Felling license clarity

[Dillinger86]

30 minutes ago, daltontrees said:

Interesting question. A notification to the LPA under CA rules can result in consent from the LPA to remove the trees but this only implies that the LPA didn't consider the trees important enough for the amenity of the area to deserve the special protection of a TPO. Or to put it another way, that's the ONLY consideration that a LPA should apply. Conversely the Commission should have only secondary regard to amenity. These areas can cross over to each other a little, and where TPOs are concerned there are special rules which usually result in FL applications for TPOd trees being referred to the LPA to be considered under TPO rules.

But for the life of me I cannot think of anything anywhere that actually says (or even suggests) that CA consent exempts you from the need for a FP.

After speaking to someone from the FC I'll be applying for a thin, it's less than 30% of the trees in the woodland. No need for a restocking either. It will benefit the smaller trees beneath the canopies of the sycamores- yew/beech etc.

It sounds like regardless of the trees being in a conservation area and permission being granted by LPA it seems just to be down to volume of timber that requires the license.

[Mark Bolam]

Well done for contacting the FC, pro move.

[Puffingbilly413]

2 hours ago, daltontrees said:

Interesting question. A notification to the LPA under CA rules can result in consent from the LPA to remove the trees but this only implies that the LPA didn't consider the trees important enough for the amenity of the area to deserve the special protection of a TPO. Or to put it another way, that's the ONLY consideration that a LPA should apply. Conversely the Commission should have only secondary regard to amenity. These areas can cross over to each other a little, and where TPOs are concerned there are special rules which usually result in FL applications for TPOd trees being referred to the LPA to be considered under TPO rules.

But for the life of me I cannot think of anything anywhere that actually says (or even suggests) that CA consent exempts you from the need for a FP.

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.

 

[AHPP]

6 minutes ago, 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.

 

Only as likely as they were to try having her dog shot or children taken away.

[Puffingbilly413]

8 minutes ago, AHPP said:

Only as likely as they were to try having her dog shot or children taken away.

Doesn't narrow it down any.

[slack ma girdle]

On 20/11/2022 at 12:53, Dillinger86 said:

Hi,

I got consent in a conservation area to fell close to 50 sycamore trees surrounding paddock land for horses.

I've done planning and got permission from the LPA, I'm putting the brakes on mainly due to weather but think I better apply for a felling license too. Not sure if I require this alongside permission from LPA. 

Any help on this matter would be greatly appreciated.

 

 

You need a felling licence .

[Sutton]

10 hours ago, Puffingbilly413 said:

Doesn't narrow it down any.

I cannot give you the circumspect lawyerly exposition - though I greatly admire their language.

 

Isn't it simply that informing a LA of intention for tree work gets a notice put up (adjacent to site, online, in local paper) which therefore informs locals of a proposed change and gives them opportunity to object (like planning) perhaps because it'll affect the character of a place or someone has found a rare beetle, etc

 

Whereas felling more than 5m3 in a quarter would affect the ecological, environmental and landscape aspects of a locale.

 

So the joined up thinking or overlap is seldom seen because the former is about amenity for community and the later is about the wider natural world influenced by the likes of horse-womankind.

[Dan Maynard]

... or as joined up as "sorry that's not my department"

[Puffingbilly413]

14 hours ago, Sutton said:

I cannot give you the circumspect lawyerly exposition - though I greatly admire their language.

 

Isn't it simply that informing a LA of intention for tree work gets a notice put up (adjacent to site, online, in local paper) which therefore informs locals of a proposed change and gives them opportunity to object (like planning) perhaps because it'll affect the character of a place or someone has found a rare beetle, etc

 

Whereas felling more than 5m3 in a quarter would affect the ecological, environmental and landscape aspects of a locale.

 

So the joined up thinking or overlap is seldom seen because the former is about amenity for community and the later is about the wider natural world influenced by the likes of horse-womankind.

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.

[Sutton]

7 minutes ago, 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.

Yep. Remember when British Rail decided to rename their passengers as customers and the service got worse? LAs cannot be helpful in case they give out duff info and are then held responsible, that is, made liable, I spose. Good job we've got a few gamekeepers turned poachers here on AT🤣