Crownlifting TPO'ed trees

[skyhuck]

It matters because its a slippery slope

 

"well we cut those low branches off, I guess its ok to take a few more, and that one is a bit in the way........"

 

Maybe the TO knows the contractor and knows that won't happen?

 

I've done plenty of crown lifts where the consent had no specifics.

[treequip]

Maybe the TO knows the contractor and knows that won't happen?

 

I've done plenty of crown lifts where the consent had no specifics.

 

He might know the contractor but he cant know what will happen. Perhaps the man on the digger decides if the other bloke didn't need paperwork......

 

And... in this case there is no consent

[Gary Prentice]

For a crown lift?? I've no idea, local authority TO has delegated power to consent to fell, neighbouring one doesn't. Everything seems to be different in the dozen planning departments I deal with.

 

Anyway, even crown lifting legally requires an application, so if there's no record in the planning office I'd be asking why?

[oslac]

Either the works can be carried out under permitted development or a planning application is required. There is almost certainly no permitted development right associated with TPO trees other than dead, dying and dangerous wood.

 

The TO is taking a massive gambol because a complaint to the ombudsman will almost certainly lead to some censure of the LPA.

 

It matters because as with any planning application, the public have a right to object to the proposed tree work. This is how the planning system works. A TO does not have the legal power to circumvent planning law just because he wants to.

 

It doesn't matter if the tree works appear trivial i.e. 'it's only a crown lift', that's not the point. What next, 'its just a small extension', 'its only a listed building but I am sure the modern double glazing is ok'. Whether the works would be permitted or not is not the point either.

 

The TO is out of line and needs to be pulled up for his unproffessional approach.

[Shane]

Is the plan to crown lift them BY 3 mtrs or TO 3 mtrs.

Regardless of the legality issues there is a very big difference.

Out TOs insist on a specification which could be assessed after the work so I always have to specify, for example, crown lift TO 4 mtrs.

 

Just a thought.

[skyhuck]

Either the works can be carried out under permitted development or a planning application is required. There is almost certainly no permitted development right associated with TPO trees other than dead, dying and dangerous wood.

 

The TO is taking a massive gambol because a complaint to the ombudsman will almost certainly lead to some censure of the LPA.

 

It matters because as with any planning application, the public have a right to object to the proposed tree work. This is how the planning system works. A TO does not have the legal power to circumvent planning law just because he wants to.

 

It doesn't matter if the tree works appear trivial i.e. 'it's only a crown lift', that's not the point. What next, 'its just a small extension', 'its only a listed building but I am sure the modern double glazing is ok'. Whether the works would be permitted or not is not the point either.

 

The TO is out of line and needs to be pulled up for his unproffessional approach.

 

I'm not sure you CAN object to an application for works on a TPO'd tree.

 

Yes if an application is for the removal of healthy trees, there will normally be notices put up and the TO will contact the parish council etc, and he may well pass it on to comity to decide.

 

But if a tree NEEDS felling on safety grounds how could anyone object?

 

Pruning works that will not dramatically damage the tree and fall within BS3998 can't really be refused or if they are an appeal will allow them, so what would be the point of consulting the public?

 

I have in the past been asked to carry out works and then apply retrospectively, as the planning department were to busy to deal with my application within 8 weeks.

 

Planning is not like normal law, you can build a house without consent, you can then apply for consent (if your pulled up about it with 4 years) if you get consent no offence was committed, if you don't, you must demolish the house and put things back as they were.

 

If a TPO'd tree is pruned without consent, but the work would have been permitted, I fail to see what offence has been committed?? I'm not saying its good practice.

Edited April 20, 2013 by skyhuck

[treequip]

I'm not sure you CAN object to an application for works on a TPO'd tree.

 

Yes if an application is for the removal of healthy trees, there will normally be notices put up and the TO will contact the parish council etc, and he may well pass it on to comity to decide.

 

But if a tree NEEDS felling on safety grounds how could anyone object?

 

Pruning works that will not dramatically damage the tree and fall within BS3998 can't really be refused or if they are an appeal will allow them, so what would be the point of consulting the public?

 

I have in the past been asked to carry out works and then apply retrospectively, as the planning department were to busy to deal with my application within 8 weeks.

 

Planning is not like normal law, you can build a house without consent, you can then apply for consent (if your pulled up about it with 4 years) if you get consent no offence was committed, if you don't, you must demolish the house and put things back as they were.

 

If a TPO'd tree is pruned without consent, but the work would have been permitted, I fail to see what offence has been committed?? I'm not saying its good practice.

 

Any works that would have required consent, conducted without consent is an offence absolute, you cant make it good with a retrospective application. It matters not if consent would have been given, it matters that consent was not given.

[Jamie M]

Totally agree with you treequip