Felling license clarity

[Spruce Pirate]

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.

 

It certainly used to be the case when I worked for them that FC consulted with LPA on any applications, be it felling or planting.  That's over 20 years ago, but I don't imagine it's changed.  I don't think the reverse worked with LPA's consulting the FC.

[daltontrees]

13 hours ago, Mark Bolam said:

 

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.

The TPO would still exist, even if the trees it protected are gone! Sounds like the Council was wrong in thinking a separate TPO application was required.

[daltontrees]

12 hours ago, Puffingbilly413 said:

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?

It does negate the need for TPO consent. The Council must have got it wrong.