'Specialist' comments on hard/soft 'landscaping'

The request was partially successful.

Stephen Whiteside

Dear Croydon Borough Council,

As part of a planning pre-application (17/06001/PRE) an officer from the Council's 'Tree Team' commented "... The proposed layout does not allow for quality landscaping to the front. Could you please request that this is revised for the final layout. ...". As part of the subsequent full application (18/00749/FUL), an officer from the Team opined " ... This is another example of a poor quality Aventier scheme which I really can’t support; however, I appreciate my comments are only a recommendation. I’d rather the layout to the front be revised to allow sufficient space for the planting of at least one good quality tree, but ....” The sentence stops there!

In July 2019, I asked the Council's Enforcement & Trees Team Leader (Robert Snodin) to "... clarify/confirm which member(s) of your Trees Team are considered sufficiently qualified to provide your Development Management colleagues with 'specialist' observations on the hard and soft landscape proposals submitted as part of planning applications. ....". In November, Mr Snodin told me "...Both tree officers are sufficiently qualified to provide observations on arboricultural matters in relation to proposed hard & soft landscaping proposals submitted in conjunction with planning applications. .... ". So NOT qualified in landscape design then!

19/01441/DISC - 22 Briton Crescent, South Croydon.

With regard to Condition 4 (Hard and soft landscaping), the Officer Report on the above application includes that "... The arborists have been consulted in regard to the application and having viewed the site and considered the accompanying suite of documents, the matters relating to trees and landscape are adequately considered and will enhance the appearance of the development, protect the visual amenities of the locality, and to ensure that the new planting becomes established. The details are suitable to discharge the condition 4. ..."

In November 2019, I asked the Trees and Enforcement Team Leader (Robert Snodin), "Could you please confirm that when he refers to the 'arborists' in this case, Mr Sales does mean your Tree Team? If so, I would be grateful if you would tell me which tree officer it was who commented on the acceptability of the details submitted with regard to hard and soft landscaping in this case and better still, provide me with a copy of his/her advice? ...". Mr Snodin has so far chosen NOT to reply.

There is a public interest in knowing (a) whether it WAS an 'arborist' rather than a landscape architect (for instance) who provided a 'specialist' opinion on this case and (b) that the 'specialist' was as supportive of the proposals as the case officer maintains in his report ... given that this WAS another Aventier scheme.

++++ Please provide me with a copy of the 'specialist' officer comments on the landscape proposals for planning application 19/01441/DISC, which were approved under delegated powers. Since I believe the officer will be in a public facing role, the name and any contact details should NOT be redacted.

Yours faithfully,

Stephen Whiteside

Croydon Council, Croydon Borough Council

FOI/EIR request
Our reference: 1460690

show quoted sections

Dear Croydon Council,

By law, the authority should normally have responded to this request promptly and by 13 February 2020 at the latest.

This is a very SIMPLE request, about a very IMPORTANT aspect of the Council's consideration of planning applications, the quality of which is already set to have a significant DETRIMENTAL impact on the landscape character (the 'streetscape') of large parts of the Borough.

If I do not receive ALL the requested information by close of business Monday (17 February) I will again ask the Information Commissioner to intervene.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Whiteside

Stephen Whiteside left an annotation ()

With regard to the work on site at 22 Briton Crescent, I have been told by the 'enforcement officer' (John Penn MSc), that '... the tree officer is quite satisfied that no unauthorised works have taken place within the restricted areas …".

Assuming that by 'restricted areas' Mr Penn means or at least includes the Restricted Activity Zones, what the tree officer is apparently saying is that the ground level in Restricted Activity Zone B has NOT been reduced by more than the maximum 150mm specified on the approved Tree Protection Plan.

But the approved Site Plan (CX05-S1-103B), includes existing and proposed finished levels within Restricted Activity Zone B which clearly demonstrate that the new level would be around 1.2m LOWER than before this development started. Recent site photos do also show substantial excavation in this area, to form the foundations and floor slab of the new structure.

