Routinely refused works ?

[jaime bray]

The more hassle they make owning trees the less chance people will want to plant more.

 

A little bit of pre-reading by consumer, and assistance from a knowledgeable plants person should result in right tree right place. Hopefully this will enable the tree to provide its qualities as the required benefits of the owner and still enable a retained tree that does not need cyclical maintenance.

[Pat Ferrett]

A little bit of pre-reading by consumer, and assistance from a knowledgeable plants person should result in right tree right place. Hopefully this will enable the tree to provide its qualities as the required benefits of the owner and still enable a retained tree that does not need cyclical maintenance.

 

Maybe people would rather plant shrubs

[Ian C]

Leeds council take the same stance as a rule.

[joshscott]

There basically saying you do not have right to light, and will not reduce a tree because you "don't get sun in your garden past midday"

 

Which is a good thing.

[Pete Hart]

I know which council this has come from ;-) and they take a very strong stance in my experience of making T.P.O applications. Vast areas of the borough are protected by conservation Areas and T.P.O's and in the past applications i have submitted have been refused for these types of works I.e reductions and thinning (even what I would describe to be sympathetic and minor works).

I take it you have had the same experience apex?

 

Unfortunately we have a select minority in our area (developers and rich builders) who have spoilt it for everyone by totally disregarding the rules when it comes to protected trees or best practise for that matter.

 

 

 

 

http://www.aatreesurgeon.co.uk

[fagus]

To the list Council should have added satellite dish signals.

[Andy Clark]

The big wider issue in this, is that there is absolutely zero formal guidance, specifically for LA's, for the LA TO to work from - resulting in the TO trying to pick the best from the random bunch of general guidance docs that serve the wider purpose of the Arb world in general.

 

Folk have historically tried to campaign and lobby for the creation of an "Amenity Tree Commission", segregated from the Forestry Commission, and established to purely focus on Arboriculture as opposed to Forestry, but it always seems to get very little support from the industry and so generally tends to fall on deaf ears at the Central Gov level.

 

Granted, the some of the TOAssociations et al have previously issued guidance notes for LA's on the overall establishment of a "Tree Policy", but the specific contents of said policy are all still left to the individual TO to define - and usually then based on a collection of standpoints in Law, such as the avoidance and rectification of Actionable Nuisance and Health and Safety issues, with a smattering of political influence thrown in for good measure, and then jiggled to fit available budgets.

 

Here's my general rule of thumb "what we will/won't do" stuff, that covers not only our own works, but also the pruning requests that we get....

 

"We have a dedicated database for trees in communal areas, and all are surveyed regularly. We carry out maintenance work on trees in communal areas according to priority. We also carry out reactive works to:

 

- dangerous trees or parts of trees

- trees that are blocking footpaths or roads

- trees that are causing direct damage to property, such as branch or root encroachment damage

- trees that are causing indirect damage to property, such as tree related subsidence.

 

We do not usually agree to prune trees that are causing:

 

- loss of light/reduced light to properties (except in extreme cases)

- effects on TV or mobile phone reception

- obstruction of views

- interference with private vegetation

- obstruction of utility cables (these are the responsibility of the provider or cable owner)

- minor or seasonal issues such as -*

- honeydew (dripping sap)

- bird droppings

- squirrels gaining access to properties from trees

- leaf, fruit or flower fall.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

[arbogrunt]

LA's that refuse works antagonise people... everyone has to live with trees and refusing reasonable requests makes people resent they're arboreal guests!

 

If the work is carried out by professionals, it shouldn't be a problem...what gets my goat is when they let any old Tom, Dick and Harry have a hack and then don't prosecute for appalling pruning....too many college boys and clipboards I'm afraid.....

[daltontrees]

There are two questions in the original question.

 

The first is, is this the right policy for the Council to adopt and apply consistently? That's what everyone seems to be talking about in this thread.

 

The second is (and please note that this is a different point form the first one), is the Council within it's rights to apply this policy to all TPOs. Andy Clark is the only one so far that seems to have alluded to this version of the question. You might think I am just being my usual pedantic self but hopefully people can see that if the answer to this question is no or in fact anything other than yes then the first question doesn't matter.

 

The legislation says that Councils can make TPOs "If it appears to a local planning authority that it is expedient in the interests of amenity". That's all it says about the purpose of TPOs. And I mean that's ALL! The things you can't do are listed in the Act (e.g. Lopping, Topping, Cutting Down etc.). Exemptions for circumstances are listed in the Act and the Regulations (e.g. Abatement of Nuisance, Dangerous etc.). But nowhere does it say anything other than that TPOs are there to preserve amenity. The Guidelines are just, that, someone centrally interpreting what the Act means. They have no legal force. If anyone can point out anywhere in tehm that says Councils should publish and enforce policies that countermand the Act, plase tell me and I will apologise.

 

It follows in my somewhat linear view of this that if any works are proposed and are a subject of a TPO application, the application should be considered on the grounds of the effect on amenity, nothing else. And even then, the effect on public amenity is paramount.

 

What I mean is that the removal of limbs on a side of the tree that cannot be seen from any public area, as long as these works don't endanger the health of the whole tree (and therefore don't endanger the public amenity it will continue to provide) should be of no concern to the Council.

 

So what right does the Council have to publish the rules that it will use in determining TPO applications.

 

The answer is and can only be none. The Council would be within its rights to propose a policy that defines where it considers amenity to be an important issue, possibly even the species that it considers important and those that it doesn't. In the closely related world of Conservation Areas, this is exactly what happens when the Council draws up a Conservation Area Appraisal. It should consult on this proposed policy, if it doesn't it could nullify the policy. It should have due regard to representations about the proposed policy. The policy should then be approved, rejected or modified by the elected members, and then published following the appropriate Committeee hearing.

 

In my experience what the Council has no right to do is the following (i) redefine amenity for its own purposes (ii) create a policy that has not been consulted upon and approved by elected members and (iii) draw up a set of arbitrary rules, however well intended, about how it will deal with future TPO applications.

 

TPO applications are in very many respects like planning applications. If the Council decided in advance that it didn't like UPVC conservatories in south-facing back gardens and said that any future applications that had one of these in it would be rejected not only would they lose every planning appeal and then get costs awarded against them but they would soon bin the policy and fire the idiot that came up with it. Yet these tree policies appear to do just that, they are in danger of applying rules to applications that should lawfully be decided on their individual merits purely and entirely based on public amenity.

 

I agree with Councils that take a consistent and firm stance on tree works. But the rule shouldn't be whether the works are necessary or unnecessary, it shoudl be whether the extent of loss of amenity from the works is acceptable.

 

Rant over. I've had a cr*p day, sue me if I'm wrong! But I don't think I am.

[Le Sanglier]

LA's that refuse works antagonise people... everyone has to live with trees and refusing reasonable requests makes people resent they're arboreal guests!

 

If the work is carried out by professionals, it shouldn't be a problem...what gets my goat is when they let any old Tom, Dick and Harry have a hack and then don't prosecute for appalling pruning....too many college boys and clipboards I'm afraid.....

 

I broadly agree, just one point, did you mean "they're arboreal guests" meaning we are guests of the tree or "their arboreal guests" meaning the trees are guests of people.

I am guessing the second (damn autocorrect) but I want to be sure!