TPO work permission granted but with a "note"

[Spideylj]

On 16/01/2021 at 17:01, daltontrees said:

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.

 

The guidance notes do allow for dangerous trees.

 

What is the exception for work on dangerous trees and branches?

Where a tree presents an immediate risk of serious harm and work is urgently needed to remove that risk, tree owners or their agents must give written notice to the authority as soon as practicable after that work becomes necessary. Work should only be carried out to the extent that it is necessary to remove the risk.

In deciding whether work to a tree or branch is urgently necessary because it presents an immediate risk of serious harm, the Secretary of State’s view is that there must be a present serious safety risk. This need not be limited to that brought about by disease or damage to the tree. It is sufficient to find that, by virtue of the state of a tree, its size, its position and such effect as any of those factors have, the tree presents an immediate risk of serious harm that must be dealt with urgently. One consideration would be to look at what is likely to happen, such as injury to a passing pedestrian.

If the danger is not immediate the tree does not come within the meaning of the exception.

Where a tree is not covered by the woodland classification and is cut down because there is an urgent necessity to remove an immediate risk of serious harm, the landowner has a duty to plant a replacement tree of an appropriate size and species.

Paragraph: 080 Reference ID: 36-080-20140306

Revision date: 06 03 2014

Edited January 18, 2021 by Spideylj

[daltontrees]

2 hours ago, Spideylj said:

The guidance notes do allow for dangerous trees.

 

What is the exception for work on dangerous trees and branches?

Where a tree presents an immediate risk of serious harm and work is urgently needed to remove that risk, tree owners or their agents must give written notice to the authority as soon as practicable after that work becomes necessary. Work should only be carried out to the extent that it is necessary to remove the risk.

In deciding whether work to a tree or branch is urgently necessary because it presents an immediate risk of serious harm, the Secretary of State’s view is that there must be a present serious safety risk. This need not be limited to that brought about by disease or damage to the tree. It is sufficient to find that, by virtue of the state of a tree, its size, its position and such effect as any of those factors have, the tree presents an immediate risk of serious harm that must be dealt with urgently. One consideration would be to look at what is likely to happen, such as injury to a passing pedestrian.

If the danger is not immediate the tree does not come within the meaning of the exception.

Where a tree is not covered by the woodland classification and is cut down because there is an urgent necessity to remove an immediate risk of serious harm, the landowner has a duty to plant a replacement tree of an appropriate size and species.

Paragraph: 080 Reference ID: 36-080-20140306

Revision date: 06 03 2014

I suppose I'll have to spell it out. The old version of the legislation used the word 'dangerous' but the new version says 'immediate risk of serious harm' It might amount to the same thing but as the guidance explains, the situation needs to be serious and immediate, which is a more precise way of stating it.

[Andrew L]

I am hesitating to add this to the mix in anticipation of the comments it might generate but here is the response to my query about climbing plants, from the Assistant Arb Officer:

 

" Dear Mr ******,

Thank you for the recent clarification which resonates with what I believed to be the case. 

However, could I ask you to please review the final sentence of your advice: "Consent would be required before removing any climbing plants from the canopy or the main stem."

This goes against everything I thought I had learned during my HND course at Merrist Wood (which was admittedly, a very long time ago?!)."

 

His response (yesterday):

 

"The removal of climbing plants is not listed within the list of exemptions as laid down by HM Government. The removal of climbing plants could result in damage to the main stem or major limbs. Therefore, consent would be required before proceeding with these works."

 

Confess, I am beginning to wish I had not opened this can of worms,,,

 

A

 

[Paddy1000111]

1 hour ago, Andrew L said:

I am hesitating to add this to the mix in anticipation of the comments it might generate but here is the response to my query about climbing plants, from the Assistant Arb Officer:

 

" Dear Mr ******,

Thank you for the recent clarification which resonates with what I believed to be the case. 

However, could I ask you to please review the final sentence of your advice: "Consent would be required before removing any climbing plants from the canopy or the main stem."

This goes against everything I thought I had learned during my HND course at Merrist Wood (which was admittedly, a very long time ago?!)."

 

His response (yesterday):

 

"The removal of climbing plants is not listed within the list of exemptions as laid down by HM Government. The removal of climbing plants could result in damage to the main stem or major limbs. Therefore, consent would be required before proceeding with these works."

 

Confess, I am beginning to wish I had not opened this can of worms,,,

 

A

 

It all makes sense to me. The LA, I suppose, has ability to set their own rules for TPO trees as to additional local requirements on top of the basic laws the government set. I'm sure loads of trees have been butchered, cambium cut etc. I imagine people have run a chainsaw around to cut stuff off and effectively girdled a tree. The LA probably wants to ensure it's done properly and not by someone who's going to mess it up! Good for them... 

