Appeal on tpo decision

[MAPLE LEAF]

I have a client who has an application to fell a oak tree refused but can prune side canopy 2mts.

There not happy about decision and wish to appeal.

The oak concerned is part of a old boundary line, when I saw the client I told them don't think you will get fell but will get prune.

They want to appeal due to tree is heavily shading garden,they have no grass where lawn should be [worst I have seen]but yes tree was there before house.

Can anyone give me any ideas on how they can proceed as the heavy shading is there only thing they can fight with.

Tree is absolutely fine, I think they are wasting there time but they wish to proceed with appeal.

I will not be involved in appeal just want to give advise so when quashed I can still do the pruning work.

Thanks in advance.

[stevelucocq]

Hello

 

there is no legal right to light, also could a shade tolerant grass be used or alternative? Appeals information should be included with the decision notice? If not speak to the local planning department. Your doing the right thing advice your client regarding the options and likely outcome and if they choose to appeal then that is a part of the process. From my experience Sometimes people need a second decision to be made to accept things.

[Roz]

As you have identified there is nothing wrong with the tree in terms of structural integrity so it is highly likely the appeal will be dismissed. As mentioned above light is not a reason, generally for works to TPO trees, works should be for arboricultural reasons not 'convenience'. I know an area of debate but would thinning the canopy out help ? reduce the density of it and try to let in more light through, or crown lifting to let light in under the canopy? And as for a garden what about shade tolerant plants instead of grass?

[scarebit72]

If the application was to fell but the council have given prune as an alternative, the inspectorate will consider the original application at appeal - to fell, yes or no and will answer that. They will disregard the council's decision to allow pruning as this is materially changing the application. If your client wants to appeal the council's decision and the inspectorate don't allow the appeal to fell, he will then have to submit a new application for pruning as the inspectorate won't consider this as an alternative. Obviously, this then adds somewhat to the timescale..........

[Chris at eden]

Hi

 

This goes back to another recent thread about multiple choice applications and consenting lesser works than applied for, but not for different works.

 

If the application wasn't multiple choice i.e. fell or prune, and the Council made the decision to prune as a lesser alternative to a straight forward felling application there may, or may not, be problems with the Inspectorate, as the Council have made a decision they shouldn't have. Of course they may be pragmatic.

 

As Steve says there is no right to light to a garden. However, there is a right to reasonable living conditions, and the reasonable enjoyment of the property. I'd come at it from the angle of unreasonable living conditions, and reduced enjoyment of the house and garden due to the shading. That the tree was there first is irrelevant, the Inspector will take it as he/she finds it.

 

Thinning/lifting/reduction may improve light attenuation to the garden, and there are shade tolerant grass seed mixes for just such situations.

 

Ed

 

 

 

Great response Ed and spot on. I agree I would base the appeal on dominance and how that affects liveability, usable outdoor amenity space etc.

 

The only thing I would add to answer the original question is that the fact that the tree was there first makes no difference. That is an issue that should have been considered when planning consent was given.

 

Also agree, the LPA should not be changing the spec.

 

Cheers,

[Gray git]

I had a tree passed against the recommendation of a tree officer under similar conditions and the fact it was affecting several neighboring property's and according to 2 estate agents discouraging the sale of the property in the final appeal we actually had a agreement of sale from a buyer as long as the tree was removed which the tree officer wasn't interested in rightly so but the planning team had to take into consideration as so permissions the removal which I never thought would be.

Shame, beautiful tree and it'll be a complete git to remove in a few weeks.

[MAPLE LEAF]

Client has now sent off appeal going down route of reasonable living conditions and reasonable enjoyment of the garden.

Thought about shade tolerant grass myself but was too shady even for that.

The garden is approx. 30ft long x 20ft wide and the oaks are right over the whole garden god to think what its like when the leafs fall.

As I told client I am setting a president for this boundary line,will be a shame to fell it if we get okay. But if I don't someone else will.

Will let you know on outcome when I hear.

Thanks again.

[Kveldssanger]

Speaking honestly, it is gutting to see important trees felled for such trivial reasons.

[Paul Barton]

Speaking honestly, it is gutting to see important trees felled for such trivial reasons.

 

 

The appeal hasn't been upheld yet!

[Kveldssanger]

I was mainly commenting on Gray git's comment just above.

 

Speaking on a more macro scale, even the consideration to fell such old trees because of light issues is, to me, poor form. I don't understand the disparity between needs and wants (in favour of wants) - what we need long-term is good health as supported by functional ecosystems, whilst what we want short-term are temporary pleasures that are driven by self-centred (anthropocentric) desires.

 

It strikes me as antithetical when we realise we need to retain our green structures, yet proceed to remove them for reasons that are whimsical at best.