TPO Just imposed Help!

[isdesigns]

Does anyone know what I can do to stop this.

 

I have a plot of land at the side of our house that is ideal as an infill plot for building a house.

 

We live in a rural location and the local council (Newcastle-under-Lyme) has repeatedly refused the application on the grounds of "Unsustainable Location".

 

Local barn conversions, huge extensions, Farmers new houses, no problem! A small house for my 85 year old mother (30 miles away), not a chance.

 

The latest outline application has been followed up with a TPO received yesterday on a copper beech tree on the plot which will now make the development of the plot much more difficult.

 

Before anyone replies with "You should have chopped it down long ago" I know that now - it was a mistake not to.

 

I believe the council have imposed the TPO to stop the development, and not to protect the tree, which is only about 40 years old.

 

Reading the notes, I also understand that if the tree causes damage in the future I will still be liable despite the council imposing the TPO! This surely cannot be correct?

 

HELP. Any advise gratefully received.

 

Thanks

[Mobile-sawman.]

Whos to say the council has imposed the TPO? Any one of your neigbours could have applied for it to stop you "spoiling their view".....

Ask for a copy of the TPO application, and it should list the reasons for granting the TPO in the first place.

And yes... you are liable for the future upkeep of the tree....

 

Sorry, may not be what you wanted to hear.

[daltontrees]

It is for the Council alone to decide whether it is 'expedient' to make a TPO. One of the usual justifications is tha there is a real or perceived threat to the tree. Looks like the Council was right. And/or you have been out-manoeuvred. It doesn't really matter whether the Council TPOd because of a neighbour suggestion or not.

 

What is jumping out at me is this. If the Council is satisfied with its reasons for refusing your previous planning application, there should be no reason to make the TPO. But if the Council perceives that you perceive (think about it) that removal of the tree would improve your chances of getting permission next time, it can make the TPO. It doesn't really matter whether that perception is justified or not.

 

There is only one thing that matters. The TPO must be on the basis that the protection of the tree is in the interests of the amenity of the area. Is it a good specimen? Is it visible from public areas?

 

Has the TPO just been served and are you therefore within the timescale for objecting?

[ScottF]

I have dealt with Newcastle under Lyme council in the past and have found them extremely problematic to deal with. I would take some professional planning advice to look at this as an urgent matter, ideally before it is confirmed and ideally by a local arborist with experience of dealing with this particular authority. Get the tree consultant to consider both the tree and how it would likely impact any future development.

 

I'd agree with Jules' comment above that it doesn't seem particularly expedient to protect the tree if they feel so confident that the site cannot be developed.

 

Have you appealed any of your refused applications?

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Your only opportunity to prevent the TPO form being confirmed and made permanent is to 'object'. You should have a min. 28 days from the date you were notified, or the date on the Reg. 5 notice (see attached.)

 

The primary reason for placing a TPO is 'amenity' value, i.e. visual impact, which can be present or future. Hence if the tree isn't clearly visible from a public place, i.e. street, then grounds for objection could be made.

 

In terms of expediency, the Council have already determined this hence the TPO.

 

Regards..

Paul

TPO - objections.docx

[daltontrees]

Your only opportunity to prevent the TPO form being confirmed and made permanent is to 'object'. You should have a min. 28 days from the date you were notified, or the date on the Reg. 5 notice (see attached.)

 

The primary reason for placing a TPO is 'amenity' value, i.e. visual impact, which can be present or future. Hence if the tree isn't clearly visible from a public place, i.e. street, then grounds for objection could be made.

 

In terms of expediency, the Council have already determined this hence the TPO.

 

Regards..

Paul

 

I'd largely go along with that. Please don't get your hopes up though, the Council must have due regard to objections but if it then cracks on and confirms the TPO, there is no statutory right of appeal. You could complain to teh ombudsman if you think you have been unfairly treated or you could in theory and with very deep pockets raise a judicial review.

 

Focus on the question of whether the tree provides amenity to the wider public. That's the real test. I think the Council has probably satisfied the expediency test already.

[Amelanchier]

Also, given that the guidance admits consideration of future amenity (i.e., small trees getting bigger) you should be aware that the threshold for a suitable amenity value starts fairly low and normally gets a lot lower depending on the LPA's interpretative flexibility of the terms 'amenity' and 'value'.

[armybloke]

A TPO is not a subject of a planning application refusal. There are technical solutions to a build in proximity to a tree. A VERY good, qualified and experienced architect, landscape engineer and arboricultural consultant should provide you with an adequate report and set of plans. It sounds like a job I am covering near Wycombe with 4 TPO trees surrounding the site, a pond, level issues, parking, construction access blah, blah to address. If you can prove the trees are to be protected, will be protected in the future and can be protected against impact and conflict - you have a house for granny! Of course, I don't know the confines of your site or restrictions so won't add further comment but I would try and fit the house in whatever configuration you can. Who said houses have to be square?

[daltontrees]

A TPO is not a subject of a planning application refusal. There are technical solutions to a build in proximity to a tree. A VERY good, qualified and experienced architect, landscape engineer and arboricultural consultant should provide you with an adequate report and set of plans. It sounds like a job I am covering near Wycombe with 4 TPO trees surrounding the site, a pond, level issues, parking, construction access blah, blah to address. If you can prove the trees are to be protected, will be protected in the future and can be protected against impact and conflict - you have a house for granny! Of course, I don't know the confines of your site or restrictions so won't add further comment but I would try and fit the house in whatever configuration you can. Who said houses have to be square?

 

The problem is, the guy's application was refused originally on the grounds of 'unsustainable location', so working round the tree is not the whole answer to his problem.

[daltontrees]

A useful clarification...

 

I would add that for compensation to be payable the TPO would have to be confirmed, amn application be put in to do work on it, the application would have to have been refused and the damage would have to have been foreseeable and highlighted in teh reasons supporting the application. even then, the compensation claim would have to go in within a year of refusal.

 

Does anyone other than me have abit of a problem with the last bit? In Scotland the period is 6 months. So if you have a steadily worsening tree that you are not allowed to remove but not bad enough to be dangerous, do you have to put in an application for tree works every year to make sure you always have the right to claim compensation?

[Gary Prentice]

A useful clarification...

 

I would add that for compensation to be payable the TPO would have to be confirmed, amn application be put in to do work on it, the application would have to have been refused and the damage would have to have been foreseeable and highlighted in teh reasons supporting the application. even then, the compensation claim would have to go in within a year of refusal.

 

Does anyone other than me have abit of a problem with the last bit? In Scotland the period is 6 months. So if you have a steadily worsening tree that you are not allowed to remove but not bad enough to be dangerous, do you have to put in an application for tree works every year to make sure you always have the right to claim compensation?

 

That's how it reads to me. The fact that some liability is owed by the council or authority doesn't have to mean it's easy to get. My recent survey indicated that some LA's even fail to publicise the right to compensation due to costs incurred by a refusal.