TPO Horse Chestnut within 5-6m of house

[Carlyesque]

Hello! I'm very grateful for this forum as I'm brand new to house-buying and have read through a number of posts about this subject, which has made things a little clearer for me.

Firstly, I adore trees. The last thing I'd ever want to do is get rid of one. No 'buts' to follow that statement, just some context! 🙂 

I saw a house and it was love at first sight, ticks all my important boxes. I searched for planning applications relating to the property and found the below, which mentions the huge Horse Chestnut tree in the front garden, just 5-6m from the house. From what I've gathered from reading this forum already, that really is very close for such a magnificently grand tree! The owner claims that the tree is responsible for structural damage to the house and neighbouring properties; while no expert evidence was submitted to support this, it's certainly enough to give me pause. I wouldn't want to buy such a big problem if that is the case, but I certainly wouldn't want to cause a nuisance for any neighbours! I'm not sure what the soil type is. I've read here that clay would be a potential cause for concern due to dehydration in hot weather. The application also mentions an underground stream that has apparently been breached - while I'm not sure of the exact location of this, I suppose that would have some influence on the tree roots. The report also mentions that the trees were probably planted at the same time as the houses were built, which appears to be quite some time ago.

I know people have a propensity to blame trees for issues that aren't always their fault, so I'm keeping that in mind. However, I think the enormity of the tree and the close proximity - plus the surprising affordability of the house - probably mean that it is a big problem. I think I've come here for somebody to give me hope that it isn't as bad as it seems. Either that, or to put me out of my misery! 😉

Report:

Planning application details | Kirklees Council

WWW.KIRKLEES.GOV.UK

---

Delivering information for individuals, businesses and organisations about this area in the Yorkshire Pennines area of England

All advice/warnings to go running into the night greatly appreciated!

Edit: here's a street view image of the fine fellow in question, for better context! The house I'm looking at is the one with the brown door.
 

Google Maps

WWW.GOOGLE.COM

---

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

 

Edited March 31, 2021 by Carlyesque

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

7 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

The “no burning on site” condition struck me as ‘odd’ too. It may or may not be an option but I can’t see how it can be a condition. 
 

I’d have thought that would be EA business unless there is some other byelaw - but even if there was, not really appropriate as a condition. 

An "Informative" on the DN - drawing the applicants attention to other relevant legislation/regulation etc. (same for wildlife / nesting birds etc.)

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

1 hour ago, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

An "Informative" on the DN - drawing the applicants attention to other relevant legislation/regulation etc. (same for wildlife / nesting birds etc.)

Agreed Paul, it’s the sort of detail that might be expected as an informative ‘note.’

 

But in this example it is listed as condition 3 whereas the ‘informative notes’ follow at 1 - 7.  The informative notes seem excessive esp as note 1 specifically details that conditions (presumably including 3) are ‘enforceable.’

 

Is Kirklees TO AA accredited?  

[Mark J]

.

Edited April 2, 2021 by Mark J
.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

9 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Agreed Paul, it’s the sort of detail that might be expected as an informative ‘note.’

 

But in this example it is listed as condition 3 whereas the ‘informative notes’ follow at 1 - 7.  The informative notes seem excessive esp as note 1 specifically details that conditions (presumably including 3) are ‘enforceable.’

 

Is Kirklees TO AA accredited?  

Good evening Kevin, not sure if you're being 'facetious' here or a genuine question 😊.

If the latter, there no TO accreditation opportunity, we did offer a scheme many moons ago but it lapsed. 

The TO may well be a member of course, possibly/probably  a qualified member if so, but tis for them to disclose such really.

This situation  assumes the TO is responsible which of course he/She may not be, it may be a planning dept legacy issue (haven't read the DN.)

Regards, and hope you have a good Easter.

Paul

 

[Khriss]

12 minutes ago, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

Good evening Kevin, not sure if you're being 'facetious' here or..........😊

 

Never happened since the last Ice Age, that....     K

Edited April 2, 2021 by Khriss
( not that i am being facetious you understand)

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

On 02/04/2021 at 19:34, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

Good evening Kevin, not sure if you're being 'facetious' here or a genuine question 😊.

If the latter, there no TO accreditation opportunity, we did offer a scheme many moons ago but it lapsed. 

The TO may well be a member of course, possibly/probably  a qualified member if so, but tis for them to disclose such really.

This situation  assumes the TO is responsible which of course he/She may not be, it may be a planning dept legacy issue (haven't read the DN.)

Regards, and hope you have a good Easter.

Paul

 

Certainly not being facetious Paul!  I might have a tendency to seek the 'lighter' side of some situations but there is no humour intended from the previous post(s) - I don't think the subject warrants it.

 

What I would say - by way of adding context to the question about whether that LA TO was AA accredited or not - is that it was purely rhetorical.    

 

I don't think there is any doubt that the LA 'output' from this subject application is sub-optimal and I'm sure many will be aware of the divisions of responsibility between TO & PO.  

 

That said, if a TO was aware that a PO was routinely issuing poorly considered / constructed DNs then why wouldn't they take a minute to have the discussion and seek to correct / improve business output?

 

Having watched the AA webinar - the one about improving 'professionalism' in the sector - where (it seemed) all bar 1 of the panel and the majority of viewers submitting comments were TOs bemoaning the woeful state of contractors, it is example(s) such as this (which are not uncommon in discussion threads here) which tend to present the other side of the coin which was pretty much notable by it's exclusion from the webinar discussion.  This is a clear example of unprofessional output by public sector staff that are supposed to be suitably qualified, trained and experienced - possibly even AA accredited.

 

Perhaps heading too far off the original track so not really worth too much effort at this point.

 

There must be something we can just have a yarn about without disagreeing 😂 Roll on show season again I'll get the beers in!