Mr Snodin has informed me that it was Robert Goode who was the tree officer who decided (after visiting site) that no such excavation has taken place and I am waiting for some sort of explanation. Meanwhile, work on site continues, despite what appears to be another clear breach of approved documents.

I will now complain to the Information Commissioner about the Council's failure to provide any sort of response to this request.

Croydon Council, Croydon Borough Council

FOI/EIR request
Our reference: 1460690

show quoted sections

Dear Croydon Council,

Sorry, but there is NOTHING ATTACHED.

Yours sincerely,
Stephen Whiteside

Croydon Council, Croydon Borough Council

1 Attachment

FOI/EIR request
Our reference: 1460690

show quoted sections

Dear Croydon Borough Council,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Croydon Borough Council's handling of my FOI request ''Specialist' comments on hard/soft 'landscaping''.

I did NOT request confirmation that the Council's 'Trees and Enforcement Team' is managed by Robert Snodin.

I did NOT ask for confirmation that trees officers have the requisite knowledge and skills to provide observations on arboricultural matters ONLY in relation to planning applications. ( Mr Snodin had already done that, as indicated in the initial request).

I did NOT ask for an EXTRACT from comments of an unidentified arborist.

+++ Please now provide me with a full COPY of the arborist's comments on the landscape proposals for planning application 19/01441/DISC, redacted ONLY as permitted by law. (i.e. the name and any contact details of the officer involved, should NOT be redacted)

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s...

Yours faithfully,

Stephen Whiteside

Passman, Howard, Croydon Borough Council

1 Attachment

Dear Mr. Whiteside,

 

Thank you for your email dated 21 February 2020 in which you requested an
Internal Review of the Council’s response to your request for information.

 

I have been asked to conduct an Internal Review of the Council's response
to your request for information, and will endeavour to provide a response
within the statutory timescales; that is no later than 20 March 2020. 
However, if for any reason there is a need to extend the time for the
review, I will contact you before that date.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Howard Passman

020 8726 6000 ext. 62318

 

Information Management and Governance Co-ordinator

 

[1]cid:995D36CC-63D9-452C-921A-47E295D9BC0F

Resources Department

Legal Services

7th Floor Zone C
Bernard Weatherill House

8 Mint Walk

Croydon CR0 1EA

 

Council services, online, 24/7 www.croydon.gov.uk/myaccount.

Please use this web site address to view the council's e-mail disclaimer -
http://www.croydon.gov.uk/email-disclaimer

References

Visible links

Stephen Whiteside

Dear Mr Passman,

I now realise that the quote provide and attributed to an 'arborist' relates to the discharge of 'condition 12', NOT condition 4, which is what my request refers to.

Nevertheless, if this IS all that was provided by the arborist in relation to 'landscape' or 'landscaping', please provide a full copy as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Whiteside

Passman, Howard, Croydon Borough Council

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Whiteside,

 

Further to your email dated 21 February 2020, in which you requested an
Internal Review of the Council’s response to your request for information,
I have now concluded this review and I am able to reply as follows.

 

In your request for Internal Review, you asked the Council to reconsider
your request as you believed that you had not been provided with the
information requested.

 

In your request for information dated 16 January 2020 you requested the
following information:

 

“As part of a planning pre-application (17/06001/PRE) an officer from the
Council's 'Tree Team' commented "... The proposed layout does not allow
for quality landscaping to the front. Could you please request that this
is revised for the final layout. ...". As part of the subsequent full
application (18/00749/FUL), an officer from the Team opined " ... This is
another example of a poor quality Aventier scheme which I really can’t
support; however, I appreciate my comments are only a recommendation. I’d
rather the layout to the front be revised to allow sufficient space for
the planting of at least one good quality tree, but ....” The sentence
stops there!

 

In July 2019, I asked the Council's Enforcement & Trees Team Leader
(Robert Snodin) to "... clarify/confirm which member(s) of your Trees Team
are considered sufficiently qualified to provide your Development
Management colleagues with 'specialist' observations on the hard and soft
landscape proposals submitted as part of planning applications.
....".         In November, Mr Snodin told me "...Both tree officers are
sufficiently qualified to provide observations on arboricultural matters
in relation to proposed hard & soft landscaping proposals submitted in
conjunction with planning applications. .... ". So NOT qualified in
landscape design then!

