TPO Exemptions

[Pete Mctree]

If an application for a tree to be felled was denighed by the tree officer, despite a written report by a qualified arborist, they surely would be liable as an individual under H&S legislation

 

I had better expand this a little.

 

Under the H&S at work act (section 3 i think) they would be required to do a risk assesment upon the tree, as they dispute the fact that it does pose a threat to the public etc and decide whether the risk (if any) posed requires managing and how.

 

I oversimplified a complex piece of legislation, but I do stand by the fact that it is down to the TO to accept responsibility for the tree at that point IMO

[Pete Mctree]

actually I'm not sure that by preparing a report on the condition of a tree and on finding and recommending removal, you dont set yourself up as culpable.

 

There is the argument that if the tree is dangerous, no application is required as it is exempt from any protection. However with the requirement to prove this beyond resonable doubt, maybe we should not submit an application but a notification if intention to fell, and stipulate what grounds we our basing our decision on. The TO or LPA could then disagree with us (i.e. tell us not to with the threat of enforcement), hence all parties have fulfilled there obligations.

 

With the ever changing legislation the minefield is getting harder for all sides to pick there way through. I guess there is no substitution for clear communication between all parties

[Amelanchier]

Depends on what you mean by "qualified" mate!

 

I agree. Realistically, no TO worth their salt will happily let a hazardous tree (regardless of importance) stand If they consider it to be dangerous.

 

We're talking about the grey area though aren't we.

 

For example:-

I summise in a report that TPO Tree A is a hazard (meaning that you consider it should be removed in the next month or so).

 

You, as the TO, go and have a look and consider that the hazard is not significant (ie the tree can be retained for longer than, say 5 years).

 

You refuse my consent to fell it. I then send you a letter saying that I consider you to have liability should the tree fail.

 

A week later, the tree duly fails.

 

Who's liable???

 

Not me surely as I said it was dangerous. But how dangerous? Fail within a month? Maybe I should have just had the tree down? Negligent? Perhaps...

 

You? Ah yes, you must be because you said the hazard was not significant and the tree has now crushed my pagini zonda. But hang on, that was your professional opinon. You might be wrong but you're probably not liable. You may be negligent, but it ain't your tree (as skyhuck notes) its your TPO, so can you actually be liable? Perhaps not...

 

The Owner. Well it was his tree after all. The buck stops here. Its his liabilty under the Occupiers liability acts so maybe he should have just had the tree down?

 

 

As you say, a minefield!! watch your step! I'm definatley trying to watch mine!!!

[Dean Lofthouse]

I've had one last week'

 

I looked at a diseased horsechestnut, obviously knacked and leaning out into a field.

 

I rung the TO and asked if they would go out and have a look at it as the neighbour was concerned and wanted it down this week.

 

He said the tree if it failed would only damage a wall, there is no footpath nearby and it would only fall into the field. So I should just put in a standard planning application, which I have done.

 

What is a hazardous tree? That's the question. there are a lot of variables

[Bundle 2]

Hazard and risk..both quantifiable elements in our line of work.Sometimes identifiable only but certainly a dynamic force in real time capable and in need therefore of continual assessment

[Dean Lofthouse]

Hazard and risk..both quantifiable elements in our line of work.Sometimes identifiable only but certainly a dynamic force in real time capable and in need therefore of continual assessment

 

 

Can you translate that please

[Bundle 2]

A tree that hangs up is suspended in the crown of a neighbouring tree. This is a one set of problems. Once successfuly on the floor the dynamic is altered...you can relax now.....

Heres a tip...keep your comments in the right thread....!

Hazard /Risk assessment....maybe the beginnings of a workshop....?

[Bundle 2]

Strict Liability !!!

Essentially councils can and should not order TPO status if they cant be held accountable for the conditions. My motor gets an MOT once a year..not much use on any other day of the year 'cept the one on which it was issued. IMO.

Actually what I mean here is that the trees TPO status should not exempt it from being worked on...which they dont with an applicaton and so on. What I think must then be assumed by a councils overiding decision as to the need for work/removal is the responsibility that must surely come from passing said ruling....

[skyhuck]

As you say, a minefield!! watch your step! I'm definatley trying to watch mine!!!

 

:wave:

[Topcat]

The tree owner will always be liable and so are you forgiving advice. NO TO has the power to tell you,that you can not fell any tree you think is dangerous even if it has a TPO. The law as it stands allows you to deal with the tree. You should stand your ground and tell them that you intend to fell on xxx date. The only way the council can stop you is to persuade a judge that the tree is safe and get a court injunction. At that point you can ask the judge to pass any liability on to the council. The council has no argument in defence because they have just gained an injunction based on their statement that the tree is safe. The judge would have no option than to grant you your order. So you can pass liability to the LPA, thats why the council will always back out at the last minute. You have done your job and protected the client who is paying you and your reputation is intact. I was asked to take this route by a TO in a case because it was the only way he could back down without pissing of the councillors who in turn were getting ear ache from local tree huggers.