Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
benedmonds

TPO Justification?

Recommended Posts

I have had a recent discussion with a TO who took great umbrage for my justification to first remove and later at their request reduce a tree... They felt that my use of the word hazardous was completely unacceptable and that I should not have used it. Their argument was that the council would only listen to a justification that was inline with their tree policy, which basically says trees can only be pruned if Dead, Dying, Dangerous or causing damage..  

 

How can that be reasonable in an urban environment?  How else can I justify works to a basically healthy tree that is just too big for its location...?  

The 20m tall twin stem ash tree in a 10m long garden overhanging a bungalow..

 

This was my Justification:
The tree completely dominates the garden (see aerial photo) and is the wrong species for the location.
The tree causes considerable mess, with leaf fall, sap and bird excrement making sitting in the garden if not dangerous, hazardous.
The tree has twin limbs at approx 3m. This compression fork is an inherent point of weakness and failure at this point would lead to to significant damage to the surrounding properties.  The council has indicated that it will not agree removing the tree therefore the reduction has been proposed as a compromise.

43 barons ct.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its not reasonable. Sometimes the stance of local authorities can be a bit much.

 

I probably wouldn't have used the leaves making a mess as any kind of justification though, ever.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only a Hazard tree if it has a Target. K

Edited by Khriss
If it's healthy. Where be problem ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, it's your clients application and they can apply for whatever they want, not what the Council Officer says. Justifying it to their, or PIN's satisfaction is the hard bit.

 

From the aerial T1 doesn't appear to be dominating the garden, it may be different in the real world. You accept the tree is healthy, so will have a task on your hands justifying removal. There are two strands I would follow to justify such an application: 

1. Living conditions. Overbearing, dominant, loss of daylight, loss of sunlight to the garden and habitable rooms, (there are calculations you can do for this, but a bit tenuous for deciduous trees with light airy crowns), maybe some shadow plotting as well would help, fears of failure, real or perceived, falling debris etc; and,

2. Amenity. It looks like the tree is one of many. Visibility from a public place is non-existent from the north where it is screened by the other trees, little if any from the east and west from where it is screened by dwellings, other trees, and seen against a backdrop of other trees in the woodland,  and limited from the south, (the red arrow does point north, doesn't it),  where it is partially screened by the dwellings and viewed against a backdrop of other trees in the woodland. The tree isn't prominent in the landscape or streetscape and it's removal wouldn't therefore have a negative impact on the visual amenity of the location.

 

I'll write the refual later.

Edited by EdwardC
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, benedmonds said:

 Their argument was that the council would only listen to a justification that was inline with their tree policy, which basically says trees can only be pruned if Dead, Dying, Dangerous or causing damage..  

 

Surely this statement relates to pruning of LA owned trees given increasingly diminishing budgets and hence doing the minimum perhaps to meet their 'DoC' responsibilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

Surely this statement relates to pruning of LA owned trees given increasingly diminishing budgets and hence doing the minimum perhaps to meet their 'DoC' responsibilities.

I would have thought that was the case..   

 

They have really wound me up now as 13 weeks ago I put in an application to fell. 5 weeks later the council suggested they would not give consent but I should withdraw the application and apply to reduce..

 

Personally I thought this was a stupid idea as its a leggy 20m ash. The client wanted something however.  I assumed doing as recomended by the lpa I would get consent in the 3 remaining weeks.. But no.. the lpa decided that they would restart the clock.. 8 weeks later and still no consent so I chase only to finally get a refusal to reduce. 

Edited by benedmonds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What did you put down spec wise to reduce in the end?

 

All I can see is its a daft tree to retain in such a small space. Also there are plenty of other tree's in the area by the looks of the print screen and it wouldn't be a huge loss to visual amenity.

 

Long term need multiple reductions, still cause same issues for the customer, possibly get ash die back at some point. I see it as throwing good money at bad and why should the customer have to pay hundreds each time to reduce for something of little benefit to them?.... Imagine if the customers had to endure the councils decision for the next 10 years then be allowed to remove the tree, why not let them have it out now and plant a better suited tree that in those 10 years could have grown to be a decent tree for the environment area and for amenity and worth of a tpo.

 

Sounds like your T.O cant see past the end of his nose

Edited by swinny
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The council withdrew the initial application to fell when they told me to change the application to a reduce... I have asked for them to reinstate it and refuse it so | can appeal...  Hopefully they won't prolong the process by another 8 weeks by making me reapply.....

 

The client really doesn't have the resources to undertake the works and is definitely not willing to pay for the appeal. I have found this regularly happens when you tell them  it will take a year and you can't be sure of the outcome...  I could do and do sometimes make appeals without charging the client but it's all my time and I have already wasted enough with the first 2 applications and chasing for decisions...

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Featured Adverts

About

Arbtalk.co.uk is a hub for the arboriculture industry in the UK.  
If you're just starting out and you need business, equipment, tech or training support you're in the right place.  If you've done it, made it, got a van load of oily t-shirts and have decided to give something back by sharing your knowledge or wisdom,  then you're welcome too.
If you would like to contribute to making this industry more effective and safe then welcome.
Just like a living tree, it'll always be a work in progress.
Please have a look around, sign up, share and contribute the best you have.

See you inside.

The Arbtalk Team

Follow us

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.