 

19/01441/DISC - 22 Briton Crescent, South Croydon.

 

With regard to Condition 4 (Hard and soft landscaping), the Officer Report
on the above application includes that "... The arborists have been
consulted in regard to the application and having viewed the site and
considered the accompanying suite of documents, the matters relating to
trees and landscape are adequately considered and will enhance the
appearance of the development, protect the visual amenities of the
locality, and to ensure that the new planting becomes established. The
details are suitable to discharge the condition 4."

 

In November 2019, I asked the Trees and Enforcement Team Leader (Robert
Snodin), "Could you please confirm that when he refers to the 'arborists'
in this case, Mr Sales does mean your Tree Team? If so, I would be
grateful if you would tell me which tree officer it was who commented on
the acceptability of the details submitted with regard to hard and soft
landscaping in this case and better still, provide me with a copy of
his/her advice?".

Mr Snodin has so far chosen NOT to reply.

 

There is a public interest in knowing (a) whether it WAS an 'arborist'
rather than a landscape architect (for instance) who provided a
'specialist' opinion on this case and (b) that the 'specialist' was as
supportive of the proposals as the case officer maintains in his report
... given that this WAS another Aventier scheme.

 

++++   Please provide me with a copy of the 'specialist' officer comments
on the landscape proposals for planning application 19/01441/DISC, which
were approved under delegated powers. Since I believe the officer will be
in a public facing role, the name and any contact details should NOT be
redacted.”

 

The Council responded to you on the 21 February 2020, and provided the
following response:

 

“Yes it was a member of the trees team.

 

The manager approving the advice was Robert Snodin.

 

All trees officers have the requisite Knowledge and skills to do their
job.

 

We can confirm that the reference to the ‘arborist’ as mentioned above
could alternatively be described as the ‘tree officer’.

 

Please provide me with a copy of the 'specialist' officer comments on the
landscape proposals for planning application 19/01441/DISC, which were
approved under delegated powers...

 

Having viewed the site and considered the application and accompanying
suite of documents, I feel that the matters relating to trees and
landscape are adequately considered. The plan and protection scheme
discharge the condition 12.“

 

In your request for an Internal Review dated 21 February 2020 you stated
the following:

 

“I did NOT request confirmation that the Council's 'Trees and Enforcement
Team' is managed by Robert Snodin.

 

I did NOT ask for confirmation that trees officers have the requisite
knowledge and skills to provide observations on arboricultural matters
ONLY in relation to planning applications.  (Mr Snodin had already done
that, as indicated in the initial request).

 

I did NOT ask for an EXTRACT from comments of an unidentified arborist.

 

+++ Please now provide me with a full COPY of the arborist's comments on
the landscape proposals for planning application 19/01441/DISC, redacted
ONLY as permitted by law. (i.e. the name and any contact details of the
officer involved, should NOT be redacted)”

 

You then provided a clarification as to the information you were seeking
on 8 March 2020:

 

“I now realise that the quote provide and attributed  to an 'arborist'
relates to the discharge of 'condition 12', NOT condition 4, which is what
my request refers to.

 

Nevertheless, if this IS all that was provided by the arborist in relation
to 'landscape' or 'landscaping', please provide a full copy as soon as
possible.”

 

On receiving your request for an Internal Review, I contacted the Head of
Development Management, who has provided the attached Tree Teams
Observations on Planning Application 19/01441/DISC, which includes the
comments on the landscape proposals.

 

If you are not content with the outcome of the Internal Review, you have
the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a
decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:

 

Information Commissioner’s Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire SK9 5AF

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Howard Passman

020 8726 6000 ext. 62318

 

Information Management and Governance Co-ordinator

 

[1]cid:995D36CC-63D9-452C-921A-47E295D9BC0F

Resources Department

Legal Services

7th Floor Zone C
Bernard Weatherill House

8 Mint Walk

Croydon CR0 1EA

Council services, online, 24/7 www.croydon.gov.uk/myaccount.

