TPO Tree v Recently built garage

[Adam M]

5 hours ago, donnk said:

if the tree is accidentally killed by plant, geniune mistake. fine paid. everyone happy.

 

your in dreamland if you think plod would prosecute POCO for a bloody tree!

Councils do just that. Poole BC are quite well into POC. 

[Gary Prentice]

On 20/02/2019 at 20:03, Canal Navvy said:

Yup....... Built on insufficient foundations and still awarded £25,000 in damages. I could think of some people who'd see it as a way of circumventing a TPO  ?

It was a bit more complicated than that.  The case was fairly straightforward legally, but the LAs legal team made an error in attempting to blame the victim, the candyfloss construction of the conservatory. That shifted the medias focus on the case with a nice soundbite and shifted public perception of the legalities involved.

 

In law, you have to take the victim as you find them. It's like battering someone over the head with a bat and then arguing that because they had an unusually thin skull they died, whereas someone with a normal, average, thickness of skull would have survived.  So, the crux of the claim that the foundations were inadequate, with the already known tree roots/subsidence problems, wasn't going to be particularly great in the first place. If the trees roots weren't abstracting water from the land the foundation specification would be immaterial. 

 

This is the problem with medias reporting, the public get the wrong idea about all the principals of the case and in some situations trees get removed out of fear when it is unnecessary or there would never be an obligation to do so.

On 20/02/2019 at 16:13, Nimby said:

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Burge V South Gloucester Council - Candyfloss Construction.pdf

[Chris at eden]

10 hours ago, Adam M said:

I meant in the wider context, where an extension would otherwise have been PD but to build it they have to carry out a prohibited activity e.g. root severence for foundations or pruning to fit it in. The PD rights don't trump the TPO therefore surely an app of some sort should be required? 

This I agree with. If outside of the RPA then obviously just advisory fencing positions. 

[Chris at eden]

16 hours ago, donnk said:

if the tree is accidentally killed by plant, geniune mistake. fine paid. everyone happy.

TPO contravention is a strict liability offence. Saying, oh it was an accident or I didn’t know it was protected won’t get you much sympathy.  Unless the magistrate is a bit gullible, which does happen. 

16 hours ago, donnk said:

 

your in dreamland if you think plod would prosecute POCO for a bloody tree!

It has nothing to do with the plod.  The enforcing authority for TPOs is the LPA. No reason why they can’t do it. 

 

To to be fair though, the police did pursue a case of criminal damage for council trees at a council i do some work for. The chap had to replace them and fund a 3 year maintenance program to avoid a criminal record. 

[Adam M]

11 hours ago, EdwardC said:

Yes TPO, and that would apply to any works including root severance outside the RPA.

Phew! 

[Rob_the_Sparky]

We put a pitched roof on an existing garage under a TPOed tree as part of our building works.  As it was part of a larger set of works planning were involved and we had to show that the work on the garage would not impact on the tree (roots and crown).  I suspect that the reaction to such a letter will be that the garage will have to be modified to not damage the tree.  It was there first so the new work on the garage should have taken the tree into account.

[Chris at eden]

5 minutes ago, Rob_the_Sparky said:

We put a pitched roof on an existing garage under a TPOed tree as part of our building works.  As it was part of a larger set of works planning were involved and we had to show that the work on the garage would not impact on the tree (roots and crown). 

Its called an Arboricultural impact assessment, they account for about 60% of the work that I do. 

5 minutes ago, Rob_the_Sparky said:

I suspect that the reaction to such a letter will be that the garage will have to be modified to not damage the tree.

They could say it but unless they can show that the garage wasn't built in accordance with the approved plans they cant enforce it.  If they have given consent to build and it and then the tree damages the garage then that is down to both parties really.  If they refuse an application to work on the tree to mitigate the risk then the LPA would be liable for future damage (if the damage is as a result of their refusal and that the damage was foreseeable based on the documents submitted with the application.      

5 minutes ago, Rob_the_Sparky said:

It was there first so the new work on the garage should have taken the tree into account.

Correct, it should, doesn't always happen.  And if it didn't and planning didn't pick it up then it makes no difference that it was there first.  They can still claim for damage to the garage.  And if the tree is damage by the build (say by putting strip footings in the RPA), then they can't prosecute.  Again, as long as it is built in accordance with the approved plans.  If the approved documents were to use housedeck for the foundations and you went in with the strip and caused damage then that would be different.       

[daltontrees]

Aniother long and complicate Arbtalk speculation thread. Nothing wrong with that per se but what I'd do is wait until the application is determined and then decide either to give up or to appeal.

 

A rubbed soffit is a long way  below the £500 de minimis compensation threshold and a long time before the situation is serious. The compensation rights will expire long before then.