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]

Hi All

Original poster here and the tree owner.

 

Five days are receiving a mail from the Arboricultural Co-ordinator

(Planning and Development - Tree Team) acknowledging my concern about the trench/roots etc, raising the issue of the fungal brackets and saying it was being invesitaged, I then received a mail from Planning saying they were closing the file.

 

After sign off on the initial mail from the Arboricultural Co-ordinator she seemed to leave some information I think she meant to delete - it read

 

"I note the tree has some fungal fruiting brackets on the stem and this

is indicative of decay within. The owners should get their tree

inspected to determine the extent of decay and whether the fracture

safety of the tree is compromised. At the very least the decay will

have reduced the trees safe useful life expectancy. However, the root

severance works will have caused additional harm such that the tree may

now need to be removed for safety reasons.

 

I will let the tree owner know about the decay, but I also think we

should take this apparent 'offence' further with the developer, possibly

a PACE interview on site"

 

We then went onto receive the following mail from the Enforcement Officer, Development Control, Planning & Property Services:

 

I have had the time to review both the works on site and the permitted landscaping scheme for the Boulters Meadow development.

 

Although it would appear than condition 18 11/02432 may not have been executed in the correct manner, it would be very difficult to prosecute this as the landscaping scheme being implemented has superseded this.

 

The position and heights of the fencing are also acceptable in line with the landscaping. The works to the tree have been to facilitate this and as such are exempt by virtue of being approved under a planning consent.

 

I am closing the file. Should you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Our initial thought was great - we get to keep our tree. No hassle. Then the concern over whether damage has actually occurred but by closing the file, mistakes made by planning get swept under the carpet and we're then held liable should the tree fail or should the people moving into the homes where the tree substantially hangs over their garden start complaining about it, we'll have to remove it based on the fundal brackets argument !!!! aargh

 

I am also going to have a chat with my neighbour who has been living in his house a lot longer than we have ours- He went to all the local meetings that were held early on during the planning stages and he keeps saying that the TPO on our tree was a hot topic - so I'm going to see if he can shed any light on documentation that might mention this tree.

 

Definitely not happy just to close the file. Suspicious of that one.....

 

Someone asked earlier if the tree looks great in the summer. It looks amazing. Absolutely stunning, I'll try and find a photo. Just feel like we're between a rock and a hard place but whatever happens now I do think we definitely need an expert opinion on the stability of the tree.

[skyhuck]

Would it be worth a "freedom of information" request to the planers requesting all documentation discussing the tree with regard to the development?

[treequip]

Would it be worth a "freedom of information" request to the planers requesting all documentation discussing the tree with regard to the development?

 

It's all public domain anyhow

[skyhuck]

It's all public domain anyhow

 

Emails???

[treequip]

Emails???

 

The whole shebang, you can walk in to the council and look at all the documentation.

[ScottF]

Well, good of him to "close the file" without resolving any of the extant issues such as cost liability for damage done to a protected tree by a third party, obvious deficiencies in the la's processes with respect to tree protection, lack of appropriate working methods being specified within the RPA of a protected tree etc.

 

Huck's suggestion of requesting all of the relevant correspondence and emails relating to this case is a good one. I've requested these in the past and have received some very illuminating information.

 

Before getting the tree assessed I'd personally be asking the la where to send the bill to, since none of this is your fault.

[biscuit156]

Would it be worth a "freedom of information" request to the planers requesting all documentation discussing the tree with regard to the development?

 

I might just do that - As some have said, the information is all public domain and I have spent some time looking at the information via the LA website but this is a big development and there is a lot of information. There was huge local opposition to this all happening and as such, lots of documents. The pdf's on the planning portal are also not searchable making it almost impossible to find reference to the TPO despite knowing it has been raised several times.

I contacted the developer early on during the works when they lopped a couple of smaller branches off to remind them of the TPO and was told they were fully aware of the TPO!

[ScottF]

What might get the tree officer, and possibly the developer's attention is the matter I raised earlier in this thread; if this tree does fail due to (as far as can be proved) the damage caused by the developer to the roots on the tree officer's watch, who is liable? And if the developer, and possibly the tree officer, want that hazard abated, then should the developer not fund it? After all, does he want a declining and now damaged tree overhanging his shiny new development, or would he rather see it reduced and cared for or, worst case, replaced?

 

If you really feel as if the tree officer is fobbing you off, you can always suggest that you'll reluctantly have to take the matter up with the ombudsman Local Government Ombudsman • Making a complaint .

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Emails???

 

Absolutely right! That which is "in the public domain" will not include desk level correspondence between departments which would only be accessible via a FOI request.

[daltontrees]

Three things occur to me.

 

Firstly, and as seems to be the case, the fungi seem to be a recurrence of annual fruiting which would mean the tree was already in poor health before the development was commenced. It may be impossible to prove that any subsequent failure of the tree is due to root damage. It might have failed eventually anyway or become so unsightly or dangerous that is removal by its owner would have been required and would not have been resisted by the Council or could have been done under exemption. I get the feeling that proof of tree loss due to the developer's actions without very substantial and expert arboricultural input (at considerable expense) would be beyond the ability of the OP even with the help of all the advice given in this Forum.

 

Secondly it is worth considering as it always is that the Council could be watching this post unofficially and gleaning tactical advantage.

 

Thirdly, my instinct as a citizen is that there is something not quite right here with the Council closing its file. A freedom of information request may or may not yield additional evidence, but in my experience of being on the receiving end of requests when in Local Government and of putting them in on my own behalf the crucial thing is to get the question right. Asking for all the information and correspondence the Council has about the tree and the land could result legitimately in a rejection of the request or a charge being made (legitimately) for information that turns out to be of no use. Frame the request carefully and dispassionately. You do NOT have to say why you want the information and the Council is NOT allowed to ask.