Felling license clarity

[porky]

If the 50 trees were in a Conservation area somewhat amazed permission was given in the first place.

[Dan Maynard]

17 minutes ago, porky said:

If the 50 trees were in a Conservation area somewhat amazed permission was given in the first place.

Maybe the public can't see them anyway so no loss of amenity.

 

[daltontrees]

On 21/11/2022 at 19:54, Puffingbilly413 said:

I realise it is stupidly naive to say so, but surely in this age of 'joined up' government, notification of intent to fell 50 trees might just get passed on to the FC as a matter of course? 

 

And out of interest, had the horse person applied for a felling licence and received it, would they still need to notify the LPA of the planned works or would the licence negate that?  Similar observation re one bit of government talking to another perhaps too.

 

Things don't get done as a matter of course... and FC can't approve felling without an application.

 

As far as I can tell, the same situation happens in reverse. A FC does not trump CA notification requirements.

 

TPO/CA stuff traditionally would be for different situations than FC, with little overlap, but these days Councils are TPOing more rural stuff and FC are into everything including urban areas.

[daltontrees]

On 23/11/2022 at 07:51, porky said:

If the 50 trees were in a Conservation area somewhat amazed permission was given in the first place.

Conservation Areas are mainly about architecture. Trees are rarely part of that context unless well-established and public. Many trees can detract from CA amenity, and the Council may be happy to see them go.

[Mark Bolam]

On 22/11/2022 at 21:23, Puffingbilly413 said:

All I meant was that if any tree work notifications etc arrive with an LPA and it seems to them that the FC or equivalent should be informed then there should be a system in place for that to happen. And vice versa. I say system but that overcomplicates it. 

 

I know what the ins and outs of the legislation are in terms of applicant/notifier, it would just be nice if 'they' bothered their arses to speak to each other as a matter of routine.

 

If you look on council websites they observe that felling licences might be required. They know these things exist. Just join it up why not.

 

I've just had a client ask for a planning clarification re felling to extend a garage. Simple question but specific to their circumstances with basically yes or no probable answers. Yet the council's best answer was to give them a link to their FAQ page. You'd be forgiven for thinking that they actually don't know the (or any useful) answer.

 

Good point.

 

Years ago I felled 12 scruffy connies in the middle of an access track that had been scraped out on both sides of them, leading to a new build.

Full planning had been granted for both track and house, and detailed plans were on site.

The track would be tarmac with kerbs either side.

 

The TO turned up and said I had just felled 12 TPO’d trees.

 

Apparently granting full planning hadn’t automatically removed the TPO’s, which were slap bang in the middle of the track.

 

The TO was good enough to let me apply to fell them retrospectively, but it was a bit embarrassing for everyone.

[daltontrees]

1 hour ago, Mark Bolam said:

 

Good point.

 

Years ago I felled 12 scruffy connies in the middle of an access track that had been scraped out on both sides of them, leading to a new build.

Full planning had been granted for both track and house, and detailed plans were on site.

The track would be tarmac with kerbs either side.

 

The TO turned up and said I had just felled 12 TPO’d trees.

 

Apparently granting full planning hadn’t automatically removed the TPO’s, which were slap bang in the middle of the track.

 

The TO was good enough to let me apply to fell them retrospectively, but it was a bit embarrassing for everyone.

There is a TPO exemption for trees that have tobe removed to implement a detailed PP (a rare example of joined-upness). No separate consent required. But the removals have to be necessary (not just desirable or convenient or cheaper to do it that way). Luckily it ended well for you. 

[Stubby]

I remember the FC once clear felled an area without the proper paper work . They had to fine themselves . 🙂

[Mark Bolam]

2 hours ago, daltontrees said:

There is a TPO exemption for trees that have tobe removed to implement a detailed PP (a rare example of joined-upness). No separate consent required. But the removals have to be necessary (not just desirable or convenient or cheaper to do it that way). Luckily it ended well for you. 

 

The thing is Jules, removal was clearly absolutely necessary, otherwise the trees would have been in the middle of the tarmac on a 3m wide drive!

 

I couldn’t believe in this case the TPO’s still stood.

[Puffingbilly413]

3 hours ago, daltontrees said:

Full planning had been granted for both track and house, and detailed plans were on site.

I thought granting of full planning permission automatically negated the need to apply for permission to fell TPO trees? That's how the legislation reads to me at least?

[Mark Bolam]

I think it does.

They just made an arse of it in my case.

It was over 15 years ago though.