Worthy of a TPO?

[daltontrees]

20 hours ago, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

Not advocating / encouraging such but there is a compensation clause in 'the Act' (see https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tree-preservation-orders-and-trees-in-conservation-areas#Compensating-for-loss-or-damage ). It's a more complex aspect of the TPO legislation, which I don't fully understand tbh but I know others in the forum will.

Simplistically, as I see it, if the LPA TPO'd the tree, and then refused consent for removal, on the basis that the tree must stay and an engineering solution found (don't know what / if) if the 'additional cost' is £500 or above, a compensation claim may be lodged.

 

Regards,

Paul

 

PS Where you are, Harrogate, is a beautiful spa / garden town is it not, and hence the LA / TOs will seek to protect the trees / urban forest within their jurisdiction / control and oft come under managerial and political (small 'p') pressure to do so.

Compensation would not be a good way to go, since it only comes into effect after refusal, and the damage is already done, i.e. cannot retrospectively claim. Also the damage was mostly done when the tree was not TPO'd.

[Jcarbor]

What about this section 211 actual damage?

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

9 minutes ago, Jcarbor said:

What about this section 211 actual damage?

In law, apparently, a tree cannot be a nuisance to it's own property. Hence this exception is n/a (assuming the tree and the wall belong to the same owner.)

 

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

3 hours ago, daltontrees said:

Compensation would not be a good way to go, since it only comes into effect after refusal, and the damage is already done, i.e. cannot retrospectively claim. Also the damage was mostly done when the tree was not TPO'd.

Thanks Jules.

 

However, I was meaning compensation to cover the additional cost incurred in an engineering solution to allow re-building of the wall and retention of the tree. But, as I said, I don't know / understand if the compensation clause allows for this type of cost incurred by the tree owner...or indeed whether there would be additional cost...and if there were whether it would be £500s worth  

 

Paul

[MJ Trees & Logs]

Think I’d argue for removal there. The wall cannot be rebuilt further out and take up part of the highway. 
 
The wall will always be an issue. The roots on the cherry tree will always be ever expanding and spoil the structure again further down the line. Possible roots causing issues at the clients side also.
 
tree could be retained with small reduction maybe and keep an eye on the union? But still wall issue. Not sensible nor feasible imo
 
to be fair surely this tree has given its best and is no longer suitable for its location and it would be better to establish a new tree in a better location for future generations. 
 
Just my thoughts from a photo

Agree with everything you said (Know I’m a bit to the conversation) I’d also throw in regarding root damage to the foot path on the other side of wall. If anyone has a trip or an old lady falls and busts her hip, then the Council will be liable as this contributes to Trip Hazards under Health & Safety practices.

Also, the Council absorbs all costs for Destruction to Private Property regarding the tree to further damage and destabilise the wall.

I would remove the tree based on the size occupying the space. I don’t like the split in the bark, it’s damaging the wall and the footpath.

If you get denied permission then the Council must accept the responsibilities for any negative outcomes of their decision, especially when “Professionals” have offered their advice and many Planners have never worked the trade and only have textbook insight.

If you are denied permission, return a phone call to them saying you accept their decision, and presume that the Council will continue to maintain the wall at the tax payers expense and that they absolve all liabilities from yourself as the tree owner, should somebody trip on the pavement and injure themselves or the tree split and etc occurs.

Risk minimalisation Damage limitation! Hope this might help.

[Mark Bolam]

There is no footpath.

 

Paul, £500 wouldn't even cover the footings!

[Darrin Turnbull]

Remove it and replace with 3/4 young trees.

it‘s never going to be a bristle come pine

[Jcarbor]

In law, apparently, a tree cannot be a nuisance to it's own property. Hence this exception is n/a (assuming the tree and the wall belong to the same owner.)
 

Agree Paul, but the nuisance is not to his property its to the highway.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

3 hours ago, Mark Bolam said:

Paul, £500 wouldn't even cover the footings!

Hi Mark, yeah, I recognize that but I was driving at the difference in cost of rebuilding the wall as it was originally and modifying it to facilitate retention of the tree...whether that would equal +£500 and hence whether one could claim compensation for that  

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

4 minutes ago, Jcarbor said:

Agree Paul, but the nuisance is not to his property its to the highway.

Hmmmm, "actual damage" to the highway wasn't clearly evident from the photo you posted...even with my poor eyesight! Tread carefully with that approach I would suggest.

 

I recommend you go back to 'Plan A' and let the Sect. 211 notice run its course and take it from there.

 

Cheers,

Paul