First refusal in 10 years

[Perkins]

Ha!, Just had a TPO application turned down to fell two Horse chestnuts that have been topped in the past (18inch diameter flat tops), are showing decayed heartwood and have an infection of pseudomonas (bleeding canker).

 

They're in a mixed shelter belt of oak, sycamore, ash, lime and chestnut, which runs along the back of some houses and down to open fields.

 

Can somebody direct me to the legislation re: dead/diseased/dangerous please?

 

Pics to follow

[detritus21]

Is there a reason given. If you were to appeal I doubt it would be turned down particularly if you highlight the reasons.

[Perkins]

It says that insufficient evidence has been provided to support the application, and that the disease doesn't necessarily kill the tree.

 

The problem is that the tree has a relatively strong lean towards the house and would demolish the roof in the event of a catastrophic failure, as has happened to the next-door neighbour with a similarly diseased tree.

[10 Bears]

Can somebody direct me to the legislation re: dead/diseased/dangerous please?

 

Following the changes in 2012, the communities update info is available here, but the full chapter and verse is here

 

I also went to one of the AA roadshows, and thought that this document was a good review of the changes.

 

I can only assume that your TO is applying the change to the dying clause in an unusual way ie there is no exemption any more - so he wants you to evidence the idea that due to the sum total of the condition that you find the tree in, the catastrophic failure conclusion that you came to is the one most likely to happen.

 

Without seeing pictures, its hard to comment further, but I would also assume that there is a little bit of jobsworthyness coming in to play...

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

It says that insufficient evidence has been provided to support the application, and that the disease doesn't necessarily kill the tree.

 

The problem is that the tree has a relatively strong lean towards the house and would demolish the roof in the event of a catastrophic failure, as has happened to the next-door neighbour with a similarly diseased tree.

 

Has it been 'refused', i.e. they've determined the application for works and said "NO", or have they declined to register it? You can only appeal if it's the former, i.e. "NO."

 

If it's the latter, or in either case to be honest as a new application, they may be requiring to see further, more detailed, arboriculture evidence (see p.7 of attached) and if the trees have been previously 'topped' it might be worth flagging up the 'low amenity' value issue...although they're likely to respond it's collective as part of a woodland shelter belt.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Cheers..

Paul

TPO-guidance_note-works_to_trees.pdf

[MATTMOSS]

Following the changes in 2012, the communities update info is available here, but the full chapter and verse is here

 

I also went to one of the AA roadshows, and thought that this document was a good review of the changes.

 

I can only assume that your TO is applying the change to the dying clause in an unusual way ie there is no exemption any more - so he wants you to evidence the idea that due to the sum total of the condition that you find the tree in, the catastrophic failure conclusion that you came to is the one most likely to happen.

 

Without seeing pictures, its hard to comment further, but I would also assume that there is a little bit of jobsworthyness coming in to play...

 

That's a great word

[tarzan]

Post pics