Comments for The Aspect Tree Consultancy Blog

Comment on Industry Best Practice – Tree Work BS3998:2010 by Jon

Jon — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 14:37:06 +0000

There may be an interesting legal debate to be had here but I would suggest that unless the works applied for are accurately specified then the LPA could choose not to register the application. The Act states that the application should contain “such information as is necessary to specify the work for which consent is sought”.
As we discussed at the Seminar the new BS offers good guidance as to how tree works should be specified. A specification, by definition, needs to be unambiguous.
Historically many operatives in the industry have used terms such as “30% crown reduction” which is totally meaningless as a specification.
I take your point that specifications need not be in accordance with BS3998 however they do need a sufficient level of detail to clearly communicate exactly what is to be done to the tree(s) otherwise applications may not be registered.

Comment on Industry Best Practice – Tree Work BS3998:2010 by Chris Hastie

Chris Hastie — Fri, 25 Feb 2011 13:03:03 +0000

I think my problem here is that unlike planning applications, which are usually made by agents, the vast majority of TPO apps are made by householders, without technical knowledge or an expensive copy of BS3998 to browse.
I think it is also debatable that an LPA can arbitarily require additional information. This may be the case with development, but remember that although the basis of TPOs comes from the Town and Country Planning Act, by the definition within that Act tree work is not development. The consequence of this is that many of the additional powers related to applications for development do not apply to applications for tree work.

Comment on Industry Best Practice – Tree Work BS3998:2010 by Dom

Dom — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 14:24:03 +0000

You make some valid points here. It seems that LPA are already requesting this information during the application procedure, after validation. This approach is lawful and routine and LPA are within their rights to refuse an application if they feel that important information is not forthcoming or a lack of detail could lead to damage e.g. a method statement for access where protected trees may be affected by vehicle movements. They are also imposing conditions requiring works during certain times of the year to correspond with the phenological periods. So the requirements of BS3998 will have a direct impact on the application process - whether that is at the pre or post registration stages.
I think it is likley that the inclusion of method statements will become routine as part of tree work applications as will other restrictions that are recommended in BS3998. It is worth remembering that the Standard will be a material consideration at appeal.
My advice to applicants is that they should provide a sufficient level of information to support their reasons for making the application. If they can demonstrate that they have considered the issues recommended in BS3998 then they will have a greater chance of success at the application or appeals processes.

Comment on Industry Best Practice – Tree Work BS3998:2010 by Chris Hastie

Chris Hastie — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 13:06:42 +0000

I’m interested in your comments on validating tree work applications.
The requirements for a valid TPO application are set out in the Town and Country Planning (Trees) Regulations 1999, as amended by The Town and Country Planning (Trees) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2008. They are further amplified by the standard form issued by the Secretary of State. None of these make any reference to BS3998. Nor do they appear to give any discretion to the planning authority to impose their own requirements. So I’m dubious as to whether the new BS3998 makes any difference to the information needed to make up a valid application.
The only thing I can see that you could hang this on is the requirement to include “such information as is necessary to specify the work for which consent is sought;”. But BS3998 consists of recommendations. It is in no way legally binding. It may be best practice, but nothing in statute says that the information in an application has to be in line with best practice.
In my view, refusing to validate a TPO application because it does not meet with the recommendations of BS3998 is unlawful.
And as for conservation area notifications, not a hope. The requirements for these are very limited indeed.