Planning question- No CA, no TPO but can i fell it?!

[redmoosefaction]

hmmm i think thats giving the council too much info...plus its full removal of a prominant tree...i get on well with the TO but im not sure about asking him, or anyone in planning such a broad, but loaded question.

 

Then just askthe planning/trees dept if there are any restrictions relating to trees at that address, by email, then you know your answer, or am I missing the point? The answer is either yes or no you don't need to tell them what your doing, unless you want to.

 

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk 2

[redmoosefaction]

Just read the other posts. Wait till you get express permission, written from the council

 

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk 2

[Spruce Pirate]

I don't understand. If there's no TPO and its not in a CA why can't it be felled? If it wasn't a development surely you'd just cut it (assuming you didn't object to cutting mature trees of distinction)? I don't see how the planning permission affects it. Please excuse my ignorance, could someone explain it in simple terms?

[arbmark]

Then just askthe planning/trees dept if there are any restrictions relating to trees at that address, by email, then you know your answer, or am I missing the point? The answer is either yes or no you don't need to tell them what your doing, unless you want to.

 

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk 2

 

well the trouble is i probably know more than i ought to as i looked at the application online. i guess i could act ignorant, but there is a client loyalty issue.

but i guess any errors/inconsistencies in their planning permission should be left for them to resolve and its not for me to walk the tightrope.

[arbmark]

I don't understand. If there's no TPO and its not in a CA why can't it be felled? If it wasn't a development surely you'd just cut it (assuming you didn't object to cutting mature trees of distinction)? I don't see how the planning permission affects it. Please excuse my ignorance, could someone explain it in simple terms?

 

it might be just as simple as you say. i think the planners have missed a beat really as they have not put conditions in for its retention. the applicant never asked and they never said no its has to stay. 2005 was a different world then, but i cant believe they didnt flag it in 2010.

 

i think the new owners should put that call in, rather than ask me to put my neck on the line - the plans submitted show a tree retained, that is the problem - im no 5837 expert but it cant stay!!!!!!

[Jesse]

Evening medames-meiseurs,

I have a low-amenity value but very mature tree 1.5m dbh that isnt TPO or CA but it is in conflict with the planning permission that has been granted for a new dwelling. The tree is large and prominant on a main road and the new owners want it removed so they can build.

The planning permission for the new dwelling was renewed in 2010 from an original 2005. The original architects plans show the tree retained but building the house is almost impossible with it retained in any way (looks less than 2m away). The applicant (a former owner of the site - not the current one) did not tick either yes or no on the application form question that asked if there were any trees on site, although it was shown as retained in the plans.

So the council havent flagged up any BS5837 stuff but permission has been given. Am i within my rights to remove the tree?

Thanks

Mark

Mark i would say firstly employ someone to access the trees condition and ideally in accordance with BS 5837 recommendations then ask the question again, at the moment the original applicant is at fault and so is your LPA for acknowledging that the tree exists and not flagging up that an assessment carried out accordance with 5837 had not been carried out.

[woody paul]

Ring council ask them out right about tree, if there fine about tree coming down no problem. If they say no It's not your problem and ring next customer. Leave it to owner and other party's to sort out and then give you a ring.

[arbmark]

thanks all - some grand contributions - dont lose any sleep over it - i wont!!!!!!!!!!!!

cheers

M

[Jesse]

thanks all - some grand contributions - dont lose any sleep over it - i wont!!!!!!!!!!!!

cheers

M

OK i see where you are coming from, simple way forward for you ring your LPA OR EMAIL, Give the address and ask if there are any tree constants relating to that address, if not just cut the thing down , end of ,hope you sleep well.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Evening medames-meiseurs,

I have a low-amenity value but very mature tree 1.5m dbh that isnt TPO or CA but it is in conflict with the planning permission that has been granted for a new dwelling. The tree is large and prominant on a main road and the new owners want it removed so they can build.

The planning permission for the new dwelling was renewed in 2010 from an original 2005. The original architects plans show the tree retained but building the house is almost impossible with it retained in any way (looks less than 2m away). The applicant (a former owner of the site - not the current one) did not tick either yes or no on the application form question that asked if there were any trees on site, although it was shown as retained in the plans.

So the council havent flagged up any BS5837 stuff but permission has been given. Am i within my rights to remove the tree?

Thanks

Mark

 

Mark 'et al',

 

An observation, if I may.

 

On one level the answer seems very clear, no CA and no TPO (and probably no planning condition for tree retention, which isn;t really the correct mechanism other than as a temp measure for peripheral trees/hedges) = FELL.

 

 

However, with previous planning permissions renewed etc. and because of the complexity of the UK planning system should we not stick to our area of expertise and let the qualified and competent 'arb consultants' do their stuff.

 

May be not in this particular case, actually, as a call/email to the TO would probably get the green light, but I often read posts and the variation in interpretations and responses and feel quite nervous.

 

 

A plea I guess, to leave the consulting to the consultants.

 

Cheers..

Paul