COMHAIRLE CONTAE ÁTHA CLIATH THEAS
SOUTH DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL
MEETING OF CLONDALKIN AREA COMMITTEE
Wednesday, June 17, 2020
MOTION NO. 1
MOTION: Councillor F. Timmons
"That the Clondalkin Area Committee request Tree Preservation orders for trees in and around Clondalkin Convent. We believe these trees to be around 100 years old and that this is a matter of extreme urgency as there could be major building work at this area and we must protect the trees."
REPORT:
Approach to Tree Preservation Orders
Please note that that legislation for a TPO is set out in Section 205 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended). Following discussions with the Forward Planning Team, there are no plans, at this time, to initiate any Tree Protection Orders in parallel with the County Development Plan process or under Section 205 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The consideration of further TPOs in SDCC by the Planning Department and Public Realm would require a comprehensive countywide study to identify suitable and priority locations. The Planning Department have not allocated resources in 2020 to carry out such a study. As such, the Planning Department do not have an evidence base to justify initiating and prioritising a TPO for one site. Furthermore, the protection of trees on development sites is best carried out through the planning application and enforcement of the planning permission.
TPO for Clondalkin Convent
Permission was granted (by SDCC and the Board) under SD18A/0328 and ABP-304708-19 for nursing home and retirement home buildings at the subject site. The submitted request for a TPO does not indicate the exact trees that the TPO would apply to and as such it is difficult to compare if the trees for the proposed TPO and the trees required to be protected in the planning permission are the same trees.
A TPO can be made on a single tree, group of trees or woodland. Tree Preservation Orders are not granted to protect ecological value but if there is a special amenity value present. Special Amenity Value is not defined. In this case, if the purpose of the proposed TPO is to protect the trees that are specified for retention within the grant of permission and prevent their removal, then the Grant of Planning Permission has already done that. Trees that are proposed for retention have been designated as such and a condition requires their protection (Condition no.11) and another condition (no. 24) provides a financial incentive to ensure their protection.
Trees to be retained as part of a Grant of Planning Permission is a high level of protection. In this instance, under the conditions of the permission, the developer is required to ensure tree protection fencing is in place prior to any construction commencing and for the duration of the works. This ensures trees are protected and is in line with British Standard BS5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction. Failure to adhere to these conditions (even without damage being done to the trees) results in the developer not being in compliance with their grant of permission and enforcement action can be taken.
As an added layer of protection, SDCC looked for a tree bond to be lodged to ensure there is a severe financial penalty if the developer fails to either implement tree protections or indeed damages trees. The bond is a strong financial disincentive that encourages strong compliance with the conditions of planning in relation to tree protection and prevention of damage to them.
The decision by ABP requires (condition 24) a tree bond but didn’t state the amount. SDCC recommended a tree bond of €111,520.00 in the Parks report. The applicant has not submitted a commencement notice and as such, the bond is not agreed. The €111,520.00 calculation is the SDCC bond proposal for this site.