any Tpo legal eagles about

[Andy Clark]

Additionally, the way the legislation works is to make certain works exempt from the need to apply for consent but that the Order remains. A dead TPO tree is still subject to the Order and is not exempt - it is the works that are. "...No such order shall apply - a) to the cutting down, uprooting..." etc.

 

 

So you can fell a dead TPO tree but there is a duty to replant and that "...the relevant tree preservation order shall apply as it applied to the original tree."

 

Just wanted to clarify that!

 

Clarify all you like chap.... but let's not forget that the original app. by the consultant was made purely pertaining to the reduction.....

 

It was the TO that... ahem.... 'put pen to paper' and started shouting exemption.

 

PLUS, I can't realistically see that the consultant would've submitted (a polite) notice to the LPA, for a 25% reduction based on DDD exemption!

 

Selective branch removal/dead-wooding/felling etc, yes... all well feasible under exemption...... but a 25% reduction??

 

 

C'mon Tony, if that notice had come through to you, you'd have laughed at him.

 

[gmanntpo]

Sounds like the TO doesn't have a clue, an embarressment to those of us who do the job!

 

I stand up to the fire step and give a definitive answer....

 

1. The LPA had not made it clear that they consider the H/C exempt from the TPO because they consider it DDD (dead/dying/dangerous) If they considered this the case the application should be withdrawn and a notice sent to the tree owner explaning why the TPO no longer applies. They should not be altering the original app.

 

2. Forget about the damage to the SB. A minor accident like this would NEVER succeed in a court prosecution and the LPA legal dept would (if they were competant) just know there was zero point in pursuing it. Incidentally, such damage could only have a maximum fine of £2500 as the tree was damaged not destroyed.

 

3. As we all know, there is many degrees of B/C infection and many trees can recover and are safe to retain.

 

4. If the LPA are so concerned about the safety of the tree, then they should be using the legislation to get it made safe (note: I did not say fell!). They have powers under misc prov 1976 and high/wys 1980 acts.

 

5. The key to this situation is ascertaing the SULE of the tree in question!!!

 

Hope this is useful...

[Amelanchier]

Clarify all you like chap.... but let's not forget that the original app. by the consultant was made purely pertaining to the reduction.....

 

It was the TO that... ahem.... 'put pen to paper' and started shouting exemption.

 

PLUS, I can't realistically see that the consultant would've submitted (a polite) notice to the LPA, for a 25% reduction based on DDD exemption!

 

Selective branch removal/dead-wooding/felling etc, yes... all well feasible under exemption...... but a 25% reduction??

 

 

C'mon Tony, if that notice had come through to you, you'd have laughed at him.

 

 

Sure (laughed - then banged my head against my desk for an hour). I think we're all agreed that somethings gone a bit wrong here! The clarification wasn't aimed at anyone in particular, just a bolt on to the discussion for anyone not so clued up on the intricacies of the legislation!

 

I've got my own red tape knots to sort out at the moment and hadn't got round to getting past my summary before various people including yourself hit the nail on the head a number of times.

[Bundle 2]

At the risk of muddying the waters...( not possible you think) Well done managing to extract the necessary coherence in this thread as the situation is not easy to explain without keeping it simple; and in so doing some of the more convoluted legal implications a bit glossed over....No criticism here folks..BUT.

Im not sure if some of the original questions were addressed as they appear in the first post....(? ) In this regard. here is a link that I hope will illuminate at least some of them as I saw it....

 

Section 211 Notices - Tree Owner's refusal to allow works

 

cheers.

[Bundle 2]

 

Section 211 Notices - Tree Owner's refusal to allow works

 

cheers.

 

I realise that section 211 is not a TPO...However I was thinking along the lines that it is reasonable to extrapolate similarities or draw parallels from it being a land charge. from there being conditions active (based on permissions) and the legal status of, for example, works.....given the none too clear nature of misadministration thus far...it was this question that got me to thinking of this thread...

 

"So did the council, by deciding the felling also decide the tree was exempt and was the prunning to make safe (less work) exempt also? "

 

"Judicial review's perhaps a bit harsh at this stage..... maybe further on down the line in order to pick apart the legalities concerning the maladministration of the relevant statutes, (as you say) SHOULD the LPA insist on felling..... but IMO you DEFINATELY have cause to start making a few noises with the Local Govt. Ombudsman, with regards to the manor in which the TO has acted." Andy -seems about right. Perhaps I make more of the legal conflicts than necessary...

[Scooter]

Hello,

 

This is my first post be gentle with me!

