TPO Replacement trees

[oslac]

From the LPAs perspective they want them in and signed off. Its a pain when you have to start chasing them up at a later date.

 

Yes this is correct but I think it is also not compliant with the legislation. The council wants to know that the replacement trees have been planted before removal so that they won't need to enforce tree replacement at a later date should no tree be replaced.

[oslac]

Trees planted pursuant of a condition are not automatically protected by the original order. The LPA would either have to vary the order or serve a new one.

 

Trees are only protected by the original order if they were, felled in contravention, felled because they were dead, or felled due to an immediate risk of serious harm (i.e. they were exempt due to condition).

 

I'm not convinced they can condition that you replant before felling either although I'm not sure about this. I would appeal the condition just to see what happens.

 

Regards

 

Thanks for the comment, I should have known this . . . . I have now checked the legislation and you are right. The conditioned replanted trees do not carry the TPO.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

The original TPO tree (two trees in fact) have been given approval for removal to facilitate a proposed development. One of the trees is in in such poor condition that it has been given a U category (BS).

 

 

 

The replacement trees do not need to be in the same spot as the trees approved for removal but can be planted near by. In this case, nearby means a few metres away.

 

 

 

So if the replacement tree does not carry the TPO (can anyone point me towards the legislation on this point), what is the purpose of the condition to replace a tree unless the council have it in mind to then serve a new Order on the two newly planted trees.

 

 

Bit of a tangent, but if allocated a U Cat, it kind of indicates the LA are not bothering to keep their TPOs under review.

 

If the developer was not minded to jump through the hoops seems they might have ample justification for not bothering to pre-plant.

[Thesnarlingbadger]

From the LPAs perspective they want them in and signed off. Its a pain when you have to start chasing them up at a later date.

 

 

That's fair enough. I hate having to chase people up on things too.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

[Chris at eden]

Bit of a tangent, but if allocated a U Cat, it kind of indicates the LA are not bothering to keep their TPOs under review.

 

If the developer was not minded to jump through the hoops seems they might have ample justification for not bothering to pre-plant.

 

Reviewing TPOs is always a problem for LPAs, its one of those jobs that tends to be low priority. You could look at it another way in that the land owner (who is the duty holder) is not monitoring the condition of their trees.

 

Unlikely the developer would get away with saying I don't want to replace because the tree is in poor condition. Section 206 of the act places a duty on tree owners to replace trees which are removed in contravention or due to condition. In this instance the original TPO also covers the tree, even if its a different species and planted on a different part of the site.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Reviewing TPOs is always a problem for LPAs, its one of those jobs that tends to be low priority. You could look at it another way in that the land owner (who is the duty holder) is not monitoring the condition of their trees.

 

Unlikely the developer would get away with saying I don't want to replace because the tree is in poor condition. Section 206 of the act places a duty on tree owners to replace trees which are removed in contravention or due to condition. In this instance the original TPO also covers the tree, even if its a different species and planted on a different part of the site.

 

Agreed Chris, but, (a) there's nothing to stop someone just keep on applying for reductions as the tree continues to degrade until it reaches a point where it is just a rotten stump and (b) if the LA were doing reviews of TPOs, wouldn't it be the case that, at the point of the review, the existing TPO tree would need to be assessed against all the relevant qualifying criteria to establish it's validity for retention as a TPO? How many existing TPO's would fail the test if reexamined today?

 

I've found a good measure of peoples' antagonism towards TPO's is generated by LA's NOT keeping TPO's under review which, in reality, does no good for the cause of improving tree cover.

[Roz]

Agreed about reviewing TPOs however where a tree is in a prominent/significant location if in reviewing the tree fails to met the criteria and the TPO revoked then an important tree could be lost.

 

If the tree is in private ownership than the owner has a duty of care and should rightly manage the tree, thereby if it requires removal under the TPO it can be replaced?!?

 

The antagonism I feel about TPOs is the ambiguity of historic ones which only cover areas and lists in the schedule...'trees of whatever species.....' my frustration comes when I have requests to revoke TPOs that have been sitting with legal for 2+ years along with new TPOs to be served following review ?!?!

[Gary Prentice]

Rather than start a new post....

 

I'm currently awaiting a consent, a delayed consent, where the condition is that two trees are planted, become established and then once this condition is met we can fell the offending tree.

 

 

The sycamore is in an old area order, with some moderate structural issues and pruned to death to get the canopy away from the house.

 

We appealed after refusal and while the Pins inspector looked at it, the TO said that although the reasons to fell had some merit it was a 'big green thing' relatively visible to the public.

 

After losing the appeal (no argument on my part) an agreement was reached as above, the new plantings would be classed as established when they were i) sufficiently rooted to remove supports and ii) increased in girth/dia to the next nursery size

 

How the planning officer is going to write this one up, I don't know:biggrin:

[Roz]

:confused1: I have to say words fail me on that one and I would think that condition would be seen as unreasonable. As mentioned previously there are 6 tests for writing conditions: -

 

necessary;

relevant to planning and;

to the development to be permitted;

enforceable;

precise and;

reasonable in all other respects.

 

Mmmm

[Gary Prentice]

:confused1: I have to say words fail me on that one and I would think that condition would be seen as unreasonable. As mentioned previously there are 6 tests for writing conditions: -

 

necessary;

relevant to planning and;

to the development to be permitted;

enforceable;

precise and;

reasonable in all other respects.

 

Mmmm

 

It's a means to an end.

 

The owner has submitted for the last ten years and been refused. I doubt if the area order was reviewed, the tree would merit protection, under a new individual TPO.

 

By establishing a couple of new trees, the owner's increasing species and age-class diversity in the area - with a 'carrot' that he'll finally get this bloody great sycamore off the middle of his drive.

 

We could have informally agreed to do this, getting the trees established and then re-applying in a few years. But, who knows if the TO will still be employed?

 

If the 'condition' relating to establishment is empirical ie growth/nursery size, there can be no argument that it has been met. (hopefully)

 

I've worked other arrangements like this, informally, in the past, for trees of little merit but nevertheless protected by ancient area orders. The LA have insufficient resources to revoke old AO's, want to keep 'big green things' because they are but can see some sense in starting establishing the next generation of trees.

 

I think it can be done, I believe it's not that uncommon in development planning that conditions have to be met before other things are allowed/consented.

 

If all parties are agreeable and accept the conditions, is there any reason while it wouldn't be acceptable/legal? (I don't know!)