Any come back against local authority?

[Cuttup]

Had a client recently enquired about having a tree next to his new extension worked upon or removed. On the face of it the tree does not appear particularly unsafe.

 

What I struggle with is that 3 members form the (Scottish) local authority planning department have apparently visited the new build and decreed that the tree (stem <1m from new structure) CANNOT be trimmed; lopped or removed.

 

How can this be combatted? Presumably the local authority will not take responsibility for, say, storm damage, and his insurers will not cover the house, as it is so close to the building.

 

Is anybody aware of any precedent for this or how best to approach the local authority. It seems grossly unfair to put such stipulations in place without having the responsibility to care for the tree into the future.

 

I am a tree surgeon, so this is not my area of expertise but I really want to try and help this guy out with some sensible advice.

 

Any comments or experience of similar issues warmly welcome. Thanks.

[sloth]

I think some of your post may be missing...

[WesD]

Hmm surely he put his house in harms way by extending towards the tree?!?

 

Sorry it's not what you asked but .........

[donnk]

cut it down, pay the fine if any.

[Yournamehere]

Had a client recently enquired about having a tree next to his new extension worked upon or removed. On the face of it the tree does not appear particularly unsafe.

 

What I struggle with is that 3 members form the (Scottish) local authority planning department have apparently visited the new build and decreed that the tree (stem <1m from new structure) CANNOT be trimmed; lopped or removed.

 

How can this be combatted? Presumably the local authority will not take responsibility for, say, storm damage, and his insurers will not cover the house, as it is so close to the building.

 

Is anybody aware of any precedent for this or how best to approach the local authority. It seems grossly unfair to put such stipulations in place without having the responsibility to care for the tree into the future.

 

I am a tree surgeon, so this is not my area of expertise but I really want to try and help this guy out with some sensible advice.

 

Any comments or experience of similar issues warmly welcome. Thanks.

 

How's that?

You're very welcome.

Happy days.

[Marc]

Wow constructive comments.

 

How did the extension get through planning if so close to a TPO'd tree?

 

How is Trimming/lopping it going to improve the tree? Most trimming/lopping is detrimental to trees and not really classed as good care but hey it pays the bills.

 

You can't just say tree is close to house needs felling, trimming, lopping you have to present an arguement for why to the LA can still refuse if they do not think the specification is justified so make sure it's a robust so they cannot refuse that's the hard part sometimes.

 

Sounds like there is no issue, and the concern is more a perceived one than an actual one.

 

Good luck

[treequip]

How did the extension get through planning if so close to a TPO'd tree?

 

 

 

Where does say TPO?

 

Lets have all the facts starting with TPO, ownership etc

[Marc]

Where does say TPO?

 

Lets have all the facts starting with TPO, ownership etc

 

True is more implied than stated as why would local authority refuse. But agree to little info to go on.

[daltontrees]

Had a client recently enquired about having a tree next to his new extension worked upon or removed. On the face of it the tree does not appear particularly unsafe.

 

What I struggle with is that 3 members form the (Scottish) local authority planning department have apparently visited the new build and decreed that the tree (stem <1m from new structure) CANNOT be trimmed; lopped or removed.

 

How can this be combatted? Presumably the local authority will not take responsibility for, say, storm damage, and his insurers will not cover the house, as it is so close to the building.

 

Is anybody aware of any precedent for this or how best to approach the local authority. It seems grossly unfair to put such stipulations in place without having the responsibility to care for the tree into the future.

 

I am a tree surgeon, so this is not my area of expertise but I really want to try and help this guy out with some sensible advice.

 

Any comments or experience of similar issues warmly welcome. Thanks.

 

I agree whith others saying that more information is needed. I definitely wouldn't agree with some of the advice you have received here. At best unhelpful, at worst recklessly ill-informed.

 

Is there TPO? Is the tree in a Conservation Area? Has an application or notification been submitted formally asking to be allowed to work on the tree? If so, has it been refused? When? How big is the tree and what species? Were engineering allowances made for its presence in the design and build of the extension? If not, why not? Were they followed? If not why not, and who decided not to? Are there conditions in a consent for the extension relating to the tree? Where in the country is it?

 

Those are just some of the preliminary questions.

[Cuttup]

Thanks for comments. I am told the tree is not in a conservation area, nor does it have a TPO. Of course, retrospectively, the simplest thing may have been to remove the tree - most of us probably have PhDs in Hindsight.

 

I agree the problem at this stage is perception, but how many of us are prepared to state 'That tree is safe'? Certainly not I. It is a mature oak perhaps 15-20 m tall. Have not been made aware what the building conditions were - this sounds relevant and I will try and find out.

 

The gentleman concerned is worried that AT SOME POINT the tree may pose a danger to his property, and given the proximity to the building, I am inclined to agree.

 

To try and make clear, I believe the LA came round with regards to the building warrant and during that site visit stated that the tree was, to all intents and purposes, untouchable - whether ior not that has been formalised with a TPO as yet, I am unsure.

 

Again, my sympathies lie with the owner. The tree is in no way unique or unusual for the area or indeed the property which has a number of mature oak on it.

I stated to him that, in my opinion, the tree at this time, requires no work, not with standing major deadwood, with my usual caveat that it may fall over in the next storm who knows?

 

Is the LA allowed to enter a property and effectively TPO it? What about buildings insurance - it may be that the tree was never mentioned previously and now the owner realises that it is a possible threat for which he may not be covered.

 

Hope this makes the picture a little clearer.