Who's responsible/ liable?

[Gary Prentice]

This completely baffles my tiny mind, only a Local Authority could have such a Ridiculous decree! Windbag.

 

Windbag? Is that your new signature Jonny? Or were you calling Tony that?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just kidding:001_tt2:

[Kev Stephenson]

I always state on invoices that it is the responsibility of the owner to ensure a replant is carried out and that by paying me for the work I have done they accept this.

[JonnyVine]

Fortunately, the world is not limited by your comprehension or your approval.

 

Strange reply? I hope you don't think the "windbag" was aimed at you! Or anyone else.

[JonnyVine]

Windbag? Is that your new signature Jonny? Or were you calling Tony that?

Just kidding:001_tt2:

 

Definitely not Gary, I used the term to describe the legislation as Iv'e had posts removed yesterday for aparently using "foul language" I printed an F and a D with four stars in the middle and someone called Shulter removed the post, so to prevent recurrence I am completely changing my terminology, I think its a piece of windbag legislation, its bonkers IMO.

 

The TPO law, not the Arbtalk policy!!!!!!

Edited April 11, 2013 by JonnyVine
Clarification!

[sloth]

What if the OP's tree has permission to be felled subject to the grind and replant conditions, but work is stopped during the dismantle; Say a trunk of 10 feet is left, it may or may not re-shoot and potentially become a pollard. What then?

I suppose it may depend on the wording of the conditions.

What if the tree was completely butchered, laughing in the face of target pruning, proportional crown dimensions and 3998? There is still a tree there, albeit an eyesore to many and an insult to professionalism. However if permission is granted to remove, would this be worse? Hmm, a large butchered tree or no tree followed by a tiny replacement...

[Gary Prentice]

The TPO is a land charge and the responsibility to replant lies with the owner / occupier of the land not his or her agents. It is they who will be served with a tree replacement notice if the replanting isn't done.

 

Incidentally, the TPO isn't lifted to allow you to fell - it still exists despite there being no tree...

 

Tony, if there's no replanting condition, whats the procedure then. Is the order revoked/removed from the register.

 

If there was no condition and a Beech was removed, then the land occupier decided to plant another Beech, how would that work?

[Gary Prentice]

Definitely not Gary, I used the term to describe the legislation as Iv'e had posts removed yesterday for aparently using "foul language" I printed an F and a D with four stars in the middle and someone called Shulter removed the post, so to prevent recurrence I am completely changing my terminology, I think its a piece of windbag legislation, its bonkers IMO.

 

The TPO law, not the Arbtalk policy!!!!!!

 

The legislation appears more sensible when viewed from a sustainability viewpoint, for a continuance of tree cover.

 

With the option, as a condition of felling, for replacement planting the LA can ensure that trees remain in that location into the future. The visual amenity continues, abet somewhat reduced in the early years.

 

I'm told that the replanting condition is difficult to enforce however. Before the authority can take the landowner to court, they must make a number of attempts to gain compliance - further legal notices/letters.

 

Our LA seldom bother to enforce the condition, unfortunately, due to financial and manpower constraints.

 

To the OP,

Usually the replanting conditions read along the lines of 'in the same position or very close to'. So I wonder at the validity of enforcing the stumpgrinding remit, unless there was no where else available very close by. It could be argued that it was an unreasonable and unnecessary expense if other options were available. But as everyone else has stated, it's the applicants responsibility(landowner/occupier), not the agents.

[Amelanchier]

Strange reply? I hope you don't think the "windbag" was aimed at you! Or anyone else.

 

Ah I did - apologies for the passive aggression.

[Amelanchier]

What if the OP's tree has permission to be felled subject to the grind and replant conditions, but work is stopped during the dismantle; Say a trunk of 10 feet is left, it may or may not re-shoot and potentially become a pollard. What then?

I suppose it may depend on the wording of the conditions.

What if the tree was completely butchered, laughing in the face of target pruning, proportional crown dimensions and 3998? There is still a tree there, albeit an eyesore to many and an insult to professionalism. However if permission is granted to remove, would this be worse? Hmm, a large butchered tree or no tree followed by a tiny replacement...

 

In both instances it may be possible to argue that the work had not been completed as per the consent and therefore it had not been undertaken in accordance with the written consent of the authority.

 

The other possibility I have heard mooted in such a situation is that the LPA could use a Tree Replacement Notice (TRN) under section 207 of the TCPA to specify that the replacement is planted in exactly the same position, thereby forcing the removal of the original tree. Whether this has ever been done or not I don't know.

 

Of course in your first example of the pollard, a TRN could be used to ensure that the replacement gets in the ground while the original tree still stands, and if the un-consented pollard does succeed in surviving past the two year consent then a new application may need to be made to remove it. Although how that would work with the replacement having been enforced by TRN (normally with the TPO being transferred to the new tree) I haven't a clue. The LPA would probably be hard pressed to refuse it though stranger things happen in LPA land.

[JonnyVine]

Ah I did - apologies for the passive aggression.

 

No worries Tony

 

I also have to apologise to the TPO policy maker, typicaly I failed to read the initial post corrrectly as part of the order stipulated replanting, so the TPO would naturaly be carried forward onto the new sapling!!!!