felling trees in a conservation area.

[Ben Saxton]

According to one of the TO round here you don't even need to apply for permission. There was a massive! horse chestnut in a conservation area some one properly butchered it step cut left and pegs. It looked like it was half dismantled like whoever did it should have come back to finish it off. Now no one know who did it, but the TO is going to send a stern letter!!. It sort of make's a mockery of having to apply for permission cause if you don't all you get is a stern letter?

[Jesse]

Cheers for all the info following the advice about the 3ds i will replant for the client who we are working for we have removed a silver birch with photo evidence with LPA approval and will replant but the client is keen on having a acer pseudoplatanus brilliantisimo thats probably spelt wrong sorry .The other tree is a prunus persadii with a goblet shaped crown included bark and phellinus tuberculosos and we have been asked to apply for this to be felled !!!! .How keen are they to replant the same species.Sorry again about my spelling

I am sure that if you give your TO a ring or email him or her and make your suggestions for replanting and ask him if he approves, or if he has any alternative suggestions that you will find that they are not quite the ogres that some people think and you will very quickly develop a good working relationship with your LPA.

[Jesse]

According to one of the TO round here you don't even need to apply for permission. There was a massive! horse chestnut in a conservation area some one properly butchered it step cut left and pegs. It looked like it was half dismantled like whoever did it should have come back to finish it off. Now no one know who did it, but the TO is going to send a stern letter!!. It sort of make's a mockery of having to apply for permission cause if you don't all you get is a stern letter?

 

I just go by the law and that way I stay well clear of those huge fines My old boss got hit by one and it wiped him out!!!

[andrew t]

I am sure that if you give your TO a ring or email him or her and make your suggestions for replanting and ask him if he approves, or if he has any alternative suggestions that you will find that they are not quite the ogres that some people think and you will very quickly develop a good working relationship with your LPA.

 

We have done just about everything to pls this TO such as protective fence on the area around the trees airspading were construction is taking place when he did the site visit he just stood at the top of the garden and did not inspect the trees.I now what your saying about TO but this guy is from another area the people i normally deal with are brilliant no complaints at all.

[skyhuck]

I thought it was fairly clear in 9.14 Replacement of trees: Enforcement, our TO always wants to know whats going back in when you submit an application , I think its something that needs to be clarified with your own local tree officer , yes all of the above as it states but what is your interpretation of 9.14 ? also ref 11.10 I am correct me thinks you will find:thumbup1:

 

 

Replacement Of Trees: Enforcement

 

9.14 If a tree in a conservation area is removed, uprooted or destroyed in contravention of section 211 the landowner is placed under a duty to plant another tree of an appropriate size and species at the same place as soon as he or she reasonably can.116 The same duty applies if a tree is removed because it is dead, dying or dangerous or because it is causing a nuisance.117 The duty attaches to subsequent owners of the land, although the LPA have powers to dispense with the duty.118 The LPA may enforce the duty by serving a tree replacement notice under section 207 of the Act (see Chapter 11 of this Guide).

 

9.14 (above) refers to trees that were removed without 211 notice, not trees that have been removed after notice where the council chose not to TPO.

 

Trees removed without notification can treated exactly as TPO trees removed without content, so replacement will be required.

 

Your TO will tell you all sorts of things and try to increase their powers greatly, they often don't know the legislation very well.

 

I met one on site the other week looking at a DDD tree in the CA, but not TPO'd, he was happy for it to be removed, but insisted it was replaced, I nodded and smiled, but know full well his has no power to enforce replanting, to have that power he would need to TPO the tree and TPO'ing a DDD tree would not be a great idea.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Replacement Of Trees: Enforcement

 

9.14 If a tree in a conservation area is removed, uprooted or destroyed in contravention of section 211 the landowner is placed under a duty to plant another tree of an appropriate size and species at the same place as soon as he or she reasonably can.116 The same duty applies if a tree is removed because it is dead, dying or dangerous or because it is causing a nuisance.117 The duty attaches to subsequent owners of the land, although the LPA have powers to dispense with the duty.118 The LPA may enforce the duty by serving a tree replacement notice under section 207 of the Act (see Chapter 11 of this Guide).

 

9.14 (above) refers to trees that were removed without 211 notice, not trees that have been removed after notice where the council chose not to TPO.

 

Trees removed without notification can treated exactly as TPO trees removed without content, so replacement will be required.

 

Your TO will tell you all sorts of things and try to increase their powers greatly, they often don't know the legislation very well.

