lime tree preventing new build.

[oslac]

Thanks oslac,cant seem to upload a picture but will keep trying.Already using planning consultant.But council landscapes wont hear of any thing to change their mind.

 

Are you able to say who the LA is.

 

If the council are not prepared to change their mind, they either have a strong case or a Case Officer/Tree Officer who is unreasonable.

 

You need to unpick their case. There will be reasons for refusal within the notice and you will need to identify precisely what the LA concern is. Once you know this, you can directly address the issue or prepare a case for appeal.

 

All this info should really be coming from your planning consultant

[graham pick]

[graham pick]

At last managed to upload picture,its 60 years old and we live near Maidstone,they recently built a bungalow opposite on similar size plot.

[graham pick]

As its been going on for over a year I was just looking to see other peoples views on this,is it a waste of time and money or have I a chance at appeal.

[graham pick]

Just had a completely different report done.Because its an open grown tree the consultant has done a report which we have given to the planners stating with his photos that the tree has already reached its mature height and will not double in height,so the problem of overbearing will not happen.Landscapes have produced nothing as we are now 3 and a half months past the determination date.With this and a google shading programme can they now disregard our application as it was refused on one thing only being the impact of the tree on future occupants.

[Paul Barton]

If you and your arboriculturist feel you have a strong case, you must appeal the refusal decision by the local authority. A planning inspector may over-rule in your favour. It will also force the LA to issue better evidence of their decision.

[Marula]

This is a very strange situation, appeal it.

[ScottF]

I'm afraid this "future pressure to fell" argument is far from uncommon. It's one I've had to deal with in both applications and appeals and is unfortunately almost impossible to counter. It depends on the unquantifiable attitudes to trees of persons unknown acting in an unpredictable way at some unknown point in the future.

 

You could equally argue that these unknown future occupants (assuming it's not you) of your house will adore trees and care for this lime with bottomless pockets.

 

It's a planning cop-out. If your proposals confirm with the requirements of bs5837 and you've taken suitable arboricultural advice and any mitigation steps can be enforced by planning condition, then the LPA should not refuse on tree grounds. The decision to allow to fell or otherwise rests solely with the LPA and they should take these responsibilities on board rather than issuing such cop-out decisions. If the tree is to stay, then they should ensure it is protected during the build and not harmed following it, as they should with any other tpo'd tree.

 

Rant over

[Philip Anderson]

I'm afraid this "future pressure to fell" argument is far from uncommon. It's one I've had to deal with in both applications and appeals and is unfortunately almost impossible to counter. It depends on the unquantifiable attitudes to trees of persons unknown acting in an unpredictable way at some unknown point in the future.

 

You could equally argue that these unknown future occupants (assuming it's not you) of your house will adore trees and care for this lime with bottomless pockets.

 

It's a planning cop-out. If your proposals confirm with the requirements of bs5837 and you've taken suitable arboricultural advice and any mitigation steps can be enforced by planning condition, then the LPA should not refuse on tree grounds. The decision to allow to fell or otherwise rests solely with the LPA and they should take these responsibilities on board rather than issuing such cop-out decisions. If the tree is to stay, then they should ensure it is protected during the build and not harmed following it, as they should with any other tpo'd tree.

 

Rant over

This case just shows the inconsistency of LPAs, we have just moved from our base which was my fathers house for 20 years and had an area TPO on it on a group of mature trees including a copper beech ,acacia ,lime and sycamore now all that is left is the copper beech and 1 acacia consent was given to fell 6 TPO trees with no faults or defects,it's a joke over protection and under protection,new owners do funny things this lot within 2 months so I can understand where this council maybe coming from in your case.

[Gary Prentice]

I'm afraid this "future pressure to fell" argument is far from uncommon. It's one I've had to deal with in both applications and appeals and is unfortunately almost impossible to counter. It depends on the unquantifiable attitudes to trees of persons unknown acting in an unpredictable way at some unknown point in the future.

 

You could equally argue that these unknown future occupants (assuming it's not you) of your house will adore trees and care for this lime with bottomless pockets.

 

It's a planning cop-out. If your proposals confirm with the requirements of bs5837 and you've taken suitable arboricultural advice and any mitigation steps can be enforced by planning condition, then the LPA should not refuse on tree grounds. The decision to allow to fell or otherwise rests solely with the LPA and they should take these responsibilities on board rather than issuing such cop-out decisions. If the tree is to stay, then they should ensure it is protected during the build and not harmed following it, as they should with any other tpo'd tree.

 

Rant over

 

This defines the situation perfectly. An excellent post