could apply and it is therefore an irrelevant condition?

 

(I got my planning approval just three days ago by the way).

 

 

Edited November 9, 2019 by Dreadnaught

[Dreadnaught]

Thanks again, @Sensus. Appreciated.

 

Just checked my red line: they are outside of it. Phew!

[Big Jimbo]

I would get them to remove it as it would be un-enforcable. give the tossers something to do.

[scottishjohn]

3 hours ago, Dreadnaught said:

In my case, I have the planning requirement shown below. However, none of the trees near my plot are actually on the land I own, they are all either in neighbours' gardens or in the access road outside my plot. (At least the tree's trunks above ground are not on my plot. Their roots extend under my plot of course.)

the way i understand the law is that any part of a tree encroaching your land can be removed and the bits returned to the owner

this being enshrined inlaw must take preceendent on planning  ?

 so if the problem is the roots+ branchs  -- you dig them up -chop them off ?

Edited November 9, 2019 by scottishjohn

[Russell griffiths]

1 hour ago, scottishjohn said:

the way i understand the law is that any part of a tree encroaching your land can be removed and the bits returned to the owner

this being enshrined inlaw must take preceendent on planning  ?

 so if the problem is the roots+ branchs  -- you dig them up -chop them off ?

 

Not if your in a conservation area or tree has tpo, consent required for everything apart from dead, dying, dangerous. 

[Big Jimbo]

2 hours ago, Sensus said:

 

Not at all. Planning is also enshrined in (different) law.

 

One bit of law does not 'take precedence' over another.

 

You can't deliberately run someone over, then claim you're not guilty of murder because you were only doing 25mph in a 30 limit.

Is there any chance i can  knock them over doing 20mph, and then reverse back over them trying to see what i hit. Then driving over them again as i could'nt see that i had hit anything. Just thinking, would 3 goes at 20mph do the job. ? Plenty of people on my list.

[Temp]

Google found this..

 

https://rbwm.moderngov.co.uk/Data/Cabinet/20100225/Agenda/meetings_100225_cab_trees_appxA.pdf

 

Given that trees are vulnerable as a result of construction activity, the Council,

when granting Planning Permission, has powers under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to ensure the protection of trees “off site”. Conditions can be used to protect street trees from development pressures or be used to agree schedules of work with developers that may include planting of new street trees to counter losses or harm.

[PeterW]

I read that and it’s usual Royal Borough of Windsor stuff - they could only include the trees into the permission if they included them and noted them on the notice. 
 

Also worth reading the next paragraph. 
 

Conditions can be used to protect street trees from development pressures or be used to agree schedules of work with developers that may include planting of new street trees to counter losses or harm.

 

So this would only refer to trees the council/borough owned as they have no power under the TCPA to impose a condition on property they do not own. 
 

That information is also nearly 10 years old - I did wonder how many times it’s been challenged or even used...?

[Temp]

+1

 

I don't think the condition is enforcible as worded.