Council tree officer ignoring trees in TPO

[eggsarascal]

17 minutes ago, ArthurJob said:

Hi eggsarascal, they bought it 10 years ago and at the time the councillor got the TPO put in place to prevent development and told people it couldn't be built on so not to buy the land when it went up for auction.

Neighbouring residents are reeling that the application to build there has been made now.

If it's already been passed your neighbours are on a hiding to nothing, harsh but true.

 

Someone had the nerve to buy it and sit on it for 10 years knowing it might never get passed for building, any of the neighbours could have done the same thing, to be fair.

[ArthurJob]

The application hasn't been decided on yet.

[eggsarascal]

24 minutes ago, ArthurJob said:

The application hasn't been decided on yet.

My apologies, I misread it. 

[Dan Maynard]

Thanks Dan, the TPO description includes Hawthorn as attached (W2) Unsure if that is just descriptive of the land or it would suggestion it is included?

My understanding as you said earlier that a woodland TPO covers everything including saplings, as they are the next generation and important to the continuation of the wood.

The species list is an indication but not exclusive so yes the hawthorn would be included as a component of the woodland.

I've very limited experience of planning, but it does seem tree officers are not always right so stick to your guns and maybe get some proper advice from an arb consultant that knows their onions.

[Stubby]

38 minutes ago, Dan Maynard said:

My understanding as you said earlier that a woodland TPO covers everything including saplings, as they are the next generation and important to the continuation of the wood.

The species list is an indication but not exclusive so yes the hawthorn would be included as a component of the woodland.

I've very limited experience of planning, but it does seem tree officers are not always right so stick to your guns and maybe get some proper advice from an arb consultant that knows their onions.

Are onions covered by the TPO ? 😀

Edited May 29, 2021 by Stubby

[nepia]

🤦‍♂️

[Khriss]

Woody perenials are not and will never be onions Mr Stubby. K

[Vedhoggar]

13 hours ago, ArthurJob said:

Thanks Dan, the TPO description includes Hawthorn as attached (W2) Unsure if that is just descriptive of the land or it would suggestion it is included?

It will be probably be referring to woodland communities listed in the National Vegetation Classification (NVC) and species of tree associated with those woodland types.

[richyrich]

Contact the head planning officers, district councillors. Ask for clarification. Threaten use of ombudsman if they ignore you and your comments. Get 10 letters of objection and committee will decide the application.

[Chris at eden]

6 hours ago, richyrich said:

Contact the head planning officers, district councillors. Ask for clarification. Threaten use of ombudsman if they ignore you and your comments. Get 10 letters of objection and committee will decide the application.

TOs are generally pro tree. Planners generally think trees and TOs are a bit of a pain. If the TO is saying they are low quality I doubt the planner will care.  
 

But what will the ombudsman say?  If the trees are less than 150mm they are automatically Cat C. Low quality. Should not be used to prevent development as they are easily replaced. The TO will say that and the ombudsman can’t really argue. Same if it go’s to committee. Most of the time members go with officers recommendations.  I have represented LPAs in planning committee dozens of times and I have never lost. I’ve also never lost a PINS appeal. If the TO is any good this will be a walk in the park. if they are rubbish and it’s refused the applicant will probably win the appeal. 
 

Obviously, if they are better than the OP is saying then it may be worth looking at. If they are less than 150mm though it a long shot.  Unless there is some special circumstance. Green belt for example. 
 

some pics would be useful.