Trees on land adjacent to development sites

[fagus]

In England a Tpo is registered as charge on the land and should be brought to the attention of the property purchaser at Conveyance.Purchasers of property should ask their solicitor about any charges ,there are other cases for charges.

 

Tpo site neighbours and tenants are informed where possible to allow any objections to be considered before the order is confirmed.The branch spread will be described in the condition report made at the time of the Tpo -available from the LA, and by good practice boundaries/ root spread if obviously on other land.

 

Tpo's should be reinspected to see if they are still valid. In this case of they had it would be brave TO who would continue with this one;better to maintain tree cover and fell under the regs and get a replacement on site but not necessarily in the same position.

A judge would ask the TO if he would put a TPO on the tree as it is at the present time. Cue for the TO to look at the floor.In effect it would not get that far as the LA's solicitor would ask the same question before agreeing any proceedings.

But this is all subjective as the opportunity to take care of the tree was missed/ignored when the housing layout was considered.

[daltontrees]

Lopping is a exemption, it doesn't say branches so presumably includes roots.

 

I am sure this has been debated before, but inconclusively. The dictionary in my head and the one on my shelf both suggest lopping to be of branches. I would never advise a client to rely on this lopping exemption as a mandate to cut/sever roots.

 

We could disagree about definitions all day, it might only be when it gets to court that a judge will arbitrate on what the common language of the people means. Maybe I am just too common.

[daltontrees]

Oi Paul, don't send the interesting debates elsewhere!

 

You are right though - there are plenty of clever types on the UKTC.

 

Including, of course Dr Mynors, who makes occasional but invariably high quality contributions to debates. However, UKTC debate is fragmented and hard to follow and review as it comprises a series of emails. Not a patch on Arbtalk for ease of following.

[daltontrees]

Only Paul has seen the planning documents and I'm not sure if he has seen all of them.

It was asked earlier on if all the detail is included in the plans if service trenches etc. Usually the site boundary fence is included as it is required to comply with the Secure by Design requirements.

The photographs from the original thread show that the main damage to the tree is due to the grade change to allow the fence to be erected.

Also if the tree was included in a tree survey and either categorised as U or indicated for removal this also forms part of the application.

 

It mught be useful to keep this thread for teh generalities and the other thread for the specific case. The latter is a good example of how not to do things and how things go wrong and possibly cannot be corrected if the right procedures are not followed by one or more party.

 

This thread is already drawing out (for me anyway) some useful guidance on best practice and where one stands if one does it right. I suppose my original question is prodding at whether the system works even when it is used to the full. It has even been suggested that the legislation should be changed.

[Gary Prentice]

Addendum - btggaz made a usepul point in the original thread; the exemption reliant on planning permission can only be used 'so far as such work is necessary to implement a planning permission'. 'So far as' can be taken to mean 'no more than' and 'necessary' seems to mean 'unavoidably required'. Getting planning permission does not therefore give you carte blanche to do what you want to TPOd trees. If your site ha planning permission and there is a TPOd tree on the site in the corner where there is no effect on it of the development but you chopped it down anyway, the exemption does not apply and you could/should be prosecuted. If the tree is outside the site but it's roots are inside, the same rationale applies. Prosecution for unnecessary root damage.

 

Help me out here guys and gals, it's not very conclusive if I have to answer my own question.

 

But you explain things so much more succinctly than I do Jules:blushing:

[Gary Prentice]

Including, of course Dr Mynors, who makes occasional but invariably high quality contributions to debates. However, UKTC debate is fragmented and hard to follow and review as it comprises a series of emails. Not a patch on Arbtalk for ease of following.

 

And I thought it was just me who had that problem. Anyone willing to invite Dr M to this forum?

[sloth]

And I thought it was just me who had that problem. Anyone willing to invite Dr M to this forum?

 

Certainly not just you with that problem, especially annoying when the 'thread' includes other topics or emails which aren't in date/time order!

On another note this is a good topic with good input, I may even formulate some sort of post if I get time! Keep up the good work

[Gary Prentice]

Addendum - btggaz made a usepul point in the original thread; the exemption reliant on planning permission can only be used 'so far as such work is necessary to implement a planning permission'. 'So far as' can be taken to mean 'no more than' and 'necessary' seems to mean 'unavoidably required'. Getting planning permission does not therefore give you carte blanche to do what you want to TPOd trees. If your site ha planning permission and there is a TPOd tree on the site in the corner where there is no effect on it of the development but you chopped it down anyway, the exemption does not apply and you could/should be prosecuted. If the tree is outside the site but it's roots are inside, the same rationale applies. Prosecution for unnecessary root damage.

 

Help me out here guys and gals, it's not very conclusive if I have to answer my own question.

 

I agree and that is my understanding.

[daltontrees]

And I thought it was just me who had that problem. Anyone willing to invite Dr M to this forum?

 

No chance! If you think my approach is dry, his is £500 an hour to-the-point and I suspect he is only mildly tolerant of the sort of frivolity that wafts through Arbtalk daily. Like a breath of fresh air, I would add!

[Gary Prentice]

No chance! If you think my approach is dry, his is £500 an hour to-the-point and I suspect he is only mildly tolerant of the sort of frivolity that wafts through Arbtalk daily. Like a breath of fresh air, I would add!

 

Full of the christmas spirit you are:lol: bah humbug

 

Merry Christmas:thumbup: