RAVEN (Recognition of Ancient, Veteran & Notable Trees) endorsed by Appeal Inspector
s
“the Sylvan assessment covered all the trees on site in light of the applicable definition of veteran and ancient trees in the Glossary of the Framework”
Sylvan has recently acted for two clients who appealed against refusals at first instance by Cheltenham and Mid-Sussex councils.
In the Cheltenham case, Oakhurst Rise, prior to Sylvan’s instruction there was a degree of uncertainty as to which trees on site were referable as ancient or other veteran trees (AVTs). Sylvan undertook an assessment using RAVEN and derived a definitive list, which was then accepted by the council.
Further to refusal of planning permission for a variety of reasons, Sylvan’s identification of AVTs was challenged by the Woodland Trust. The matter went to appeal, heard by Public Inquiry in August 2019. In his Decision of September 2019 Inspector Sims concluded as follows:
- It is first appropriate to note the evidence of the Woodland Trust that a significant number of veteran and ancient trees on the appeal site have not been identified as such in the assessment submitted by the arboricultural consultants to the Appellants, including Tree 3014.
- That assessment is based upon the in-house identification system of the consultants, known as RAVEN. Criticism is based upon the Ancient Tree Inventory of the Ancient Tree Forum and Natural England standing advice for ancient woodland. It turns, in part, on alleged over-reliance by RAVEN, upon the mere size of the tree in assessing its veteran or ancient status.
- However, it is apparent that the assessment covered all the trees on the site in light of the applicable definition of veteran and ancient trees in the Glossary of the Framework, in terms of age and condition, as well as size, in relation to biodiversity, cultural or heritage value. Furthermore, many trees referenced by the Woodland Trust are retained in the proposal now at appeal.
- The scheme as a whole, and its measures to protect existing trees in particular, must be considered primarily in relation to the policies of the development plan and the Framework and a realistic assessment of its impacts. I therefore consider it appropriate to proceed on the basis of the agreement between the main parties that the veteran and other trees for retention on the site have been properly identified.
This decision endorses RAVEN as a fit-for-purpose method for identifying trees falling within the relevant definition for ancient and other veteran trees in the NPPF.
In the Mid-Sussex case, heard at inquiry in December 2019, RAVEN was again used to identify AVTs on the appeal site. In this instance, the identification went unchallenged, including by the Woodland Trust despite this body having ‘skin in the game’ due to submitting an objection to the proposals.
