Any come back against local authority?

[Cuttup]

Agreed. I made clear to the tree owner that this was not my field of expertise and any advice given will be general in nature.

 

What I'm trying to achieve is a point where the client will be able to determine whether or not he needs professional advice e.g. an arb consultant/lawyer or if this can dealt with between himself and the LA

[Gary Prentice]

You could always check the planning consent on line. Or you could ask the planning department, email, phone call. It's called due diligence. Should the LPA take umbrage I doubt the excuses used would carry much weight. You know a planning condition could protect a tree, you checked for TPO's and CA status, so why not for planning conditions.

 

But like the others have said, if it's worth keeping it's worth a TPO.

 

Tried enquiring with planning this afternoon about a domestic property that I know, from previous searches, has no TPO & isn't in a CA. The owner is responsible for part of a more public planting so I enquired about s106.

 

"We don't have that information":sneaky2:

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Planning permission, and attached conditions, go with the land. They apply to all who are from time to time the owners of the land and who therefore have the benefits of the land.

 

Result!

 

I knew someone would spot the hasty (pre edit) error!!

 

The natural 'follow-on' question from the 'planning conditions apply to the land and it's owner' position though (and perhaps of greater interest / relevance to us tree cutters) is -

 

Contractor cuts down tree at request of homeowner.

 

Contractor checks prior to cutting for CA / TPO / FL issues but doesn't check for planning conditions.

 

Tree hits the floor, neighbour or LA kick off about planning condition.

 

Implications for tree cutter = nil (relax, count £'s, enjoy cold beer.)

 

Implications for home / land owner.....?

[daltontrees]

Tried enquiring with planning this afternoon about a domestic property that I know, from previous searches, has no TPO & isn't in a CA. The owner is responsible for part of a more public planting so I enquired about s106.

 

"We don't have that information":sneaky2:

 

Nice example Gary of Arbland legislation not applying to Scotland We have Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 s.75. and just as importantly Circular 3/2012.

[daltontrees]

Result!

 

I knew someone would spot the hasty (pre edit) error!!

 

The natural 'follow-on' question from the 'planning conditions apply to the land and it's owner' position though (and perhaps of greater interest / relevance to us tree cutters) is -

 

Contractor cuts down tree at request of homeowner.

 

Contractor checks prior to cutting for CA / TPO / FL issues but doesn't check for planning conditions.

 

Tree hits the floor, neighbour or LA kick off about planning condition.

 

Implications for tree cutter = nil (relax, count £'s, enjoy cold beer.)

 

Implications for home / land owner.....?

 

Planning Agreements (s.106 or scottish equivalent) must turn up in an ownership deed, and the purchaser's solicitor should bring it to a new owner's attention (before the purchase is concluded). But ordinary planning conditions, no chance of these turning up unless the purchase offer specifies that any planning conditions should be disclosed by the seller. Implications would therefore depend on what the seller, solicitor or purchaser knew and didn't say.

 

Your scenario is a perfect example of why planning conditions of an ongoing nature shouldn't be used to protect trees.

[Gary Prentice]

Our client, the one I was searching for the s106 for, recently bought the house and her solicitor told her that the roadside/highway trees were subject to a TPO? (But not according to the lasses in planning who will always tell us about anything close by)

[Mark Bolam]

Result!

 

 

 

I knew someone would spot the hasty (pre edit) error!!

 

 

 

The natural 'follow-on' question from the 'planning conditions apply to the land and it's owner' position though (and perhaps of greater interest / relevance to us tree cutters) is -

 

 

 

Contractor cuts down tree at request of homeowner.

 

 

 

Contractor checks prior to cutting for CA / TPO / FL issues but doesn't check for planning conditions.

 

 

 

Tree hits the floor, neighbour or LA kick off about planning condition.

 

 

 

Implications for tree cutter = nil (relax, count £'s, enjoy cold beer.)

 

 

 

Implications for home / land owner.....?

 

 

Phew!!! [emoji481]

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

[Mark Bolam]

Planning Agreements (s.106 or scottish equivalent) must turn up in an ownership deed, and the purchaser's solicitor should bring it to a new owner's attention (before the purchase is concluded). But ordinary planning conditions, no chance of these turning up unless the purchase offer specifies that any planning conditions should be disclosed by the seller. Implications would therefore depend on what the seller, solicitor or purchaser knew and didn't say.

 

Your scenario is a perfect example of why planning conditions of an ongoing nature shouldn't be used to protect trees.

 

 

That's exactly the way I see it.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

[skyhuck]

If they did try to prosecute, the fact that the tree(s) was not worthy of a TPO would make their case pretty weak, I would have thought.

[daltontrees]

As the contractor you will have to shoulder your share of responsibility.

 

I would only agree with that if the contractor had undertaken to check that there were no legal impediments to felling a tree. Otherwise it is not the sort of thing a contractor should be expected to do or even warn about in the normal course of events.

 

As ever, it is best for the customer to know whether or not the contractor is checking. At least that way he knows if he has to check himself. It is perfectly acceptable to tell the customer that you are not checking and that he ought to. Or pay you to do it (add it to the price of the job) and bear the associated delay while the LPA does or doesn't answer.

 

Up here, expecting the Council to have htat sort of info to hand is cloud cuckooland. I have been waiting 3 months now for my last request of that kind to be answered. The tree was removed 2 months ago.