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 !!

[daltontrees]

As we are having a discussion about something that we obviously have different views on, it would be useful to provide a quote or reference to back up your stance.

As you have read Mynors cover to cover how did you not remember the mischievous quote?

You still have not given a good argument on why the planning does not over-ride the TPO

 

We are using different editions of Mynors, my page numbers and paragraph numbers don't correspond to yours. I did quote Lemmon v Webb though.

 

I said I had read Mynors, not memorised it.

 

I thought I had given a very thorough argument on why the consent might not override TPO restrictions. The wording of the Regulations does not seem to exempt anything done to a TPO'd tree below ground, except uprooting the whole tree.

[Gary Prentice]

We are assuming the TPO is irrelevant due to the detailed planning permission.

These cases are therefore relevant to the removal of the roots and where several posters have said there should be compensation owed.

 

You are quite correct that the nusience exemption should not be relied on as the case law is complicated. With the case of Perrin the outcome is considered to be incorrect by others.

 

You may be assuming that the Tpo is irrelevant but I 'm not dismissing it. Hence my query as to the inclusion of service runs and finished levels in the initial planning application.

 

I believe the planning consent reads along the lines of "as far as is necessary to implement " If the service trench isn't in the plans, surely the question arises as to if it was necessary to dig it within the root zone at all.

 

I still suspect this is a breach of the Tpo though

[ScottF]

A lot of opinion here about the legal implications of this action. What's clear is that tree should have been considered at the planning stage, off-site or not. We always consider off-site trees where's there's a potential for RPA impacts, or where pruning would be required to enable access. BS 5837 is pretty clear that this should be done. The LA should have picked this up, in my view. Regrettably, I see this sort of thing frequently, generally with (un-named) local authorities who fail to allocate adequate resources to tree protection.

 

 

From a practical point of view, the general assumption in this thread is that the tree should be felled. Perhaps it will to go, but there is plenty that can be done to enhance its changes of recovery; the torn root ends could be cut cleanly, the RPA could be mulched, the crown could be reduced etc etc. The tree clearly has pre-existing issues which should really have been quantified at the planning stage, but they could be looked at now and a potential prescription for retaining the tree in some form could be produced.

 

When I've seen situations like this come up in the past, it seems to have generally very difficult to get any blame to stick to anyone. It may be simplest to seek an agreement with the developer to compensate for any tree assessment and management work needed or worst case, for the tree's removal and replacement. It would not be in the developer's interest to have a potentially compromised tree within falling distance of his site.

[daltontrees]

Although the original poster seems to have lost interest here, I haven't and I'm just wondering whether if those brackets are indeed Ganoderma, a genus known for persistent annual brackets, and those brackets look brand new, might we say that the Ganoderma fruiting has co-incided with the root severance and ground level changes? And might we expect a correlation between these occorrences?

[David Humphries]

.....just wondering whether if those brackets are indeed Ganoderma, a genus known for persistent annual brackets

 

Not technically true Jules, as there are at least 3 species of Ganoderma (resinaceum, carnosum & lucidum) in the Uk, that are not persistent and put on new fruit growths annually.

 

I think that without the trees long term history then the association between the brackets and the damage would surely be conjecture.

 

 

.

[daltontrees]

Not technically true Jules, as there are at least 3 species of Ganoderma (resinaceum, carnosum & lucidum) in the Uk, that are not persistent and put on new fruit growths annually.

 

I think that without the trees long term history then the association between the brackets and the damage would surely be conjecture.

 

 

.

 

Fair enough. We don't get to see these soft southern ganoderma up here.

 

I would be interested to know whether based on teh smattering of info and the couple of photos your guess would be whether this outbreak is in its first year or recurrence of a well established annual fruiting?.

[David Humphries]

Fair enough. We don't get to see these soft southern ganoderma up here.

 

I would be interested to know whether based on teh smattering of info and the couple of photos your guess would be whether this outbreak is in its first year or recurrence of a well established annual fruiting?.

 

The latter, me thinks.

 

 

 

.

[David Humphries]

Fair enough. We don't get to see these soft southern ganoderma up here..

 

Well I wouldn't say that exactly.........

 

Ganoderma carnosum, on/with Pseudotsuga menziesii, stump, conifer plantation, Alt(m): 100, 07/08/2001, Scotland, East Ross (VC: 106), Drumderfit Hill, NH652519, coll.: E.E. Emmett, id: E.E. Emmett, Notes: likely to be G.tsugae, FRDBI Record No.: 833251, Origin of Record: Ern & Val Emmett (full record data).