 

I met one on site the other week looking at a DDD tree in the CA, but not TPO'd, he was happy for it to be removed, but insisted it was replaced, I nodded and smiled, but know full well his has no power to enforce replanting, to have that power he would need to TPO the tree and TPO'ing a DDD tree would not be a great idea.

 

Hey 'Skyhuck', hope yer well!

 

Forgive me if I've misunderstood here but if the tree in question is in a CA and is being removed under the DDD (now DD of course, i.e. no dying anymore) exemption then there is a legal duty to replace it. I think that's what it say at 9.14 (116) above.

 

Godda a feelin I've got the worng ed of teh stick ere so I'll dash...

 

Take care.

Paul

[skyhuck]

Hey 'Skyhuck', hope yer well!

 

Forgive me if I've misunderstood here but if the tree in question is in a CA and is being removed under the DDD (now DD of course, i.e. no dying anymore) exemption then there is a legal duty to replace it. I think that's what it say at 9.14 (116) above.

 

Godda a feelin I've got the worng ed of teh stick ere so I'll dash...

 

Take care.

Paul

 

Oh:001_huh:

 

Yes I think you are right!!

 

So so for DDD (as it was ) they can insist on replacement, because it can't really be TPO'd, makes sense.

 

But for trees where you give notice and they chose not to TPO, they have no such power (I think)

 

PS, I'm very well thanks, you???

 

I'm hoping to make it to the new thing your doing up our way (time permitting) so I may see you there.

Edited May 17, 2012 by skyhuck

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Oh:001_huh:

 

Yes I think you are right!!

 

So so for DDD (as it was ) they can insist on replacement, because it can't really be TPO'd, makes sense.

 

But for trees where you give notice and they chose not to TPO, they have no such power (I think)

 

PS, I'm very well thanks, you???

 

I'm hoping to make it to the new thing your doing up our way (time permitting) so I may see you there.

 

The bit I've put in bold above is right, plus it seeks to retain tree cover recognising that trees naturally die and need replacing therefore.

 

Yep, ur right, in that if you do serve notice to remove a tree and they don't TPO then there is no duty to replace.

 

There, that's that sortid...I think!

 

Be good to see you at Leeds...fingers crossed.

 

Cheers..

Paul

[Jesse]

The bit I've put in bold above is right, plus it seeks to retain tree cover recognising that trees naturally die and need replacing therefore.

 

Yep, ur right, in that if you do serve notice to remove a tree and they don't TPO then there is no duty to replace.

 

There, that's that sortid...I think!

 

Be good to see you at Leeds...fingers crossed.

 

Cheers..

Paul

213 Of the act- Enforcement of controls as respects trees in conservation areas.

(1) if a tree to which section 211 applies-

(a) is removed, uprooted or destroyed in contravention of that section;or

(b) "" " " " or dies at a time when its cutting down or uprooting is authorised only by virtue of the provisions of such regulations under subsection (1) of section 212 as are mentioned in subsection (4) of that section, it shall be the duty of the owner of the land to plant another tree of an appropriate size and sp at the same place as soon as he reasonably can.

(2) The duty imposed by subsection (1) does not apply to an owner if on application by him the LPA dispense with it.

(3) The duty imposed by subsection (1) on the owner of any land attaches to the person who is from time to time the owner of the land and may be enforced as provided by section 207 and not otherwise.

What do you think now?

[Arbocop]

213 Of the act- Enforcement of controls as respects trees in conservation areas.

(1) if a tree to which section 211 applies-

(a) is removed, uprooted or destroyed in contravention of that section;or

(b) "" " " " or dies at a time when its cutting down or uprooting is authorised only by virtue of the provisions of such regulations under subsection (1) of section 212 as are mentioned in subsection (4) of that section, it shall be the duty of the owner of the land to plant another tree of an appropriate size and sp at the same place as soon as he reasonably can.

(2) The duty imposed by subsection (1) does not apply to an owner if on application by him the LPA dispense with it.

(3) The duty imposed by subsection (1) on the owner of any land attaches to the person who is from time to time the owner of the land and may be enforced as provided by section 207 and not otherwise.

What do you think now?

 

I think paul is exactly right.

 

The way to think about all of it is

' the local authority has a duty to protect trees...bla bla'

the trees in conservation area stuff gives the LA TO breathing space to decide if strick controls are needed by making a tpo.

 

The CA stuff also gives some automatic responsibilities to 'maintain tree cover' thus removing the burden on the LPA.

 

to be fair its a bit of an old trick in CA & tpo just agree it as an exemtion to be removed, and then there is the duty to replant, and if it is a tpo the cover automatically covers the replant (i think thats still the case but will have to double cheak the new regs)

 

have fun