Tree replacement in CA

[Chris at eden]

So Chris, is the 'abatement of a nuisance' absent from the new rules?

 

Next units Tpo and planning, so I suppose I should try to keep up

 

Hi Gary,

 

Its still in as an exemption (or more correctly an exception now) but I don't think there is a duty to replace, certainly not under 206 but 213 isn't covered well in the online guidance. Like I said rubbish.

 

Download the regs. They're only a few pages and really well written. Exceptions are covered by reg 14 & 15.

 

The planning unit is really good as is the structural damage if you are doing that.

[Tallgrass]

On 17/11/2014 at 13:02, EdwardC said:

Reopening this old post as it's nearest to my query. If an applicant submits a 211 notice for tree removal in a TCA because a tree is 'diseased' and the LPA turn up and it is 'an imminent risk to public safety' ie. the whole of the base is hollowed out by armillaria, could the LPA then apply the directive to replace? OR would the replacement directive only be applicable if the application originally came in via a TDD 'exception'? (I will download the regs for more info, but I tend to think he duty to replace could apply in this case)

 

As others have said they can ask but they can't demand, or enforce a replacement, unless you are removing the tree because it is dead, imminently dangerous or it was removed in contravention of the legislation.

 

Anyone?

 

[Tallgrass]

15 hours ago, EdwardC said:

The duty to replace arises only if the tree is removed because it is dead, imminently dangerous, or removed in contravention of the legislation.

 

It is for the applicant to give notice, either in the normal way i.e. six weeks prior notice, or if the tree is dead five days prior notice, or if the tree is imminently dangerous notice as soon as possible after the work becomes necessary. If the usual six week notice was served then there can be no duty to replace.

 

There is no duty to state your reasons for the proposed work when serving an S211. But if the tree was imminently dangerous the notice would have been served in the appropriate manner, wouldn't it. Diseased/dangerous is not the same as imminently dangerous. There is no consultation period during the six weeks. The TO could allow the works on day one if they wanted, especially if they considered the tree dangerous. However, even if the TO considers the tree imminently dangerous, and that is a matter of opinion, the notice wasn't served under the exceptions so the duty to replace cannot apply. Neither can they change your notice so that it would or demand that you plant a tree.

Thanks very much for your really clear response. Very helpful.