[Khriss]

Thankfully you seem to have a reasonable relationship with yr TO, clearly he seen previous butchery . K

[Dan Maynard]

I am hesitating to add this to the mix in anticipation of the comments it might generate but here is the response to my query about climbing plants, from the Assistant Arb Officer:
 
" Dear Mr ******,
Thank you for the recent clarification which resonates with what I believed to be the case.  However, could I ask you to please review the final sentence of your advice: "Consent would be required before removing any climbing plants from the canopy or the main stem." This goes against everything I thought I had learned during my HND course at Merrist Wood (which was admittedly, a very long time ago?!)."   His response (yesterday):  

"The removal of climbing plants is not listed within the list of exemptions as laid down by HM Government. The removal of climbing plants could result in damage to the main stem or major limbs. Therefore, consent would be required before proceeding with these works."

 
Confess, I am beginning to wish I had not opened this can of worms,,,
 
A
 

I can sort of see where they are coming from but it's not the removal of the climbers that is the problem, is it? It's the heavy handed damage to the tree

Or do they mean the ivy could be holding the tree up and if you cut it off the tree will fall down?

Otherwise damage is damage is wrong, you wouldn't get permission to hack it off with a chainsaw and damage the tree so seems silly to suggest an application is required.

Be interesting to see if there's precedent for a prosecution following ivy removal.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

4 hours ago, Andrew L said:

I am hesitating to add this to the mix in anticipation of the comments it might generate but here is the response to my query about climbing plants, from the Assistant Arb Officer:

 

" Dear Mr ******,

Thank you for the recent clarification which resonates with what I believed to be the case. 

However, could I ask you to please review the final sentence of your advice: "Consent would be required before removing any climbing plants from the canopy or the main stem."

This goes against everything I thought I had learned during my HND course at Merrist Wood (which was admittedly, a very long time ago?!)."

 

His response (yesterday):

 

"The removal of climbing plants is not listed within the list of exemptions as laid down by HM Government (as a stand alone statement this could be said to be correct - doesn't make it relevant though since neither is hanging from a TPO'd tree howling like a demented banshee 'listed' as an exemption in the details laid down by HMG - but there is nothing (maybe apart from public order or mental health implications) that says you CAN'T) The removal of climbing plants could result in damage to the main stem or major limbs. It COULD, that's not to say it will or must and it certainly doesn't infer protection upon the climbing plant which domiciles within a TPO'd tree.  Therefore, consent would be required before proceeding with these works." Blatantly incorrect / inappropriate / unenforceable.

 

Confess, I am beginning to wish I had not opened this can of worms,,,

 

A

 

You're dealing with an idiot.....

[Paddy1000111]

34 minutes ago, Dan Maynard said:

I can sort of see where they are coming from but it's not the removal of the climbers that is the problem, is it? It's the heavy handed damage to the tree

Or do they mean the ivy could be holding the tree up and if you cut it off the tree will fall down?

Otherwise damage is damage is wrong, you wouldn't get permission to hack it off with a chainsaw and damage the tree so seems silly to suggest an application is required.

Be interesting to see if there's precedent for a prosecution following ivy removal.

I can't imagine them saying "No you can't remove it" but I suppose it's a way of them monitoring it being done and insuring that damage isn't done to the tree in the process. 

 

There's nothing stopping them prosecuting you if you did damage to the tree in the process though I wouldn't have thought but it would have to be on them to prove that it was done without due care as in, they would have to prove that you caused unnecessary damage to the tree in the process? If someone goes at it with a chainsaw cutting rings around the tree and peeling it off in sections you're pretty guaranteed to weaken/kill a tree. 

[daltontrees]

Let's be absolutely clear here. Councils can't set their own rules locally for TPOs. There is national statute and that is all. The Act allows 'trees' to be protected. Not stuff on trees, not shrubs, not ivy, not birds sitting on trees, not fairies living inside trees or inside the head of tree officers.  If a tree is damaged while removing ivy, that is an offence. How the f*** does the Council think it can consent ivy removal? By allowing damage? I applaud it for wanting to be able to advise on and control ivy removal but it has NO right whatsoever to require applications and NO statutory power to grant approvals relating to ivy. There is no exemption for ivy remval because IVY IS NOT A TREE.

 

Or as Sir Kevin says, you're dealing with an idiot.

Edited January 19, 2021 by daltontrees

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

1 hour ago, daltontrees said:

Let's be absolutely clear here. Councils can't set their own rules locally for TPOs. There is national statute and that is all. The Act allows 'trees' to be protected. Not stuff on trees, not shrubs, not ivy, not birds sitting on trees, not fairies living inside trees or inside the head of tree officers.  If a tree is damaged while removing ivy, that is an offence. How the f*** does the Council think it can consent ivy removal? By allowing damage? I applaud it for wanting to be able to advise on and control ivy removal but it has NO right whatsoever to require applications and NO statutory power to grant approvals relating to ivy. There is no exemption for ivy remval because IVY IS NOT A TREE.

 

Or as Sir Kevin says, you're dealing with an idiot.

Legend 😂