TPO Felling and replanting advice please

[immotek]

Hi all,

 

New member here, seeking some advice please. Currently going through a transaction on a new property.

 

There is a TPO felling order that was complied with for a Sycamore - this was done by a tree surgeon last year.

 

The seller has replanted a silver birch (this year) in the same place himself and their solicitors are now saying this is done.

 

My question is - have the duties of the TPO been discharged appropriately? Just want to check that the replacement tree is appropriate given I cant see in the original order anything stipulating that except for the phrase "of an appropriate size and species".

 

Thank you all, this is the only thing holding up our transaction and the solicitors seem to be clueless about how to interpret this!

 

 

 

[daltontrees]

There are 3 tests and possibly a 4th. Is the location as close as possible to the original, within reason? Is the size as required by the condition (this is a matter of fact that can be checked by height and stem girth)? Is the species appropriate? The last is the hardest, because 'approriate has no defined meaning nor has there been any case law on it that might enlighten. I would advise a client to create a definition based on the amenity the previous tree presented and whether the replacement will do the same. This is probably mostly a question of scale (mature height and spread) but there may be limitations due to soil type and ground water and other factors like susceptibility of buldings to subsidence.

The 4th test would be whether the Council has approved the replacement, in which case the other tests don't matter. I'd check with the Council..

[immotek]

Thanks @daltontrees, that's very helpful.

 

As far as I can ascertain, tests 1-2 have been complied with; its the "suitable species" thats problematic, but I am more confident now that I have learnt from you that its not defined anywhere.

 

Based on this then I am happy to proceed and then deal with the Council myself to sort it out if they object. We are still in the planting season so worst case scenario I can re-plant a new tree I imagine.

Edited November 12 by immotek

[daltontrees]

1 hour ago, immotek said:

Thanks @daltontrees, that's very helpful.

 

As far as I can ascertain, tests 1-2 have been complied with; its the "suitable species" thats problematic, but I am more confident now that I have learnt from you that its not defined anywhere.

 

Based on this then I am happy to proceed and then deal with the Council myself to sort it out if they object. We are still in the planting season so worst case scenario I can re-plant a new tree I imagine.

If you purchase and the original owner is away there is possibly less likelihood of comeback on you. On the face of it a birch is as good as sycampre, and considerably less light demanding so better near habitation.

Edited November 12 by daltontrees

[immotek]

Thanks @daltontrees, i have just had a chat with the tree officer at the LA. Apparently the original decision was missing a whole page which outlined the suitable replacement trees and schedules, so he will re-issue.

 

Ive been told the following are acceptable:
(a) Tulip Tree (Liriodendron tulipifera)
(b) Pin Oak (Quercus palustris)
(c) Black Tupelo (Nyssa sylvatica)

 

Any insights on which would be most suitable please given the original sycamore was felled due to roots causing damage to a retaining wall (its a split level garden)?

Edited November 13 by immotek

[AHPP]

He’s just invented that for your inconvenience. 

[immotek]

7 minutes ago, AHPP said:

He’s just invented that for your inconvenience. 

 

Undoubtedly!

[daltontrees]

3 hours ago, immotek said:

Thanks @daltontrees, i have just had a chat with the tree officer at the LA. Apparently the original decision was missing a whole page which outlined the suitable replacement trees and schedules, so he will re-issue.

 

Ive been told the following are acceptable:
(a) Tulip Tree (Liriodendron tulipifera)
(b) Pin Oak (Quercus palustris)
(c) Black Tupelo (Nyssa sylvatica)

 

Any insights on which would be most suitable please given the original sycamore was felled due to roots causing damage to a retaining wall (its a split level garden)?

Ridiculously restricted choices.

Tulip tree, an aggressive monster, won't stop till 20m.

Pin oak much smaller and there's even a dwarf version. Think 10m. Fickle about soil pH.

Nyssa also smaller (10m) and also pH sensitive.

Or tell the TO that the birch is native and suitable for the situation and soil, and let him try and serve a Tree Replacement Notice requiring another species.

[AHPP]

I’m not joking. Some disgraceful council skinwaste has sensed someone trying to act diligently and dutifully, interpreted it as weakness and decided to see what he can get away with. The order is as ordered, not as amended as fancied. 

Edited November 13 by AHPP

[Joe Newton]

1 hour ago, daltontrees said:

Ridiculously restricted choices.

Tulip tree, an aggressive monster, won't stop till 20m.

Pin oak much smaller and there's even a dwarf version. Think 10m. Fickle about soil pH.

Nyssa also smaller (10m) and also pH sensitive.

Or tell the TO that the birch is native and suitable for the situation and soil, and let him try and serve a Tree Replacement Notice requiring another species.

Agreed.

 

Where does the liability end though. Can the new owner be held accountable for the previous owners choices? AFAIK the only way the council could enforce a replanting is through litigation, which they would have to prove to be a justifiable use of taxpayers money. They would have to be damn confident they would win and that litigation would be in the interest of the general public. Horrible optics if not.

 

Personally I wouldn't have mentioned and thing, and wouldn't volunteer anything further. Don't do their job for them.