replacement tree for windblown tpo tree?

[Peachy1970]

Hi all. An interesting question! If a TPO tree is blown over in the storms - as one on our village recently did, can a replacement notice be issued? Normally a replacement would be issued for trees with permission to be removed and as a condition on the removal a replacement would be specified. But what id the tree naturally fall and has to be removed - would the council still enforce a replacement notice?

Thanks

[Chris at eden]

Short answer is yes. 
 

Long answer. You are required to replace the tree in accordance with section 206 of the town and country planning act 1990. It’s a legal duty unless it’s part of a woodland TPO.  This is based on the fallen tree being dead.   In a woodland 206 only applies if the tree was removed illegally.  It’s not a notice, it’s a duty. The new tree will be automatically protected, even if it’s a different species. When you get permission the replacement is a condition, not a notice. 
 

The notice under section 207 only comes if you fail to replace the tree subject to section 206, or pursuant of a condition as described above. They can’t issue a tree replacement notice as soon as the tree fails.  You have to fail to comply with the duty or condition first. Replacement notices also have to be served within 4 years. 
 

Cheers 

 

Chris 

 

[daltontrees]

But if it blows over and is not dead, then s.206 surely doesn't apply to it? And if it is blocking a legal access or is now occupying someone else's garden it is a legal nuisance and can be removed under exception?

[Thesnarlingbadger]

I would assume 206 still applies. Same as if a TPO’d tree dies a replacement should be planted within 5m of the original the next growing season once the tree is removed. 

[Peachy1970]

Thanks all for your replies. 

[Chris at eden]

On 10/01/2024 at 17:35, daltontrees said:

But if it blows over and is not dead, then s.206 surely doesn't apply to it? And if it is blocking a legal access or is now occupying someone else's garden it is a legal nuisance and can be removed under exception?

Yes I agree Jules. If it’s still alive then they would need to apply.  But then getting into the whole nuisance can of worms, they could only abate the nuisance. If the tree is blocking an access or leaning on a house I suppose the LPA could argue that the appropriate exemption would be an immediate risk which then brings 206 back into play.  

[Chris at eden]

8 minutes ago, Chris at eden said:

Yes I agree Jules. If it’s still alive then they would need to apply.  But then getting into the whole nuisance can of worms, they could only abate the nuisance. If the tree is blocking an access or leaning on a house I suppose the LPA could argue that the appropriate exemption would be an immediate risk which then brings 206 back into play.  

Plus 206 also covers trees that are uprooted or destroyed as well. 
 

[daltontrees]

11 hours ago, Chris at eden said:

Yes I agree Jules. If it’s still alive then they would need to apply.  But then getting into the whole nuisance can of worms, they could only abate the nuisance. If the tree is blocking an access or leaning on a house I suppose the LPA could argue that the appropriate exemption would be an immediate risk which then brings 206 back into play.  

I am interested purely on a theoretical basis. I don't really see nuisance beeing that bad a can of worms. If someone has a legal right of access and a tree blocks it, the tree is depriving them of enjoying that right, so it's nuisance. No appplication required for works to tehe xtent that are needed to abate the nuisance. Not an excuse to remove the whole tree of course.

[daltontrees]

11 hours ago, Chris at eden said:

Plus 206 also covers trees that are uprooted or destroyed as well. 
 

It appears by its language to apply to trees uprooted or destroyed by the actions of someone (i.e. prohibited acts), but not to natural uprooting or destruction.

[woody paul]

15 hours ago, Chris at eden said:

Plus 206 also covers trees that are uprooted or destroyed as well. 
 

There must of been loads of trees in the storm of 1987 not replaced. 

If you don't tell them they will never know what happened.