Worthy of a TPO?

[Jcarbor]

There is no footpath.
 
Paul, £500 wouldn't even cover the footings!

It wouldn’t pay for a days digger/operator works in harrogate[emoji23]

[Craig Johnson]

if its in Harrogate, just walk away the council are a law to themselves and are power mad

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

17 minutes ago, EdwardC said:

There is only plan A. Its either plan A or the walls going to fall on the road. There is no plan B. It's plan A or the wall falls over. What! Plan A isn't acceptable? Ok, lets discuss it in a grown up manner. Ive listened to everything you said and taken it on board and have decided that its plan A. There is no plan B. Plan A; get it. PLAN A.

 

Maybe you could have an arboriculturists vote on it. You could have a choice of plan A or plan A

And a re-run if it was a close or unexpected / undesired outcome....?

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

19 minutes ago, EdwardC said:

There is only plan A. Its either plan A or the walls going to fall on the road. There is no plan B. It's plan A or the wall falls over. What! Plan A isn't acceptable? Ok, lets discuss it in a grown up manner. Ive listened to everything you said and taken it on board and have decided that its plan A. There is no plan B. Plan A; get it. PLAN A.

 

Maybe you could have an arboriculturists vote on it. You could have a choice of plan A or plan A

Thank you Edward.

 

My reference "back to" Plan A was because the OP was exploring the exceptions / exemptions options  within the TPO which, in my understanding, are not applicable under the circumstances (which you have, in effect, confirmed.)

 

So, my vote is for Plan A...the 2nd one  

[openspaceman]

3 hours ago, EdwardC said:

There is only plan A. Its either plan A or the walls going to fall on the road. T

Yes the wall is the danger to the road and it would be negligent to leave it as is.

 

If the TO manages to get a TPO on the tree and it is appealed within the 6 weeks then things will be interesting because the wall has to be removed and at that stage the tree is standing  and the wall is not there. So tree in conservation area and brick wall also in conservation area, which has more public amenity?

[Jcarbor]

if its in Harrogate, just walk away the council are a law to themselves and are power mad

Small bloke syndrome maybe?

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

17 minutes ago, openspaceman said:

which has more public amenity?

Is that the right question?

 

The part of the wall that is on the p1ss has to come down anyway because it is a hazard in its own right. (Or build piers or unsightly scaffold?)

 

Not entirely sure what the CA / planning implications of that might be - remove and replace I’m guessing would probably be OK but height & proximity to highway might require planning app - not sure on that and not sure it’s important to the point anyway. 

 

Once wall is down, the tree can no longer present a nuisance issue to a wall that doesn’t exist. 

 

All im saying is, TO ‘might’ say, “...agreed your wall is a hazard probably best you take it down if you want to. Wall, tree, gap where wall used to be. Insufficient grounds to justify tree removal, think I’ll try a TPO see if it floats...”

 

Common sense dictates remove tree, but just trying to see it through another’s lens....

 

 

[openspaceman]

1 minute ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Once wall is down, the tree can no longer present a nuisance issue to a wall that doesn’t exist. 

 

All im saying is, TO ‘might’ say, “...agreed your wall is a hazard probably best you take it down if you want to. Wall, tree, gap where wall used to be. Insufficient grounds to justify tree removal, think I’ll try a TPO see if it floats...”

IMO the wall has to come down, once down the tree is no longer a problem to the wall, the garden can be secured by fencing around the tree as there is not an engineering solution to rebuild the current wall as it would intrude into the road.

 

It doesn't alter the position that it's worth  continuing with the 211 notice because until he puts the TPO on the tree you can fell it at 6 weeks so the problem only arises after the TPO is in place.

 

It might just be that having the wall re built as it originally was is more in keeping with the conservation area character than a wall with a gap in it containing a tree of poor form.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

17 minutes ago, openspaceman said:

IMO the wall has to come down, once down the tree is no longer a problem to the wall, the garden can be secured by fencing around the tree as there is not an engineering solution to rebuild the current wall as it would intrude into the road.

 

It doesn't alter the position that it's worth  continuing with the 211 notice because until he puts the TPO on the tree you can fell it at 6 weeks so the problem only arises after the TPO is in place.

 

It might just be that having the wall re built as it originally was is more in keeping with the conservation area character than a wall with a gap in it containing a tree of poor form.

Totally agree. 

[Mark Bolam]

We’re all on the same page here.

 

The council, however, may be reading a different book!