Wording an application

[Dan Maynard]

Have you tried to chat to your TO? It's going to depend how they view pollard but it is a viable way to manage willow going forward.

[Mark Bolam]

Mick, it’s a weak tree with bad form in totally the wrong place (now), and I totally agree.

 

BUT - If you build a new house beside an older tree you lose all right to whinge.

 

You can can just hear the snake oil planning consultant - ‘Don’t worry about that tree, we’ll get permission to remove it….’

[Mick Dempsey]

That is not a school of thought I subscribe to.

 

What is that willow, 50/60 years old max?

Edited September 29, 2021 by Mick Dempsey

[openspaceman]

18 minutes ago, Mark Bolam said:

I will bare my arse in Burtons if the tree wasn’t there first.

I don't know the circumstances, the TPO may have been on it before the building or before the building was converted to a dwelling  but if planning permission was granted (but maybe it wasn't??) then the tree should have come out as part of the permission.

[donnk]

cut down, pay the fine.

[Mark Bolam]

3 minutes ago, Mick Dempsey said:

That is not a school of thought I subscribe to.

 

What is that willow, 50/60 years old max?

It’s a shit tree Mick, and shouldn’t be there.

Open gets my point of view, you don’t.

 

The tree predates the house.

 

Not the trees fault someone has fukked up in the planning process.

[Khriss]

Crown lift n say nowt. K

[AHPP]

I’m very sympathetic to the tree owner and/or owner of either of the houses that will one day have a willow branch on the roof. Really shit tree. 2.5m or 3m off is sort of helpful and sort of absolutely not. It would get the main scaffold back just enough to miss the old buildings if it fails and hinges at that tight Y union but it would add loads of regrowth weight and make the failure a near certainty rather than a probability. Right back to a twiglet or remove would be far better. The regular maintenance agreement daltontrees suggested could be a workable compromise but only if the scene-setting prune/“pollard” is hard enough. Otherwise it’s putting the tree owner on the hook for cherry picker hire every three years for not enough benefit. I’d want the twiglet or very close.

 

[AHPP]

The thought of trying to make some dreadful council arsehole see sense on a matter like this makes my blood run cold. The very best of luck with it.

 

[NickinMids]

Thanks for the replies

 

Ive been told by the householders that they bought the land with planning permission for two houses. They wanted one house so had to re apply. 
 

The planning officer granted the new permission but then informed the TO about the tree and I’m told he TPO’d it without seeing it. 
 

They then had to employ a consultant etc etc. They have spent thousands extra apparently to get the build done

 

The original TO has moved on. And his last permission for a 2.5 reduction has expired. They need to do something

 

They would prefer a hard pollard with an undertaking to carry out ongoing management. They would be happy to agree to that. I’m not aware of the regular maintenance agreement.

Is this something that can be applied for in the same way as one off works?

 

AAHP I particularly appreciate your considered view. I think they would be willing to go with the regular cherry picker if that’s the only option

 

cheers all