TPO replacement trees

[skyhuck]

When felling dead or dying trees subject to a TPO obviously a replacement tree is required, but can the TO insist on more than one replacement?

 

I know that when wanting to fell TPO'd trees that are not dead the council may ask for additional replacements in mitigation for allow the felling of a viable tree, but I would have thought trees lost naturally should only require one replacement per tree.

 

Any thoughts please?

[Paul Barton]

Hi Dave,

 

My understanding of the legislation is that replacement trees as far as TPOs go, are only on a one for one basis. The wording from s.206 of the TCPA is:  

 

If any tree in respect of which a tree preservation order is for the time being in force—
(a)is removed, uprooted or destroyed in contravention of the order, or
(b)except in the case of a tree to which the order applies as part of a woodland, is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies at a time when its cutting down or uprooting is authorised only by virtue of section 198(6)(a), it shall be the duty of the owner of the land to plant another tree of an appropriate size and species at the same place as soon as he reasonably can. [emphasis mine].

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

If the landowner desperately doesn't want to plant a replacement, there is the option of seeking consent to reduce the dead tree so far as safety grounds require and then leave it in situ (for habitat) rather than seeking consent to fell - which necessarily provides the option to the LA to require a replacement as a condition of approval.  This process could be repeated until the dead tree ceases to exist through natural decay and no replacement condition can be applied.  Just an option.....? 

[skyhuck]

42 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

If the landowner desperately doesn't want to plant a replacement, there is the option of seeking consent to reduce the dead tree so far as safety grounds require and then leave it in situ (for habitat) rather than seeking consent to fell - which necessarily provides the option to the LA to require a replacement as a condition of approval.  This process could be repeated until the dead tree ceases to exist through natural decay and no replacement condition can be applied.  Just an option.....? 

I'm pretty sure a TPO can only apply to a live tree, once a tree is dead the TPO does not apply to the dead tree, hence notice, rather than application. And a replacement tree is required, regardless as to whether the dead tree is felled or not.

 

But I could wrong.  

[skyhuck]

55 minutes ago, Paul Barton said:

Hi Dave,

 

My understanding of the legislation is that replacement trees as far as TPOs go, are only on a one for one basis. The wording from s.206 of the TCPA is:  

 

If any tree in respect of which a tree preservation order is for the time being in force—
(a)is removed, uprooted or destroyed in contravention of the order, or
(b)except in the case of a tree to which the order applies as part of a woodland, is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies at a time when its cutting down or uprooting is authorised only by virtue of section 198(6)(a), it shall be the duty of the owner of the land to plant another tree of an appropriate size and species at the same place as soon as he reasonably can. [emphasis mine].

Thank you Paul, that pretty much backs up my thoughts.

[skyhuck]

The situation I have is that I've felled 3 large Beech for a landowner, they were TPO'd. One was stone dead (had been for some time) another was virtually dead (very sparse crown) and the third was dying. The problem I think was wet ground.

 

Consent was obtained for the work from the TO, but they are wanting replacements of 3 for 1, which I feel is excessive.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

I think permission is required to fell a dead tree (unless woodland) but there's no doubt, the extract below appears contradictory.

 

I think you do need consent to fell a dead TPO tree and could be required to replant (1 rather than 1+) if you submitted an application.  If you didn't want to replant, you could just reduce in perpetuity until the tree no longer exists - and not be bound by replanting conditions.  

 

It's a bit confusing to be fair, be good to hear what people think.... 

 

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tree-preservation-orders-and-trees-in-conservation-areas#dead-trees-and-branches

 

What are the exceptions for work on dead trees and branches?

Unless work is urgently necessary because there is an immediate risk of serious harm, 5 working days prior written notice must be given to the authority before cutting down or carrying out other work on a dead tree. The authority’s consent for such work is not required.

The exceptions allow removal of dead branches from a living tree without prior notice or consent.

