Tpo causing issues

[benedmonds]

I've never really understood the rationale about "if the tree was there before the house"

 

IME, many TO's are over protectionist. That other saying "right tree right place" also annoys me. Trees change, so a certain place might be perfect for the first 50 years of a trees life but it might outgrow it. I don't see what is wrong with removing a tree when it gets too big for it's location. I would rather have the option of planting trees that will out grow a place with the intention of removing when still in their prime then planting crappy sorbus everywhere as they don't get big.

 

Back to the original post the appeals people may take a different view if you have a tree hugging TO. Or not if your TO has made a reasonable assessment of the tree.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

If the hotel want to fell it, why was the application only for a crown lift and thin?

 

Perhaps make an application to fell the tree and re-plant a number of trees in appropriate locations in the grounds? If it's refused, appeal the decision and see if a planning inspector views the situation differently.

 

THIS is the only real way forward and to do the best for your client. However, regarding appeals, this should not be undertaken lightly as it is a burden on the tax-payer, albeit it is a valid option.

 

Cheers..

Paul

 

PS The hotel could adopt an alternative marketing strategy for the rooms affected as the 'tree-rooms' giving an insight to the inner crown workings of the 'XYZ' tree (sorry, I missed the species.)

[Roz]

Unless a TPO tree is structurally unsafe, causing direct damage etc etc TOs in general will not let them be felled however close to a building - right or wrong and debate for another thread. This is because works should be for arboricultural reasons not for reasons considered nuisance (although there is no nuisance if you own the tree) as approving such works can set a precedence and you need to be careful.

 

In such a situation even if you apply for a fell and its refused I wouldn't be putting any money down on a appeal being successful as in my experience most appeals are dismissed unless the TOs decision is really crass and the DN issued is poorly worded. Inspectors do enjoy a dig at TOs who word DNs badly but will still dismiss the appeal.

 

I have to say I think its a brick-wall job UNLESS the TO is user friendly.......................

[Chris at eden]

If the hotel want to fell it, why was the application only for a crown lift and thin?

 

Perhaps make an application to fell the tree and re-plant a number of trees in appropriate locations in the grounds? If it's refused, appeal the decision and see if a planning inspector views the situation differently.

 

Good advice. Make sure you get your reasons right though. Your main issues seem to be shading and dominance.

[Chris at eden]

If the tree was there before the hotel.....tough titties and boo hoo to the owners....

 

Seems more like a rubbish excuse to fell a perfectly healthy tree, sometimes as 'professionals' it's incumbent on us to act like professionals and advise accordingly.

 

You would have no chance of defending that through the PINS. The appropriate time to consider that is at the planning application stage.

 

If its inappropriate retention based on proximity, shading and dominance you would struggle to defend it. After all, these are issues that should be considered by the AIA.

[Chris at eden]

Not for the Arb nazis! I've never really understood the rationale about "if the tree was there before the house"

I think some lecturers were spouting that stuff at college when I was there.

 

It doesn't stack up either. If you build a drive up to your boundary and your neighbours tree causes damage, it doesn't matter what was there first you can still claim for the damage.

[daltontrees]

It doesn't matter which came first. The tree was TPOd and unless the reasons that made it suitable for TPO at that time have changed, an appeal shouldn't interforer with the Council's decision to retain it despite the effect it might be having on the current occupier's business. That's neither pro nor anti tree, that's just the way the law and therefore the system is.

 

If the occupier disagrees, an application can be made, and then an appeal. No application fees but unless supported by some substantive argument (which won't come free) this route will cost the occupier. I wouldn't worry about the public purse, it's a level playing field.

 

I agree a 10% reduction (by volume a la 3998) will be put back on by the tree in no time.

[Gary Prentice]

Just musing and probably an unpractical idea, but.

 

If the hotel couldn't let rooms affected by excessive shading, or had to offer them at a lower fee, would that be a foreseeable loss and compensatable?

 

On a refusal to an application to fell that is.

 

I'm sure I'll get shot down in flames for even suggesting it.

[daltontrees]

Just musing and probably an unpractical idea, but.

 

If the hotel couldn't let rooms affected by excessive shading, or had to offer them at a lower fee, would that be a foreseeable loss and compensatable?

 

On a refusal to an application to fell that is.

 

I'm sure I'll get shot down in flames for even suggesting it.

 

A bit of research on 'economic loss' in caselaw and possibly even directly in Mynors, I think will show this is a non-starter. TPOs are after all an imposition on a landowner (if he sees them that way) and if they were to be the trigger for an award of compensation for economic loss, we'd sure know about it.

[Billy68]

Have you any pictures of the tree and location