Please use this web site address to view the council's e-mail disclaimer -
http://www.croydon.gov.uk/email-disclaimer

References

Visible links

Stephen Whiteside left an annotation ()

My request for internal review specifically asked that "..the name and any contact details of the officer involved, should NOT be redacted...". Mr Passman even repeated that in his response!

Yet having finally been provided with a COPY of the Tree Teams Observations on Planning Application 19/01441/DISC, any information about the officer concerned HAS been redacted, without any exception (under the Regulations) being claimed. Mr Passman tells us that the redacted copy was provided to him by the Head of Development Management, Pete Smith.

Needless to say, I'm not happy about that, since the tree officer with be in a public facing role and there was no justification for this redaction. However, I will not pursue this with the Information Commissioner, who has already been called upon far too many times, to uncover information that this Council regularly and wrongly withholds.

By disclosing this copy however, the Council has confirmed that the 'specialist' comments (recommendations) made by the arborist (aka tree officer) regarding application no. 19/01441/DISC were as follows:
"Having viewed the site and considered the application and accompanying suite of documents, I feel that the matters relating to trees and landscape are adequately considered. The plan and protection scheme discharge the condition 12".

So whoever the 'arborist' was, at least we now know that they did indeed recommend the discharge of ONLY Condition 12 (tree protection) and NOT Condition 4 (hard/soft landscape).

As set out in the original request, under Condition 4 the report by the case officer (Joe Sales MRTPI) IMPLIES that it is on the back of consultation with the 'arborists' he considers "... the matters relating to ... landscape are adequately considered and will enhance the appearance of the development, protect the visual amenities of the locality, and to ensure that the new planting becomes established. The details are suitable to discharge the condition 4. ...".

But we now know that this was not an entirely accurate/honest representation of the outcome of his consultation and it appears that in reality Mr Sales felt sufficiently qualified in hard/soft landscape design, to undertake the assessment and make this recommendation to discharge this condition himself.

This does seem to accord with claims made by Pete Smith in response to formal complaints about the Council's handling of this planning application (and others very much like it). According to Mr Smith, since 'most' of his Development Management officers "...have undertaken a post-graduate degrees in town planning and are eligible for membership of the Royal Town Planning Institute, ... they have the skills, knowledge and experience to consider these issues in detail themselves".

If you are not too concerned by the desperately poor landscape schemes that will normally result from this dubious practice, then perhaps you might like to consider the possible implications of Mr Sales and his collegues passing judgement on proposals for sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) and whether or not the replacement of one dwelling with nine, could possibly or would definitely worsen the flood risk in an area, especially an area known already to be at risk!

With regard to hard/soft landscape proposals, you might reasonably expect, that as a chartered planner, Mr Sales would/should have known, that 'the arborist' was NOT the appropriate person to be asking about the matters covered by Condition 4. This is particularly so given that we have been told by the Council's Head of Spatial Planning (Steve Dennington) that his team includes an officer with a Masters in Landscape Architecture who is a Chartered Member of the Landscape Institute (CMLI).

With regard to SuDS and flood risk, you might reasonably expect the 'planners' to seek advice from the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA), which just happens to be Croydon Council. But as Mr Smith has again explained in response to formal complaints, since he and his officers are "...under no statutory obligation to consult with the Lead Local Flood Authority (where schemes propose less than 10 residential units)..." it would appear that they rarely, if ever do so.

Stephen Whiteside left an annotation ()

I've changed my mind … I have now contacted the Information Commissioner again about this request, this time specifically about the redaction in the disclosed document. (ICO Ref:FER0911372)
There is a public interest in knowing who the 'specialists' are who are providing these recommendations, which are an important part of the decision-making process.
There is also a public interest in knowing which (if any) officers are providing 'specialist' advice that is beyond their remit.