Tree owners, their agents and authorities should consider biodiversity. Dead trees and branches can provide very valuable habitats for plants and wildlife, which may also be protected under other legislation. To conserve biodiversity it can be good practice to retain dead wood on living trees and at least the lower trunk of dead ‘ancient’ or ‘veteran’ trees unless, for example, safety reasons justify removal. Safety has priority, but safety considerations may not necessitate removal of all dead branches on living trees or the whole of a dead tree. It may be helpful to seek expert arboricultural and ecological advice.

Where a dead tree not covered by the woodland classification is removed, the landowner has a duty to plant a replacement tree.

Paragraph: 079 Reference ID: 36-079-20140306

Revision date: 06 03 2014

 

I'm 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

14 minutes ago, skyhuck said:

The situation I have is that I've felled 3 large Beech for a landowner, they were TPO'd. One was stone dead (had been for some time) another was virtually dead (very sparse crown) and the third was dying. The problem I think was wet ground.

 

Consent was obtained for the work from the TO, but they are wanting replacements of 3 for 1, which I feel is excessive.

Just seen, apol's, I'm of on a tangent!

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

35 minutes ago, EdwardC said:

Mr Johnson's idea that you can reduce a tree to nothing over time and not have to plant a replacement won't work. If the visual amenity is destroyed/lost due to the works then it would be easy to argue that the tree, so far as the TPO is concerned, no longer exists and a replacement is required.

Noting it's off Mr Huck's topic, hopefully he won't mind, I think, under certain circumstances it can, and it would be useful to understand why you think it can't.

 

Dead tree with TPO presents hazards to nearby targets = remove hazard branches as an exception.

 

Dead tree with TPO presents hazards to nearby targets = remove more hazard branches as an exception.

 

In time, dead tree with TPO becomes a standing stem with height that presents hazard to nearby targets = remove top section as an exception.

 

And so it continues, as the stem decays, until there ain't much left, all the while continuing to provide amenity, albeit in a different way.   

 

Granted, it would be a long process and only suitable in fairly confined circumstances, but technically possible unless you think not?

 

I've got a vague recollection of a similar discussion way back..... And I'm thinking of a circumstance we had with a TPO'd Mont pine.  Big old tree, hazard limbs falling off for a pass time.  TPO app approved to fell but client pulled the purse strings and said just take the hazard branches off.  Resulted in a pretty pole-like stem with a tuft on top.  The tree wasn't felled, the replacement was not planted.  Visual amenity had been reduced (subjective - beauty in the eye of the beholder and all that) but hazard limbs could, in any case be removed as 'lesser work' than the felling approval, and the tree remained - stalemate.  

 

Interested in your thoughts Mr C 

 

 

 

[skyhuck]

9 hours ago, EdwardC said:

So you applied to do the work, which you would have to do for the two live trees, and the consent was conditional on 3 replacements for each tree.

 

Firstly there has been maladministration. The TO should not have determined the application in respect of the dead tree. They should have told you it falls within the exceptions, therefore they can't determine the application and you can fell it. A replacement tree is required, just one tree.

 

No application, dead trees are exempt, is required, rather you give 5 days notice of your intention to fell the tree. Your application would have sufficed as your 5 days notice so long as it was clear the tree was dead.

 

You only need to plant a replacement once the tree is removed, however that is achieved.

 

They could condition the decision in respect of the two live trees to require as many replacements as they see fit. If you disagree you can appeal via PINs.

 

Mr Johnson's idea that you can reduce a tree to nothing over time and not have to plant a replacement won't work. If the visual amenity is destroyed/lost due to the works then it would be easy to argue that the tree, so far as the TPO is concerned, no longer exists and a replacement is required.

Ok, thanks for this.

 

I did not deal with the TO, it was done by the land agent.

 

So in this instance they can insist on 3 for 1 on the not completely dead trees, so its maybe better to wait until they are completely dead, to avoid the need/expense of extra trees. Clearly being proactive and managing your trees is not rewarded.

 

I'm surprised that a replacement is only required once the dead tree is "felled" I would have expected that a replacement would be needed upon the death of the TPO'd tree, thats interesting.