TPO on our Horse Chestnut but still Developers have severed the roots

[biscuit156]

HELP !!!

We have a huge Horse Chestnut (with a TPO) in our garden in Berkshire which has always sat on our border with an adjacent empty field. Developers are now building on this land very close to the border and despite references to the TPO in planning etc, houses have been built very close to it.

 

As part of the work (which is almost complete now) they dug a trench up close to the tree which severed some of the roots. I immediately contacted my Council Tree dept and have today received notification from the Planning and Development - Tree Team.

 

They have noted, the severance to the roots may have damaged the tree and they are investigating further and looking at whether the tree may now need to come down for safety reasons. As you can appreciate, we're furious - the tree is stunning, the environmental impact of cutting such a huge tree down, as well as our loss of privacy (we thought the TPO meant it was safe!).

 

They also mention the fact the on the trunk of the tree there is 'fungal brackets in a tiered formation with cream undersides' which may also have an affect on the stability of the tree and have suggested we employ and arboriculturist to give us a detailed inspection to ensure the 'fracture safety of the tree is not compromised'. and 'at the very least the decay will have reduced the trees safe useful life expectancy' There isn't much fungi (I took a photo which I could post on here) - can anyone offer any advice?? We just don't have the funds to employ anyone to report but feel we need to prove that the fungi isn't affecting the stability of the tree (or is it?) !! We're up against a well know Developer who tends to get what he wants so we need to arm ourselves with as much info as possible !

 

I'm at a loss as to what to do !! Any help/advice much appreciated !!

[biscuit156]

Do you have a scale plan of the development area near the tree to upload here?

 

I will have a look and see what I have - to be honest, I'm not sure I do have

[Eddy_t]

Perhaps rather than removal of the tree, you could have it reduced back, a sustained but gradual reduction would work it back to a manageable size, but still retaining leaf cover, the tree definitely looks like it has enough low down regrowth

 

 

Sent using Arbtalk Mobile App

[SteveA]

I will have a look and see what I have - to be honest, I'm not sure I do have

 

okay, no worries as your photos show exactly whats going on. Big shame on the developers for doing this - your local newspaper should run a story on this.

[Tree Man Tom]

I wouldn't be surprised if it it was subject to category R rating 'removal' at tree survey stage and is due to be removed. Just the different council departments haven't spoken to each other like usual. Me old mate Jesse would love all this but he's not on here so often.

[MATTMOSS]

I wouldn't be surprised if it it was subject to category R rating 'removal' at tree survey stage and is due to be removed. Just the different council departments haven't spoken to each other like usual. Me old mate Jesse would love all this but he's not on here so often.

 

Category R ? the tree is located in her back garden. looks like a clear contravention of the tpo to me.

[Tree Man Tom]

Category R ? the tree is located in her back garden. looks like a clear contravention of the tpo to me.

 

Doh, missed that bit. Bloody cider eyes

[biscuit156]

Shame how houses have been granted planning permission within close vicinity of a "Huge" Horse Chestnut with a preservation order.... I imagine doing groundworks in the same area of the tree was always going to result in serious damage to the root system.

 

Maybe they (developers & planners) expected 'something like this' to happen all along?!

 

 

The tree has always been a bit of a problem for them and I always anticipated some problems. Why they ever had to build so close I have no idea, especially with this TPO. Damage it, and it'll have to be pulled down for H&S - developer pays a fine and gets his own way!

[biscuit156]

With the tree so close to the boundary the root protection zone (which would have been part of the planning consent) would have extended well into the development site, at a guess from the pic 10-15m. The developer should have had a tree protection fence along the edge of the zone to prevent any damage to the root system. This would appear not to have happened.

 

This is definitely not the case... as I say, a trench was dug alongside the trunk and the driver of the digger wasn't even aware of a TPO !!!

[Paul Barton]

If somebody suggests it needs to be removed because of the damage then you would certainly have grounds for compensation. I realise you'd prefer the tree than a payoff though!

[MATTMOSS]

Doh, missed that bit. Bloody cider eyes

 

all is forgiven