Jump to content

Log in or register to remove this advert

TPO confirmed but owner not informed


Johnelle
 Share

Recommended Posts

Log in or register to remove this advert

20 hours ago, Johnelle said:

The offending polar...

And thanks so much for all your advice/comments so far.

The tree is about 60-80ft with, as you can see, a serious lean. The ground below has risen to form a mound comprised of very large bare roots (8” in diameter)

Our main objection is that the lean is towards a grade 2* listed tithe barn. Gov.uk says trees near national monuments should be discussed with HeritageEngland before slapping on a TPO. That didn’t happen either, planning committee not even seen the tree, or TO who only saw its amenity value from the road.

Have been advised about judiciary review but can’t afford it...

My view? What’s more important - a listed building or an big tree that can be seen from the main road...

Any advice?

IMG_8019.JPG

Listed building and scheduled monument are not the same thing although they ca be applied to the same building.  You don’t have to inform historic England for TPOing trees near listed buildings. Only scheduled monuments. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Puffingbilly413 said:

I could look it up but it's nearly time for tea...

 

Am trying to remember whether amongst the criteria for deeming a tree worthy of a TPO, a TO is supposed to consider defects, safety issues etc as a matter of course ie can they even put a TPO forward without having satisfied themselves of the absence/existence of such things?  I'm guessing that due to COVID-related restrictions on entering properties etc, the TO concerned (as hinted at by the OP) didn't inspect the tree other than from the road - hence issues with the root plate etc and proximity to targets were not properly observed?

 

I wonder who carries the liability in such cases where hurdles have, possibly incorrectly, been put in the way of removal and the tree then fails and causes damage?

 

Interesting one.

The LPA doesn’t assess tree condition, only visual amenity.  There is no reason that cannot be done from the road.  The owner can then either object based on condition or apply to fell based on condition.  The safety of the tree is the responsibility of the owner not the LPA. Although it would be a bit dodgy to TPO something that was obviously dangerous when viewed from the street.  The OP just needs to follow the process with one of the above options.  The owner hold the liability. Unless, they submit an app with supporting evidence and the LPA disagree and refuse and then the tree falls as a result. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Johnelle said:

5 day DDD seems an interesting approach, need a survey first I expect

There is no 5 day exemption for DDD any more, it went with the 2012 regs. It is now dead trees, dead branches within trees or where there is an immediate risk of serious harm.  Note the word immediate. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Johnelle said:

5 day DDD seems an interesting approach, need a survey first I expect

You will need a report if you are applying to fell based on condition. Not for a five day notice as the risk would need to be so obvious and immediate that you wouldn’t have time and it can be assessed by a layperson. For example, a large hanging branch over the road. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was the view of the tree from the road when TPO served. And when in leaf it blocks the view of the church steeple. This is the basis on which the TPO was served. 

As to the immediate risk of harm, I take your point. Poplars are grown for wind breaks so it should be pretty stable but it’s the lean and the mound of roots to one side which concern us.

 

Edited by Johnelle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on the photo it probably meets the criteria in terms of amenity and expediency.  As such you will be looking at other issues for example risk.  You are probably right to be concerned re the lean and in particular lifting of the root plate. If it has moved recently it may even meets the immediate risk category. If not it will be an app or objection.  Just to be clear, I wasn’t saying there is no risk. Just that you can’t just put in a five day notice saying it is dangerous anymore.  It has to be justified. That is why the wording was changed, dangerous is too ambiguous.  Also, if you put in an app and it is refused, you can’t appeal it until the TPO has been confirmed and they may not confirm the order for six months.  Putting in an objection will almost certainly delay confirmation so there are decisions to be made. 
 

it really needs to be looked at properly so you can make those decisions.  Where are you based?  
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


  •  

  • Featured Adverts

About

Arbtalk.co.uk is a hub for the arboriculture industry in the UK.  
If you're just starting out and you need business, equipment, tech or training support you're in the right place.  If you've done it, made it, got a van load of oily t-shirts and have decided to give something back by sharing your knowledge or wisdom,  then you're welcome too.
If you would like to contribute to making this industry more effective and safe then welcome.
Just like a living tree, it'll always be a work in progress.
Please have a look around, sign up, share and contribute the best you have.

See you inside.

The Arbtalk Team

Follow us

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.