For the third month in succession, this edition of the newsletter opens with a further planning appeal decision relating to veteran trees. This time, the focus is an outline scheme in Walsall (APP/V4630/W/25/3369937), where 14 trees within or adjacent to the site had previously been recorded on the Ancient Tree Inventory (ATI). The principal concern related to an alder and a hazel coppice stool that could be affected by a proposed access route to a pumping station.
In considering the appeal, the Inspector acknowledged that the ATI is a verified dataset, but reiterated that inclusion on the inventory does not necessarily mean a tree meets the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) definition of an ancient or veteran tree. The decision also noted the potential draft amendment to the NPPF definition, moving from “age, size and condition” to “age, size or condition”, but afforded this limited weight given its draft status.
Of particular note was the Inspector’s acceptance of additional assessment methodologies, including the Recognition of Ancient, Veteran and Notable Trees (RAVEN2) and the Specialist Survey Method (SSM), alongside the ATI. Given discrepancies and uncertainties between the ATI records and the submitted arboricultural survey evidence, a precautionary approach was adopted, with both trees assumed to be ancient or veteran for the purposes of the appeal.
The Inspector ultimately concluded that, as the application was in outline form, the internal layout of the scheme was not fixed and there remained sufficient flexibility to relocate the pumping station and access route to avoid harm. It was suggested that the retention of the two trees could be secured through an appropriately worded planning condition.
An interesting observation within the decision was the statement that, “While the ATI methodology has not been fully set out, there is no reason to doubt that trees are verified by qualified experts.” The methodology underpinning ATI records continues to attract discussion, particularly where trees appear to have been included despite not clearly meeting the published criteria.
Wonder if we will have yet another appeal decision involving veteran trees next month…..
