TPO / dangerous tree advice

[Paul70544]

Hi, I wonder if you can assist with some initial advice. I wish to keep the details guarded at present just in case this forum is monitored by LA TO ?. We have a tree that we consider represents a significant danger to both us and our neighbours in that it regularly sheds branches during storms, 3 of which have hit our property so far. The tree is subject to a tpo and the LA have declined any work to it, suggesting it's a healthy tree. It may be healthy but if a branch falls and hits one of us is that a serious concern as regards our own H&S ?. I guess what I am asking is to what extent does a tree have to be considered dangerous to be able to serve a notice and have it removed, and if possible what is the procedure. Anyone had experience of this as we feel like we are living with a real problem to the extent we have to avoid using parts of our property when we have high winds. It's simply not fair as we cannot enjoy our property. Past applications for having it removed have failed in addition to a claim to the planning inspectorate. If I was a sceptical person I would suspect we are up against a very vindictive TO !

Edited May 17, 2017 by Paul70544
Heading incorrect

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Respectfully, you need an arboricultural report to support your claim that the tree is unsafe / hazardous. Once armed with such, and assuming it concludes the same, you can then reapply to the LPA and, if refused, you are in a much stronger position to appeal.

 

There are many who will doubtless contribute here whom are well positioned to undertake this for you but we operate an accreditation scheme specifically for arbor. consultants so I can direct you to that if required (in appointing somebody alongside the prerequisite arboricultural / tree inspection skills they need to have good report writing skills and be very familiar with the Planning / TPO system too.)

 

Regards,

Paul

[daltontrees]

(Assuming you are in England)

 

The exact wording of the law is "the cutting down, uprooting, topping or lopping of a tree, to the extent that such works are urgently necessary to remove an immediate risk of serious harm" is permitted.

 

Note, if branches are in danger of falling off, that is not an excuse to cut the whole tree down. There needs to be -

a. a defined extent, no more than necessary

b. urgency and

c. necessity, there being no other way to reduce the risk

 

And if the Council doesn't get to see the tree beforehand, the onus is on the tree owner to justify the works retrospectively. That means at least photographic evidence, but as Paul has said, ideally an objective professional written assessment.

 

If you think you have a vindictive TO, do this one properly as there could be an attempted prosecution.

 

It might also be worth seeking compensation for property damage due to unreasonable past Council refusal. This is covered in the legislation.

[dan blocker]

What tree is it? Is it shedding what look to be healthy limbs or are they dead/ too big to support themselves in high wind! The tree may only require reducing/ management work - not removing completely - in which case the TO may have a point. Consider this before removal. Once cut down you can't put back. As others have posted - get a survey/ professional advice and go from there. Try not to make an enemy of the TO, most are only doing their job! I'll probably have a different view when i have a difference of a opinion with our local one:001_rolleyes:

[Mark Bolam]

Who owns the tree?

[Nikk]

Hi all,

The TPO is this just used for cutting down trees ? If you was pruning or reducing the size would you need permission to do this or not?

Cheers Nick

[Paul Barton]

Hi all,

The TPO is this just used for cutting down trees ? If you was pruning or reducing the size would you need permission to do this or not?

Cheers Nick

 

Hi Nikk,

 

Everything you need to know here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tree-preservation-orders-and-trees-in-conservation-areas

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Just to add a little to the already sound opinions...

 

"...We have a tree that we consider represents a significant danger to both us and our neighbours..."

 

It is incumbent upon the person seeking approval for works to provide sufficient evidential detail and/or expert opinion to justify the nature and extent of the works being requested. You need a credible, detailed report.

 

"...it regularly sheds branches during storms, 3 of which have hit our property so far..."

 

That which has gone before might be a useful and relevant appendix but it should not be relied upon as the main basis of the application which ought to be observable defect or dysfunction combined with analysis of potential implications / predicted timeframe and then set within the context of probability and consequence of predicted failure.

 

"...The tree is subject to a tpo and the LA have declined any work to it, suggesting it's a healthy tree..."

 

I think what you probably mean here is they have declined the work you have previously applied for? If that's correct, it might be assumed that the work you applied for was not sufficiently justified as mentioned above. A refusal to approve a TPO application does not equate to a statement of health, safety and vitality of the tree, it is simply a refusal of the application as submitted.

 

"...I guess what I am asking is to what extent does a tree have to be considered dangerous to be able to serve a notice and have it removed, and if possible what is the procedure..."

 

That's been well covered already.

 

"...Past applications for having it removed have failed in addition to a claim to the planning inspectorate..."

 

Either, there was insufficient credible evidence presented to justify the extent of the works, or, the LA and the Planning Inspector didn't agree with that which was submitted, or, despite the unease the situation is causing you, the LA & PINS consider the amenity worth of the tree outweighs the personal unease you are experiencing.

 

"... If I was a sceptical person I would suspect we are up against a very vindictive TO..."

 

The coincidence of a vindictive TO & PINS? On the balance of probability, it would be infinitely more likely that the quality of the submission is where the deficiency lies.

 

If it becomes possible in the future, perhaps share a link to your planning submission and you'll very likely get some honest (possibly painfully honest) feedback on the supporting argument for the application.

 

There's no doubt from the sincerity of your text that you are experiencing concern and that your previous attempts to resolve have not been successful.

 

Perhaps an alternative to stressing over the perception of risk posed by the tree might be to establish a more quantified assessment of the actual risk posed by the tree?

 

One method which might provide this is Quantified Tree Risk Assessment and you might find a local practitioner at this link:

 

https://www.qtra.co.uk/cms/index.php?section=37

 

Other systems and methods are available and might be considered.

[daltontrees]

Other systems and methods are available and might be considered.

 

Might be considered what?

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Might be considered what?

 

 

😜 perhaps I should have said others might be considered and this one could be amended / adjusted - but I didn't want to join you on the naughty step!!

[Gary Prentice]

The first rule of insert method of tree risk assessment is: You do not talk about ........ .

 

The second rule of Tree Risk Assessment is: You do not talk about ...........

 

The naughty step has plenty of room Mr J:biggrin: