Yew hedge with tpo

[daltontrees]

surely the Council wouldn't agree to that either?

[peatff]

Excuse my ignorance- Why would I be on stronger grounds if it was below 2m?

 

I would think it would be more obviously a hedge then not a line of trees. If it was a fence you would need to apply for planning to erect anything higher than 2 metres round here and it would most likely be refused.

[Gary Prentice]

surely the Council wouldn't agree to that either?

 

Wouldn't be unreasonable to refuse reducing the height of the hedge to a lower level though.

 

Accepting that it is a hedge, it requires regular trimming to maintain. At the current height it's going to be costly. At 2-3m it's within the realms of being practical for the home-owner to do it himself.

 

I'm thinking along the lines of an unreasonable burden on the owner.

[daltontrees]

I'm thinking along the lines of an unreasonable burden on the owner.

 

Isn't that what TPOs are, imposing on an owner for the wider public benefit?

 

Since getting heavily involved in the High hedges thing in Scotland, I increasingly believe that a hedge that is TPOd that is adversely affecting the reasonable enjoyment of a property, which if it was the neighbour's would possibly be a succcessful HH application, is an unreasonable imposition on its owner. But the situation is clear in Scotland, HH Act trumps TPOs. Not so clear in England.

[Gary Prentice]

Isn't that what TPOs are, imposing on an owner for the wider public benefit?

 

Since getting heavily involved in the High hedges thing in Scotland, I increasingly believe that a hedge that is TPOd that is adversely affecting the reasonable enjoyment of a property, which if it was the neighbour's would possibly be a succcessful HH application, is an unreasonable imposition on its owner. But the situation is clear in Scotland, HH Act trumps TPOs. Not so clear in England.

 

I think that the burden of maintaining a high hedge is somewhat more onerous than a tree. A tree might only require crown lifting and a bit of deadwooding every 4-5 years, whereas a hedge might want trimming annually.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you Jules, but I'd be looking to reduce it and arguing along those lines. I'd also be looking at the cost of maintaining it at the current height and claiming the expense back from the LA if reduction was refused.

[daltontrees]

I think that the burden of maintaining a high hedge is somewhat more onerous than a tree. A tree might only require crown lifting and a bit of deadwooding every 4-5 years, whereas a hedge might want trimming annually.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you Jules, but I'd be looking to reduce it and arguing along those lines. I'd also be looking at the cost of maintaining it at the current height and claiming the expense back from the LA if reduction was refused.

 

This is new territory for me. On what basis would the LA be due to pay for maintenance costs?

 

Looks, incidentally, like a fairly straightforward maintenance job.

 

And as another aside, is TPO consent needed to trim a TPOd hedge?

[Gary Prentice]

This is new territory for me. On what basis would the LA be due to pay for maintenance costs?

 

Looks, incidentally, like a fairly straightforward maintenance job.

 

And as another aside, is TPO consent needed to trim a TPOd hedge?

 

If the LA refuse consent (the reduction) the owner is then, or could be construed to be, in a situation where due to the height he is forced to employ others to maintain it. I think that at the current height, most homeowners wouldn't be able to or want to attempt to maintain it themselves.

 

The refusal has then led to a financial cost or loss to the homeowner, no article 5's anymore, so - claim for recompense. Obviously, once the hedge was at a lower level it could be deemed manageable by the owner - or the average homeowner. I may be talking total nonsense, but I think there's a possibility that if the application was well written, with reasons for reducing supported by quotes for maintaining as is, the LA could well be backed into a corner.

 

Is a TPO application needed to trim a hedge?

I'd say yes - strictly speaking. If a tree is managed as a pollard, consent is needed to re-pollard usually. Some councils will write an ongoing consent, allowing re-pollarding on a cyclical basis and I'd imagine most LA's wouldn't want to deal with annual applications to trim. But if you allow maintenance works to a hedge - where does the ball stop?

 

Do you require consent to remove basal growth? Epicormic growth from lime trunks? thinning? remedial/formative pruning? I don't think that LA's should be allowed to pick and choose what works require consent, that's making up their own T&C Acts to suit themselves. The authority in this instance has decided that they're trees - so any work should, theoretically and to the letter of the Act, require consent. They can't have their cake and eat it:lol:

[Chris at eden]

If the LA refuse consent (the reduction) the owner is then, or could be construed to be, in a situation where due to the height he is forced to employ others to maintain it. I think that at the current height, most homeowners wouldn't be able to or want to attempt to maintain it themselves.

 

The refusal has then led to a financial cost or loss to the homeowner, no article 5's anymore, so - claim for recompense. Obviously, once the hedge was at a lower level it could be deemed manageable by the owner - or the average homeowner. I may be talking total nonsense, but I think there's a possibility that if the application was well written, with reasons for reducing supported by quotes for maintaining as is, the LA could well be backed into a corner.

 

Is a TPO application needed to trim a hedge?

I'd say yes - strictly speaking. If a tree is managed as a pollard, consent is needed to re-pollard usually. Some councils will write an ongoing consent, allowing re-pollarding on a cyclical basis and I'd imagine most LA's wouldn't want to deal with annual applications to trim. But if you allow maintenance works to a hedge - where does the ball stop?

 

Do you require consent to remove basal growth? Epicormic growth from lime trunks? thinning? remedial/formative pruning? I don't think that LA's should be allowed to pick and choose what works require consent, that's making up their own T&C Acts to suit themselves. The authority in this instance has decided that they're trees - so any work should, theoretically and to the letter of the Act, require consent. They can't have their cake and eat it:lol:

 

 

I don't think you would get too far with that one mate. The claims against the council which were prevented by article 5's were damages not maintenance. For example, if the council refused an application to fell a tree because it was damaging a wall the applicant could sue them for the cost of repair. The old a5 would effectively protect the council from this but as you say they have gone. I don't think you could apply this to maintenance though.

[Chris at eden]

I personally think this is straight forward. You submit an application to fell the hedge based on the fact it is not a tree. If refused appeal to the pins. The inspector wont dodge making a decision on this as he/she will have to consider the statement of reasons made by the applicant and the planning TO's response.

[Chris at eden]

Isn't that what TPOs are, imposing on an owner for the wider public benefit?

 

Since getting heavily involved in the High hedges thing in Scotland, I increasingly believe that a hedge that is TPOd that is adversely affecting the reasonable enjoyment of a property, which if it was the neighbour's would possibly be a succcessful HH application, is an unreasonable imposition on its owner. But the situation is clear in Scotland, HH Act trumps TPOs. Not so clear in England.

 

High hedges if enforced on a row of evergreen trees would definitely supersede a TPO. The implementation of a high hedge notice in accordance with the ASB act would be a statutory requirement and that is a definite TPO exception/exemption. In England that is, not sure about north of the border. Are you still on the 2008 regs for TpO's?