Implied TPO in Conservation Area

[Treerover]

Hello all, I have a customer who has filed a 211 notice to fell an Ash tree within his garden. I think his reasons in this instance are justifiable and there is also evidence of Ash die back within direct sight of his tree.

The local TO however disagrees and has asked for the application to be withdrawn and an alternative spec drawn up.

My question is this; in such circumstances, given the communication from the TO but in light of the fact a TPO is not in place, can the tree still be legally removed after the 6 week period , in absence of a TPO , or does the TO’s correspondence cloud the issue and bring with it some risk of prosecution ?

[Mark Bolam]

I’m pretty sure the TO has queered the pitch here, and removal at this stage would now be illegal.

@daltontrees could clarify I hope?

Is it in England?

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

The customer is not obliged to follow the TO request to withdraw the notice of intent. 

The only formal mechanism the TO can use to prevent removal of the tree is a TPO, which should be served before 6 weeks from formal notification to the LPA (this date is usually advised on the acknowledgment letter.) 

As a matter of professional courtesy, I would advise the TO is informed of the intention to continue to remove the tree.

[Dan Maynard]

I think the TO is a bit confused, they have to either

- put a TPO on

- say they don't object

- do nothing for 6 weeks and this means that they don't object

 

As long as the clock for the S211 was properly ticking, eg by the date on the planning portal, I don't think they would have a leg to stand on as far as prosecution goes - but wouldn't be best for future relationship. And I personally wouldn't want to risk that on the basis of some bloke on arbtalk, I think I would clarify what basis the TO is using to ask for the application to be withdrawn.

[Will C]

Our TO has done similar once in the past.
We had a request to remove the con area notification and resubmit with “a spec agreed at a site meeting” there will be no objection otherwise a TPO will be placed on the tree. The end result was more in line with what we had recommended to the customer anyway but they wanted the fell.

[Gray git]

We have had this similar situation a few times with the difference both councils don't actually have tree offices and it's just a planning officer dealing with it.
Basically they have used it a a way to get what they want without having to justify or back up why.
Some context, both trees Ash, both limited access, both with ash dieback, both fairly prominent visible tree's.
Neither officer wanted the trees gone but couldn't justify placing a tpo on them because should they then fail and cause damage due to reasons stated they could have a claim placed against them because to place a tpo the tree must be viable (someone might help me out here with the exact wording)' for a decent amount of time.
So they used the threat of placing a tpo as leverage to have the CA notification withdrawn and changed to what they wanted, both times I politely refused and 3 weeks later was removing the trees before they become to much of a risk to ourselves to safely work on.

[Gray git]

I don't want to turn this thread into a ash dieback debate but this is what the inside of one of the tree's looked like even though it had about 80% crown coverage and it was rediculously brittle

[benedmonds]

I think TO's do it to save them a job of making a TPO. I am sure there must be a bunch of paper work involved and they  seem to be under resourced. Much easier for them to ask you to withdraw and re apply for works they are happy with.  I would drop them a note to say that's not want client wants or just wait the 6weeks and carry on.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

It’s the source of some bemusement when the talk turns to “professional courtesy” and “future relationships” in these sort of circumstances. 
 

There seems to be a presumption that the applicant / agent owes some sort of deference to the “authority” even though (in these circumstances) it is the “authority” that is going native and apparently “bending” the rules - either to assuage a personal agenda or to avoid additional workload through the imposition of a (possibly unjustifiable) TPO, or indeed as a consequence of not having suitably qualified / experienced staff to process standard procedures within the LA. 
 

Id suggest that a distinct lack of professional courtesy is displayed by a party that seeks to impose ‘irregular’ restrictions / suggestions / amendments upon an applicant / agent where a properly formatted submission has been made. 
 

The spec will have been thoroughly considered prior to submission. It might be that the agent and tree owner have had to find a compromise already between advice (from agent) and desired outcome (from tree owner.)

 

A third opinion is rarely necessary, welcome nor relevant. 

At the expiration of 6 weeks and a day, execute the agreed / contracted task. 

 

 

 

[Martin du Preez]

This does annoy me greatly. What also annoys me greatly and I would live some one to clear this up as it’s the same topic of TO’s bending rules. For a few district councils when I place my notice of intent on the planning portal, about 2-3 weeks after that date I get an email from the LA saying they have received the app and I have 6 weeks from starting from the date on the email?? Surely not??