Partial refusal partial approval of tpo - where do I stand?

[Hornbeamfella]

The council have part declined and part approved a TPO (opposite way to what was requested) :-

Request to fell 2 sycamores and crown lift 5 hornbeam. 

 

Its come back saying that the sycamores add value. These are shared trees at the back of 3 properties and we didn't request the tpo lifted the neighbour did. We are however in favour of the way the decision has gone as the hornbeams back onto our property rather than the sycamore. 

 

The appeal date has past with no objections but the tree surgeon is submitting the same request again to fell the sycamore but not the hornbeam, apparently the council thought the decision might be wrong and that in fact its the hornbeam that add value not the sycamore (opposite reason stated in tpo decision) is this likely to be overturned and the tpo placed back onto the hornbeams by the council? We have 2 years from Feb to fell the hornbeam according to the decision. 

 

The ideal scenario would be for all trees to be felled. Not sure if we should fell what's been agreed now or wait to see if the others can be lifted but don't want this if the tpo goes back on those. 

 

Will a new application make this decision null and void? 

[monkeybusiness]

If you have the agreement to fell the trees you actually want felling then get them felled before submitting another application would be my advice. 

[Khriss]

Fell them and blame some  pikey who ran off. K

[daltontrees]

38 minutes ago, Khriss said:

Fell them and blame some  pikey who ran off. K

Have I inadvertently stumbled into the Arbtalk Facebollocks forum?

[daltontrees]

1 hour ago, Hornbeamfella said:

The council have part declined and part approved a TPO (opposite way to what was requested) :-

Request to fell 2 sycamores and crown lift 5 hornbeam. 

 

Its come back saying that the sycamores add value. These are shared trees at the back of 3 properties and we didn't request the tpo lifted the neighbour did. We are however in favour of the way the decision has gone as the hornbeams back onto our property rather than the sycamore. 

 

The appeal date has past with no objections but the tree surgeon is submitting the same request again to fell the sycamore but not the hornbeam, apparently the council thought the decision might be wrong and that in fact its the hornbeam that add value not the sycamore (opposite reason stated in tpo decision) is this likely to be overturned and the tpo placed back onto the hornbeams by the council? We have 2 years from Feb to fell the hornbeam according to the decision. 

 

The ideal scenario would be for all trees to be felled. Not sure if we should fell what's been agreed now or wait to see if the others can be lifted but don't want this if the tpo goes back on those. 

 

Will a new application make this decision null and void? 

Your first post on Arbtalk. Welcome.

 

We don't have all the details so my advice would be to be very cautious. Technically the application that was made has not been approved, since the application didn't ask for consent for the works that the Council has said can take place. If anything it sounds like the Council has either made a mistake or has considered the situation and has concluded that some trees on the boundary most remain and that the Sycamore are more deserving. If it's the latter, felling the Hornbeams will reduce rather than increase the chance of getting approval for anything on the Sycamores.

 

And you say the trees are shared. That legally is a rare situation but if one supposed consent covers all of them it can only be implemented with the agreement of all the owners.It may suit one owner to interpret the go-ahead as not in their best interests and they could veto its implementation.

 

I'd advise against assuming it can be implemented in part without all owners agreeing, and to answer your questions, the Council could indeed withdraw the existing approval for the hornbeams if a new application to lift or fell the sycamores is submitted.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

17 minutes ago, daltontrees said:

the Council could indeed withdraw the existing approval for the hornbeams if a new application to lift or fell the sycamores is submitted.

Not withstanding the other elements of ownership and agreement etc, if a subsequent application DIDN’T include the elements that have previously been approved what would be the LA mechanism for revoking/amending a previously approved application?

 

If it was the case that some sort of tree ID or admin mix up happened at the LA end (rather than anomalies in the documents submitted by the applicant) what can they actually do to prevent the felling of tree(s) they have consented for felling?

 

Even if there were anomalies in submitted applicant documents, it’s LAs responsibility to check and validate prior to approval - or highlight deficiencies prior to approval. 

 

If the owner took the stance: I applied, you approved, I’m going to do it.... I don’t think there is a mechanism to revoke / amend an approved planning application - except and unless there is perhaps a subsequent application for the tree(s) already subject to approval. 
 

(just focussing on that part of the question rather than the broader complexities which may exist)
 

An interesting situation....

[Khriss]

9 hours ago, daltontrees said:

Have I inadvertently stumbled into the Arbtalk Facebollocks forum?

I have two instances where developments companies did exactly that , wit TPO trees - whilst TO was on leave...... K

 

( bollocks yes - cautionary certainly  ?)

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Apparently, you can have a ministerial reversal of a planning application but perhaps only where 10s of millions of £s in CIL ‘efficiencies’ and national media exposure are involved. 
 

 

[Gary Prentice]

13 hours ago, Hornbeamfella said:

The council have part declined and part approved a TPO (opposite way to what was requested) :-

Request to fell 2 sycamores and crown lift 5 hornbeam. 

 

Its come back saying that the sycamores add value. These are shared trees at the back of 3 properties and we didn't request the tpo lifted the neighbour did. We are however in favour of the way the decision has gone as the hornbeams back onto our property rather than the sycamore. 

 

The appeal date has past with no objections but the tree surgeon is submitting the same request again to fell the sycamore but not the hornbeam, apparently the council thought the decision might be wrong and that in fact its the hornbeam that add value not the sycamore (opposite reason stated in tpo decision) is this likely to be overturned and the tpo placed back onto the hornbeams by the council? We have 2 years from Feb to fell the hornbeam according to the decision. 

 

The ideal scenario would be for all trees to be felled. Not sure if we should fell what's been agreed now or wait to see if the others can be lifted but don't want this if the tpo goes back on those. 

 

Will a new application make this decision null and void? 

Looks like the council?LA have truly cocked up here.

 

As I'm reading this, you currently have consent to fell 5 hornbeam and crown lift two sycamores?

As far as I'm aware, the LA have only one option now if they want to protect the hornbeam, which would be to create a new TPO on them. They'd be in the embarrassing position of then claiming that the trees were of significant benefit to the locale. After serving a new TPO there's 28 days to make representation, with regard to confirming a permanent order. I suspect that attempts would be made to confirm.

 

Whether you attempt to remove the hornbeam (with all 'owners' agreement probably depends on whether in doing so you'd improve or reduce the chances of gaining consent to remove the sycamore. I imagine that all the trees create a linear feature so altering that and seeing how the sycamores actually look as individual trees will (should) have bearing on how that application is determined. 

 

Can you post some photos?

Edited June 25, 2020 by Gary Prentice

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

58 minutes ago, Gary Prentice said:

Looks like the council?LA have truly cocked up here.

 

As I'm reading this, you currently have consent to fell 5 hornbeam and crown lift two sycamores?

As far as I'm aware, the LA have only one option now if they want to protect the hornbeam, which would be to create a new TPO on them. They'd be in the embarrassing position of then claiming that the trees were of significant benefit to the locale. After serving a new TPO there's 28 days to make representation, with regard to confirming a permanent order. I suspect that attempts would be made to confirm.

 

Whether you attempt to remove the hornbeam (with all 'owners' agreement probably depends on whether in doing so you'd improve or reduce the chances of gaining consent to remove the sycamore. I imagine that all the trees create a linear feature so altering that and seeing how the sycamores actually look as individual trees will (should) have bearing on how that application is determined. 

 

Can you post some photos?

But a new TPO could be subject to challenge and the LA would have to show the interests of amenity for something they’d just declared their approval for removal of. 
 

So, perhaps technically an option, how likely would it be that they’d choose that COA?  
 

I don’t think it’d get past internal scrutiny.