I would like to see a very simple “model template” that would provide a “National Yardstick” giving Planning Officers, Council Members, Developers–and the local Public–an easily comparable minimum landscape standard” that would be easily understandable by professionsals aned public. Planners could of course justify a higher standard, in the context of their own local landscape.
A national tempate –for example–showing suiatable arrangements for trees and hdges on the frontages of business units– could in fact set out a good generic standard. Far better than having no standard at all. Clear for all to understand, apply, and police!

The LI response also rightly suggests (albeit not expressed directly) that greater expertise should be available in the planning appilcation process in terms of Landscape architectural advice to advise on quality and acceptability of applications.

Sadly, understaffed local Borough, District or county planning departments are badly depleted in numbers of staff, and width of skills. 20 years ago, they often had a landscape design team in house or somewhere in the council, who could advise on qulaitty of submitted schemes, identify shortcomings, and suggest improvements. Do these groups exist now? Almost certainly, NO !

Hence, some simple, national Landscape guidlines would provide a benchmark. If that resulted in asome generic designs, OK, but that is far better than the abysmal, inadequate landscape design- if it can be called that– of some developments (some very large ones) that I have seen over the last decade from the motorways of England and Wales.

One flagrant abuse of the Planning process in my experience is when a development is given permission subject to a landscaoe scheme…..and that the Planning Permission requires “That the approved trees and shruibs shall be maintained and any dead plants replaced for a period of 5 years from date of this permission” . Or words to that effect.

I encountered in my local area the ultimate, cynical inerpretation of this stipulation…. 5 years and a few days after the Permisison letter, all the planted trees on the site (a Self-storage site owned by a national chain) were felled and the shrubs removed, and replaced by bark mulch, leter replaced by “landscaped pebbles. The lovely silver birch gone, the ugly concrete blck buildings wre revelaed in all their boring splendour. What a loss !

I protested to the company (a non-response) and the planning department (” 5 years is sadly the maximum we can require” and the chair of the Panning Committee (he was outraged , but could not do more than repeat the officers’ statement.

I do hope that there will be a second opportunity fopr the LI to submit some further suggestions to the Governmemt.
Mine would be– ” A landscape scheme approved as an essential part of a planniong application, should remain for the life of the buildings. I would suggest that an “expected reasonable life” of buildings and landscape should be stated by the Planning Authority as a” key stipulation” of the Approval.

I welcome tyhe concept of acceptable