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

[daltontrees]

Spruce Pirate has hit the nail on the head. If there was no application and no permission for development then there is nothing to stop tree removal. If Planning had wanted it retained in the no-development scenario they would have TPOd it. If they wanted to retained in the development scenario they would have used planning condition. Lack of tick in box irrlevant since application has subsequently been approved (twice). The only grey area here is that Council can quite rightly use the receipt of an aplication to assess whether trees are under threat and then use TPO or conditions to protect them.

Me, I would notify the Council. There can be no penalty (in the absence of TPO or CA) for someone removing their own tree. The development proposal is a distraction from this fundamental principle. BUT the plans said the tree would be retained and the Council would have taken that as a No as far as that tree was concerned.

The wise thing here is to tell, not ask, the Council, it is for the Council to decide if the tree is of sufficient amenity value to be protected. In telling them I wouldn't even mention the development,

If the tree were removed now before development and under a separate contract from the building work there would be no problem. If it was the other way around there could be but the penalty for not disclosing something in a planning application that is subsequently done as part of the development is hard to pin down if at all. On balance I think your client would be in the right. Just because it's a big tree doesn't mean it's a good tree that has to be preserved for public benefit at the expense of preventing a landowner doing what he likes with it.

[HCR]

^ Wot he said basically.

 

Any constraints on felling are borne of the planning status, not of the tree itself. When does a potential development site become a development site? Once it's the latter, work has to be in accordance with the submitted plans.

[treebloke]

Mark 'et al',

 

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

 

Cheers..

Paul

 

Very true Paul, how many consultants do you see in a harness with a ms200 in their hands

[arbmark]

Thanks guys. Its an unusual situation. There are factors... I want to zip the sections down onto a council verge (def need to ask about that!) and the client will be peeved if i stir things up for them. Great talking it through, and yes I know we are in consultant territory but it was quite clear the clients didnt want to complicate their plans. You cant blame them for seeing themselves in the clear.

 

I now have a plan that follows the general concensus.

 

It going to be a really fun rig down ....if it comes to it

[kentjames]

At the end of the day, the sh1t stops with the person with the chainsaw. Total transparency with the T/O & LA will be the best option. If its a problem and they have granted permission on something which is incorrect then it must make it void.

 

Think also to the future, you can find / choose other customers, ya cant choose the TO you have to deal with for this or future other work.

[HCR]

I'd contact the planning case officer rather than the TO. This is a planning matter.

[Steve.mill]

Its whoever put the original application in fault in not ticking the corect box so personally I would inform the client of this and start negotiations with the LPA so probably not wise to immediately cut the tree until you have talked with the TO regarding this.

Howevere pp has been given so the development can go ahead and it is probably plainly clear that the tree cannot be retained if its that close, this part crucially has not been picked up by the LPA or TO as the tree was indicated on approved plans so they either dont care about the tree or have not been to the site oops naughty naughty. If the tree is that poor I would discuss its removal based on this along with the fact that approved PP is given and as the tree is unlikely to survive the construction being so close felling is the only option if they dont like it then take it to appeal.

 

Oh and charge a nice big fat hourly rate !!!

[daltontrees]

OK but I still say keep it simple, tree can go without consent as no CA or TPO. The development is irrelevant as long as the tree is taken down first and as a separate contract. Put it this way, would there be this debate of there wasn't a planning consent in place or if the client decided never to implement it?

The consent makes no difference to the situation until it is implemented. If you sub to the builder there could be repercussions for the client and you.

I wouldn't hold back for the sake of keeping a good rapport with the TO, I would do what is in client's best interest. And as someone suggested, it is aplanning matter if at all and should go to the DCO not to the TO. And eparately, I guess, to the Roads Dept for use of the verge.

Good luck with teh rigging down. Any chance of a picture purely out of general interest?