 

I have read this thread with interest (very quickly if I make mistakes I apologise in advance) and whilst I acknowledge the original question was about TPO legislation, it is a little more involved.

 

The main starting point seems to be the TO believes the HC tree should be felled due to DDD. After that it seems they have made administration errors, (I believe that doesn’t mean it is maladministration if they have corrected there errors, and they seemed to have entered in to dialogue with you so I assume it has or is going to be corrected.)

 

So, thinking about the HC tree why has the TO requested it to be felled. They must have had strong reason to believe it possessed an unacceptable risk. What was the location of the tree? Was it adjacent to a highway, over a public place, within falling distance of a property?

 

What was the condition of the tree, did it have structural defects, was it decling in health how sever was the BC, was the bark splitting on the tree, etc, etc?

 

There must have been a few digital photos taken of the trees in question, any chance of posting them so we can have a more visually balanced appreciation of the situation?

 

The work on the SB to my knowledge has being carried out without authorisation. Any reputable and knowledgeable contractor would know that any works to protected trees needs authorisation. If a situation arises as in this case when pruning is required because of damage etc, then the correct practice would have been to contact the LA and explain what had occurred. If this would have happened in this situation then the LA wouldn’t not have needed to call the tree owner and respond to them in the manner that’s been described.

 

There are always two side to every story and effective communication, clear heads and understanding with all the required and supplied information always in my experience leads to constructive and positive outcomes.

 

I look forward to some photos.

 

Scooter

[Scooter]

Having read the recent post I would like to add the following.

 

It seems the HC has bleeding canker and is adjacent to a dwelling. The owner of the nearby dwelling (who is not the tree owner) wants the tree felling. The LA TO noted the BC and a split in the branch of the HC over the dwelling and decided that the risk was too great and advised on the tree being felled. The contractor who did the work felt the tree did not need to be felled, as did you Topcat

 

Its widely acknowledge that HC are not effective in the best of times of stopping the ingression of decaying organisms. If a limb on a HC over a domestic dwelling was and has been split for some time it is a high possibility that decay will have already spread in to that limb, and felling it may seem to be a sensible and responsible approach to ensure the safe retention of the adjacent property and life. Gibbon in an earlier post details this very well and other approaches to continued tree cover.

 

For me I would still like to see some photos. I acknowledge and support your comments on not wanting to ID the site, LA or the TO, that’s why I requested photos of the tree only. So let’s see some photos of the tree please, so we can all have a more balanced situation to consider.

 

I also note that your comments concerning Arbtalk being for discussion, not ripping individuals etc to pieces. However that doesn’t seem to follow with every one on this site or to be the rules of the site. Khriss has already described the TO as a **** (and later asked if it was a specific TO in Wakefield), Bundle 2 left sarcastic comments about the TO being a genii and Andy Clark informed that the consultant should be shoot and the TO sacked, then he mentioned professionalism?

 

As I said earlier,

 

There are always two sides to every story and effective communication, clear heads and understanding with all the required and supplied information always in my experience leads to constructive and positive outcomes.

 

I look forward to some photos.

 

Scooter

[Andy Clark]

I also note that your comments concerning Arbtalk being for discussion, not ripping individuals etc to pieces. However that doesn’t seem to follow with every one on this site or to be the rules of the site. Khriss has already described the TO as a **** (and later asked if it was a specific TO in Wakefield), Bundle 2 left sarcastic comments about the TO being a genii and Andy Clark informed that the consultant should be shoot and the TO sacked, then he mentioned professionalism?

 

As I said earlier,

 

There are always two sides to every story and effective communication, clear heads and understanding with all the required and supplied information always in my experience leads to constructive and positive outcomes.

 

Indeed they do Scooter.....

 

So does keeping things in the context by which they are said!

 

Agreed and wholly accepted, that yes, I did make derogatory remarks as to my views of the consultant and TO..... but they are exactly that, views! And they were posted/noted as such, in response to Topcat's direct question.

 

I'm sure you'll agree however, that the other 9,950 or so characters that were used to form my worded response to the matter at hand, were strung together in a more 'constructive and positive' manner??

[Andy Collins]

Scooter, your points as to the rules on posting are duly noted, and I shall check the posts to ensure they comply with the forum rules, time permitting. FTR to date I have received no formal complaints re: the above.

[Khriss]

unfortunatley eric the viking is in my area bradastan what !!!!! he is :mad1:your thinking of steve waterson he,s now @ leeds or was ?

 

Unluuuuucckkkyyyy !

 

K