 

Ganoderma carnosum, on/with Pseudotsuga menziesii, stump, conifer plantation, Alt(m): 50, 12/08/2002, Scotland, East Ross (VC: 106), Shantullich Wood, near Munlochy, Black Isle, NH636585, coll.: D.C. Jardine, id: D.C. Jardine, ID Lit.: B&K2, Notes: same site as 2001, sample to EEE, FRDBI Record No.: 830711, Origin of Record: David Jardine (Scotland) (full record data).

 

Ganoderma carnosum, on/with Pseudotsuga menziesii, stump, coniferous plantation, Alt(m): 50, 25/04/2003, Scotland, East Ross (VC: 106), Shantullich Wood, nr. Munlochy, Black Isle, NH636585, coll.: D.C. Jardine, id: D.C. Jardine, ID Lit.: B&K2, Notes: Primordia showing, FRDBI Record No.: 1102630, Origin of Record: David Jardine (Scotland) (full record data).

 

Ganoderma carnosum, on/with Pseudotsuga menziesii, stump, coniferous plantation, Alt(m): 50, 27/06/2003, Scotland, East Ross (VC: 106), Shantullich Wood, nr. Munlochy, Black Isle, NH636585, coll.: D.C. Jardine, id: D.C. Jardine, ID Lit.: B&K2, FRDBI Record No.: 1102624, Origin of Record: David Jardine (Scotland) (full record data).

 

Ganoderma carnosum, on/with Pseudotsuga menziesii, stump, coniferous plantation, Alt(m): 100, 12/07/2003, Scotland, East Ross (VC: 106), Drumderfit Hill, NH652519, coll.: D.C. Jardine, id: D.C. Jardine, ID Lit.: B&K2, FRDBI Record No.: 1102620, Origin of Record: David Jardine (Scotland) (full record data).

 

Ganoderma carnosum, on/with Pseudotsuga menziesii, stump, mixed semi-natural woodland, 12/07/2003, Scotland, Easterness (VC: 96), Reelig Glen, NH5542, coll.: D.C. Jardine, id: D.C. Jardine, ID Lit.: B&K2, Notes: same as Black Isle specimens, FRDBI Record No.: 1102555, Origin of Record: David Jardine (Scotland) (full record data).

 

 

..........and that's not a complete list of what is the least common of the three species

 

http://www.fieldmycology.net/FRDBI/FRDBIrecord.asp?intGBNum=5045

 

.

[daltontrees]

Well I wouldn't say that exactly.........

 

 

..........and that's not a complete list of what is the least common of the three species

 

British Fungi - record details

 

.

 

Fair play! Relatively rare though. And oddly mostly up north. Anyway I am slightly envious of some of the finds on Arbtalk, the range up here seems to be genuinely smaller and the finds less frequent. Maybe I am looking in the wrong sorts of woods for the softy Ganoderma. Most of those carnosum were on Douglas Fir, which I rarely see in the city.

[biscuit156]

Although the original poster seems to have lost interest here, I haven't and I'm just wondering whether if those brackets are indeed Ganoderma, a genus known for persistent annual brackets, and those brackets look brand new, might we say that the Ganoderma fruiting has co-incided with the root severance and ground level changes? And might we expect a correlation between these occorrences?

 

Sorry - I am the original poster here and haven't lost interest - Christmas just got in the way! I'm now reading through everyone's comments. Some I understand, others I don't and I hadn't quite realised what a stir this has caused!

The brackets do look really new and fresh and as I think I may have mentioned at some point, I don't recall seeing them there in the summer and only picked up on them when we started to monitor works that were taking place so close to the tree later this year.

 

I won't reply to everyone's comments, but want to thank everyone for their input. The thread re libel content etc - I think the advice/comments provided by everyone have/will all be taken as 'advice' - not the law and I certainly wouldn't go quoting you all (although there are snippets of advice which will be para-phrased if need be) or referring back to see who gave me the info.

 

We now need to sit down and decide the next steps we take re this as I did actually receive an email from planning just before the Xmas break saying they were closing the file. I'll dig out the mail and post the response but I'm definitely not happy to leave things as they are. The sudden change of mind by them makes me feel very suspicious and uneasy.

 

Thanks again and I will post the info Planning sent once I find the mail!