Who's responsible/ liable?

[JonnyVine]

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.

 

Thanks Gary, I got there in the end

[Amelanchier]

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

 

Yep in the case of an Order affecting a single tree, the LPA would need to endorse the original Order as revoked under section 11 of the 2012 Regulations and let all affected parties know. Otherwise the Order would need to varied as per section 10.

 

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

 

Strictly speaking, the LPA that actively declines to add a replanting condition should be aware that they will need to vary or revoke the relevant Order to omit the relevant tree/s. In that case the new tree is not protected by the Order.

 

What often happens though is that replanting conditions are missed out by error - so while technically there is no longer the expectation that the tree exists and whatever new tree is planted is not protected by the original TPO the Order still exists and still identifies a Beech at that location as protected. It could be very confusing a few years down the line should the owner decide to do some work to the tree as there would be little proof that the new tree is not the original... You'd have to prove the consent had been implemented!

 

Best thing to avoid the above would be to notify the LPA of the felling and request in writing that the vary / revoke the Order.

[Amelanchier]

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.

 

Exactly - A TPO is just a legal towel on a deckchair for trees.

[Gary Prentice]

Yep in the case of an Order affecting a single tree, the LPA would need to endorse the original Order as revoked under section 11 of the 2012 Regulations and let all affected parties know. Otherwise the Order would need to varied as per section 10.

 

 

 

Strictly speaking, the LPA that actively declines to add a replanting condition should be aware that they will need to vary or revoke the relevant Order to omit the relevant tree/s. In that case the new tree is not protected by the Order.

 

What often happens though is that replanting conditions are missed out by error - so while technically there is no longer the expectation that the tree exists and whatever new tree is planted is not protected by the original TPO the Order still exists and still identifies a Beech at that location as protected. It could be very confusing a few years down the line should the owner decide to do some work to the tree as there would be little proof that the new tree is not the original... You'd have to prove the consent had been implemented!

 

Best thing to avoid the above would be to notify the LPA of the felling and request in writing that the vary / revoke the Order.

 

:thumbup1: