TPO work permission granted but with a "note"

[daltontrees]

3 hours ago, Andrew L said:

Thanks all for your insights on this.

In answer to various comments above:

 

Yes.  Both trees are within the client property boundary and so the debate is purely hypothetical but the householder is clearly very keen to make use of whatever options to improve the light to her property.  There is substantial and sustained (spade?) damage to the cherry tree roots which I believe has caused die-back to the tree and I duly documented this on my application but this aspect was not even mentioned on the permission: did the TO even go and look?!  Who knows?

 

Cherry tree prune at this time of year?  Well I was originally contacted back in ~May 20.  No response from householder for at least 3 months after quote sent in.  First application for works to the council denied.  This order gives 2 years to complete the work,,,,     But it is interesting that I have yet to see a TPO with a species-specific time of year prune recommendation.

However, it is my understanding that both cherry and mountain ash are ideally pruned late winter-early Spring.

 

If and when our learned colleagues at the council do respond to my request for clarification, I will update here.

Cheers and thanks again

Andrew

Cherry is best pruned in midsummer when its gum defences are most active. Any other time of the year risks infection to some or other degree.

[Andrew L]

And, a response from the council:

 

"Dear Mr Linney,

 

I refer to your message that has been passed to me. I can inform you that the information you refer to is given as guidance only, it does not imply that consent is automatically granted to cutback any overhanging branches without first specifying these works within an application. We have had several instances where a tree owner has complained that their neighbours have carried out works to their trees without first informing them (the tree owner) of the proposed tree works. Dead or dangerous trees may be removed as an exemption, however you are obliged to provide 5 days written prior warning before carrying out the proposed works, this is known as “a 5 day notice”. All 5 day notices are registered as an application. If after 5 working days you have not received a response you may proceed with the necessary works. If the works are considered to urgent (they cannot wait 5 working days) then you are advised to take digital images before taking the necessary action.

 

Deadwood may also be removed as an exemption likewise broken branches. Consent would be required before removing any climbing plants from the canopy or the main stem.

 

I hope this information is of assistance.

 

Yours sincerely,"

 

 

For me the only surprise is "Consent would be required before removing any climbing plants from the canopy or the main stem."  I thought ivy etc was not covered by a TPO,,,

 

Andrew

[daltontrees]

9 hours ago, Andrew L said:

For me the only surprise is "Consent would be required before removing any climbing plants from the canopy or the main stem."  I thought ivy etc was not covered by a TPO,,,

 

Andrew

The Council is wrong. Climbing plants are never trees and can never be protected.

[Andrew L]

6 hours ago, daltontrees said:

The Council is wrong. Climbing plants are never trees and can never be protected.

And isn't this the main problem here?  We are arb professionals are trying to work legally and so ask for guidance from the local council regarding specific TPO'd (or CA'd) trees.  But although there is a national tree protection legal framework, it is apparently interpreted by each council differently, increasing confusion to both the tree owners and us?

 

[Chris at eden]

51 minutes ago, Andrew L said:

And isn't this the main problem here?  We are arb professionals are trying to work legally and so ask for guidance from the local council regarding specific TPO'd (or CA'd) trees.  But although there is a national tree protection legal framework, it is apparently interpreted by each council differently, increasing confusion to both the tree owners and us?

 

I’m not sure how it can be misinterpreted.  It’s black and white in the regs and guidance. TPOs protect trees and trees only. Jules is correct, you cannot protect climbing plants with a TPO. Now if you damage a TPO tree while removing ivy that would be an issue. My approach would be let the council know that you are removing the ivy as they will get complaints from neighbours, I wouldn’t be submitting an app unless you need to prune the tree to get the ivy off. 
 

There is also no exemption for dangerous trees. The exemptions are; dead trees, deadwood within trees, and where there is an immediate risk of serious harm. 
 

[Andrew L]

Agreed.

I have written back to the "assistant arb officer" to seek clarification.  I suspect it was a typo and he neglected to write "not' (there were a number of other typos and he wrote it late on Friday afternoon,,,,).

We shall see.

 

[Paddy1000111]

4 hours ago, Chris at eden said:

There is also no exemption for dangerous trees. The exemptions are; dead trees, deadwood within trees, and where there is an immediate risk of serious harm. 

This is where there's issues with system and the wording with no clear examples. A dangerous tree to me is one that has an immediate risk of serious harm i.e. dangerous? If it's not posing an immediate risk, as in damaging soil then it's a nuisance not a danger. The wording is questionable and seems to be the cause of all these TPO arguments 😂

[daltontrees]

52 minutes ago, Paddy1000111 said:

This is where there's issues with system and the wording with no clear examples. A dangerous tree to me is one that has an immediate risk of serious harm i.e. dangerous? If it's not posing an immediate risk, as in damaging soil then it's a nuisance not a danger. The wording is questionable and seems to be the cause of all these TPO arguments 😂

The 'dead and dangerous' thing is a relic from an older version of the legislation. Chris has stated it correctly.

 

Many, many Councils try to regulate protected trees in ways that are not consistent with their obligations and the limitations of their powers. There's no excuse for it and I think that we and owners have a moral obligation to instil fair systems by pointing out Council failings every time we encounter them.

 

[Khriss]

13 hours ago, daltontrees said:

The Council is wrong. Climbing plants are never trees and can never be protected.

I think they may be being cautious, seen some horrific trunk scarring from ivy removal with an 046  😦  K

[Paddy1000111]

23 hours ago, Khriss said:

I think they may be being cautious, seen some horrific trunk scarring from ivy removal with an 046  😦  K

Probably an eco thing too. Ivy, when not damaging the tree, is a good thing as it's a popular nesting point for bats and other species. No point in granting free reign for people to rip it all out at the cost of nature! 

 

The rangers of one of the nearby nature walks/forests had to post up signs asking people not to cut down the Ivy. Someone was going out and cutting the ivy off the trees by cutting a 1ft clear zone around the base so the stuff up the tree would die!

Edited January 17, 2021 by Paddy1000111