Anybody ever heard of a "retrospective exemption for felling" [quote] a TPO tree which DIDN'T qualify under an exemption?

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Seems a peculiar / irregular approach to me.

 

Natural England - the tree 'owner' - applying for the retrospective exemption for the felling of a stem - claimed under an exemption which the TO later decided didn't apply, then submitting an application seemingly to validate the exemption which didn't apply.....

 

Whereas the TO comment at the planning application advises that a future application would be necessary to crown reduce retained stems to mitigate companion loss, this is not that application but rather an after the event application seeking retrospective approval for work which was not exempt.

 

To put it another way....  This is a written admission of failure to abide by the T&CPA - the only matter to be decided is whether prosecution would be in the public interest (answers on a post card😌)

 

Any comments??

 

 

PA23/01362 | Application for works to a tree subject to tree preservation order, namely retrospective exemption for felling the southern stem of a multi-stem Beech, Fagus Sylvatica. | Golitha Falls Draynes Bridge Common Moor Cornwall PL14 6RY

PLANNING.CORNWALL.GOV.UK

---

Online planning registers for Cornwall. View and comment on planning applications and documents online.

 

[waterbuoy]

'Do as I say, not as I do' comes to mind

[daltontrees]

There is of course no such thing as a retrospective exemption. I think the application is simply a retrospective application for consent, with the unfortunate use of the word' exemption' (should have said 'TPO consent').

And yes it is an admission of guilt, but technically if it gets retrospective consent then there is no prosecutable offence. It still won't be 'exempt' though.

 

I have always said (because it appears to be the correct interpretation of the law) that it is not legally competent to apply for consent for works that are justified by circumstances that make the works exempt. Councils shouldn't even validate such applications. So there's another good reason why this cannot be an application for exemption.

[daltontrees]

Aww, someone has attempted a crude coronet cut. Bless!

[Dan Maynard]

40 minutes ago, daltontrees said:

Aww, someone has attempted a crude coronet cut. Bless!

Friday afternoon with a blunt saw type of coronet cut that.

 

Purpose being to encourage decay in the base of the tree?

[Dan Maynard]

Rum all round. The TO wrote his comments on a Friday afternoon too

" ... it is not considered that the removal of this stem would not have qualified as an exemption ..."

 

So, putting the double negative together it is considered that it would have qualified as an exemption. Or at least that's the way I read it.

 

... and he can tell how tall a tree was from just the remaining cambium:

"Estimating by the available living cambium a reduction of this stem by approximately 3m would have sufficed"

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

34 minutes ago, Dan Maynard said:

Rum all round. The TO wrote his comments on a Friday afternoon too

" ... it is not considered that the removal of this stem would not have qualified as an exemption ..."

 

So, putting the double negative together it is considered that it would have qualified as an exemption. Or at least that's the way I read it.

 

... and he can tell how tall a tree was from just the remaining cambium:

"Estimating by the available living cambium a reduction of this stem by approximately 3m would have sufficed"

It’s destabilised dude….

 

 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

1 hour ago, daltontrees said:

There is of course no such thing as a retrospective exemption. I think the application is simply a retrospective application for consent, with the unfortunate use of the word' exemption' (should have said 'TPO consent').

And yes it is an admission of guilt, but technically if it gets retrospective consent then there is no prosecutable offence. It still won't be 'exempt' though.

 

I have always said (because it appears to be the correct interpretation of the law) that it is not legally competent to apply for consent for works that are justified by circumstances that make the works exempt. Councils shouldn't even validate such applications. So there's another good reason why this cannot be an application for exemption.

I can’t reconcile a retrospective application (in TPO context) let alone a retrospective exemption. 
 

A most irregular situation for sure. 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

1 hour ago, daltontrees said:

And yes it is an admission of guilt, but technically if it gets retrospective consent then there is no prosecutable offence. It still won't be 'exempt' though.

I don’t see how it can get retrospective consent given the TOs comments. 
 

It would surely need to be withdrawn or amended - it can’t (realistically) be approved by PO with those TO comments. 

[daltontrees]

2 hours ago, Dan Maynard said:

Friday afternoon with a blunt saw type of coronet cut that.

 

Purpose being to encourage decay in the base of the tree?

According to Lonsdale "When creating a stub, a controlled fracture technique, or perhaps coronet cutting, may be employed instead of conventional cutting, in order to provide a more natural appearance and to expose a larger area of inner bark, from which adventitious shoots could develop. A conventional cut is, however, probably a better option if moisture loss from a large surface area is considered likely to cause excessive dieback, either because the conditions are relatively dry or the stub is relatively short."