Permitted Development - trees in close proximity

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

So far as I can find, there appears to be no restriction on PD rights regardless of the proximity of trees - unless pre-existing CA/TPO/FL/Nat parks etc restrictions apply - or am I just not looking in the right place? Nothing in Mynors & no joy with a quick on line search. 
 

This particular scenario is a historic situation. Garage built amongst existing mature trees under PD 10-12 yrs ago, advice was (apparently) sought from LA and homeowner told no planning app was required. I haven’t seen that corro yet. 
 

Is this apparent deficiency still the case under current PD regs?  Perhaps it was a procedural oversight by LA in this instance?

 

Anyone got a link to PD guidance that requires an AIA if trees are in dev footprint or any references that might be useful??
 

 

[daltontrees]

Don't waste any more time looking - there are no restrictions.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

I didn't go any further....  It was only out of interest / for completeness.

 

It's already done (10-12 years ago), can't be undone.  They do now have to live with (and pay for) the potential consequences.

 

Thanks for replies 

[Mick Dempsey]

What are these consequences?

[Mick Dempsey]

Ok, after 10/12 years do you not think the danger has passed?

[Mick Dempsey]

IME the biggest cause of wind throw for trees like that (Douglas?) is the removal of one or two of their number. The rest go down like Katie Price at a Man U. Christmas party once the wind forces have changed.

[Mick Dempsey]

1 minute ago, EdwardC said:

That's a problem particularly of forest plantations. This isn't a forest plantation. Eveything depends on a multitude of factors. In this instance there's a specific issue with construction damage. It remains a fact that construction damage often doesn't manifest itself until several years after the event.

 

Understood, however trees don’t know if they’re in a forestry setting or at the bottom of a garden.

 

My point (if there is one) is that a conifer like that will die off in a year or two (or three) after root damage, whilst a oak/beech or whatever will indeed struggle and then, possibly, turn up it’s toes (literally) 

 

This job started as one fir hitting the deck then a few weeks later a couple of others did, purely due to new wind forces, similar aged trees I imagine as the OPs, 40/50/60 max. Client ended up removing a dozen or so, garden/park setting.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

2 hours ago, EdwardC said:

Destabilised trees at risk of falling on the garage, not being able to go out in the garden because of the dangerous trees, not feeling safe to let the grandchildren into the garden because of the dangerous trees, having to pay money to cut down the dangerous trees, dangerous trees in falling distance of little Johny and Joanne's bedroom so I can't let them sleep there at nights, the cherubs playroom above the garage could be destroyed by a dangerous tree falling on it whilst the cherubs are in there. What if a dangerous tree fell, imagine what could happen, and it'll be all your fault if you don't let me cut them down or I can't afford to pay you that much to do it. It all boils down to, but what if. By the way, nothing to do with me having severed all their roots 10 years ago. Therefore, definitely all your fault.

 

Oh yes. I like trees but...

Bejeebus!

 

Were you actually there?

 

App has been playing up for me tonight so haven't been able to reply....

 

As it turns out, I didn't need to ?

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

2 hours ago, EdwardC said:

No. It's common for the effects of construction damage to start showing after 5 to 10 years. When you then point this out to developers they say, nothing to do with us mate, they were alright 5/10/12 years ago when we left.

Beejebus, were you actually there?

 

I was called because after 10-12 years the trees had started falling over ?

 

Lady of the house was actually quite pleased that 1 had hit the garage because had it not, the insurance wouldn't have paid for the clean up (I didn't do the clean up.)

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

2 hours ago, EdwardC said:

No. It's common for the effects of construction damage to start showing after 5 to 10 years. When you then point this out to developers they say, nothing to do with us mate, they were alright 5/10/12 years ago when we left.

Beejebus, were you actually there?

 

I was called because after 10-12 years the trees had started falling over ?

 

Lady of the house was actually quite pleased that 1 had hit the garage because had it not, the insurance wouldn't have paid for the clean up (I didn't do the clean up.)