TPO tree fell in the storm yesterday

[daltontrees]

OK, here it is. There is nothing in the thread last year that states that an actual TPO application for removal was ever submitted. What was submitted was a CA notification.

 

The meeting of a s211 CA notification with a TPO does not constitute refusal of a TPO application. Indeed, there has been no TPO application (that we know of so far). If so, there can be no basis for compensation.

 

If anything I am surprised that an appeal has been accepted. Apeal against what?

 

A challenge to a TPO being made is a whole different thing.

 

A challenge to the validity of a TPO based on defective service of notices is yet another thing. That was the subject of last year's discussion.

[Chris at eden]

47 minutes ago, daltontrees said:

OK, here it is. There is nothing in the thread last year that states that an actual TPO application for removal was ever submitted. What was submitted was a CA notification.

 

The meeting of a s211 CA notification with a TPO does not constitute refusal of a TPO application. Indeed, there has been no TPO application (that we know of so far). If so, there can be no basis for compensation.

 

If anything I am surprised that an appeal has been accepted. Apeal against what?

 

A challenge to a TPO being made is a whole different thing.

 

A challenge to the validity of a TPO based on defective service of notices is yet another thing. That was the subject of last year's discussion.

Now I am really confused. I assumed he must have submitted an application to fell the tree after the TPO was confirmed. When he posted last year he was advised to get a report. This was after the TPO was served. He went and got one and submitted it apparently. From what I remember the original complaint was that the LPA confirmed it without telling him so clearly the the TPO was made and confirmed before the report was sent t the council. In which case he must have submitted an app surely?  He couldn’t have submitted a second 211 notice once the tree was TPO protected, it would have to be an app. Plus, how would he get the PINS to validate an appeal against a 211 notice?  The report can’t be about the original 211 as the TPO had already been confirmed. 
 

 

[Johnelle]

To summarise:

We applied to fell the tree in Sept 2020 and temp TPO applied in Nov 2020 on the basis of local amenity. The TPO was confirmed by DC in Jan 2021 for the same reason but we were not informed - hence our original thread.

We then paid for an expert report which said there was no reason the tree should fall despite the lean/raised root plate. We were not confident and applied again to have the tree felled but, on the advice of the expert, based our application on the suckers/roots which are covering our entire garden and growing to 8’. Our application was again rejected so we went to appeal in Sept 2021. The only communication since from the Inspectorate has been that they are dealing with the backlog.

So we tried on three occasions to get the tree felled, then nature decided to do it for us. But there is still has a TPO on record. We are continuing with our appeal (which seems a complete waste of the Inspectorates time).

Seems we are not liable for damage to property as we tried to get it removed but someone has to pay for the clear up, both in our garden and in the churchyard. 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

On 20/02/2022 at 09:30, Johnelle said:

Re Chris’ reply, the stump/trunk is currently horizontal - hopefully they wouldn’t maintain the TPO on this!

 

On 20/02/2022 at 09:40, Chris at eden said:

You would hop not. 

I’d wager they will!

 

Poplar - horizontal - soon to be regrowing. 
 

On the basis that the LA will probably require an app to remove so as to allow them to condition replacement. 
 

I’d wager there’ll be more to this yet and it’ll likely be either the retention of a horizontal tree or a replant condition. 

Edited February 21, 2022 by kevinjohnsonmbe

[Johnelle]

Expecting a replant condition - almost guaranteed.

Unless the Inspector appears and deems that the tree was not an amenity - it’s not now!!

[Chris at eden]

3 hours ago, Johnelle said:

To summarise:

We applied to fell the tree in Sept 2020 and temp TPO applied in Nov 2020 on the basis of local amenity. The TPO was confirmed by DC in Jan 2021 for the same reason but we were not informed - hence our original thread.

We then paid for an expert report which said there was no reason the tree should fall despite the lean/raised root plate. We were not confident and applied again to have the tree felled but, on the advice of the expert, based our application on the suckers/roots which are covering our entire garden and growing to 8’. Our application was again rejected so we went to appeal in Sept 2021. The only communication since from the Inspectorate has been that they are dealing with the backlog.

So we tried on three occasions to get the tree felled, then nature decided to do it for us. But there is still has a TPO on record. We are continuing with our appeal (which seems a complete waste of the Inspectorates time).

Seems we are not liable for damage to property as we tried to get it removed but someone has to pay for the clear up, both in our garden and in the churchyard. 

Yeah. That is pretty much what I thought the situation was. Just checking I hadn’t misunderstood. 
 

[Chris at eden]

2 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

 

I’d wager they will!

As you know I was a planning TO for 12 years and I wouldn’t. I would take it that the tree has been destroyed (it’s amenity if not the whole thing) and allow them to remove under exemption and then replace.  I can only speak for myself but I think that approach would be sensible.  Some TOs will be the same, some may differ.  

2 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

 

Poplar - horizontal - soon to be regrowing. 

It isn’t like you can refuse it on app and have a chance of winning the appeal so what’s the point in insisting on an app.  

2 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

 

On the basis that the LA will probably require an app to remove so as to allow them to condition replacement. 

That is the point though isn’t it. If they insist on an app and condition replacement, the applicant can appeal the condition.  As it is, if they allow removal as it’s been destroyed the owner will be legally required to replace it in accordance with S.206.  No option to appeal. Ok if they know the regs they could ignore the 206 and then appeal the TRN when that turns up.   

2 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

 

I’d wager there’ll be more to this yet and it’ll likely be either the retention of a horizontal tree or a replant condition. 

As above, where is the amenity for a horizontal tree that prevents the use of the garden, or the securing of the boundary. And, it’s not a condition.  206 is a requirement. 
 

That’s my view anyway. 
 

[Chris at eden]

2 hours ago, Johnelle said:

Expecting a replant condition - almost guaranteed.

Unless the Inspector appears and deems that the tree was not an amenity - it’s not now!!

Have you advised the PINS?  Can’t se why they would come out now.  Even if they do it won’t be until mid summer in all likelihood.  
 

[Chris at eden]

9 minutes ago, Chris at eden said:

As you know I was a planning TO for 12 years and I wouldn’t. I would take it that the tree has been destroyed (it’s amenity if not the whole thing) and allow them to remove under exemption and then replace.  I can only speak for myself but I think that approach would be sensible.  Some TOs will be the same, some may differ.  

It isn’t like you can refuse it on app and have a chance of winning the appeal so what’s the point in insisting on an app.  

That is the point though isn’t it. If they insist on an app and condition replacement, the applicant can appeal the condition.  As it is, if they allow removal as it’s been destroyed the owner will be legally required to replace it in accordance with S.206.  No option to appeal. Ok if they know the regs they could ignore the 206 and then appeal the TRN when that turns up.   

As above, where is the amenity for a horizontal tree that prevents the use of the garden, or the securing of the boundary. And, it’s not a condition.  206 is a requirement. 
 

That’s my view anyway. 
 

I’d call it dead and submit a five day notice and see what happens. If the TO wants to argue and insist on a new app he must have nowt better to do. 
 

[Johnelle]

Many thanks for your help. Much appreciated. The reason we want to proceed with the appeal is that we would like to have the TPO removed - as we don’t believe the TO can consider this w/o us applying. As the TPO still exists and will continue we would have a new tree with a TPO on it! Also, there is no legal reason why our appeal should die with the tree and that, owing to the TPO we should be compelled to plant another tree, which will automatically  have a TPO attached!