Deviation from tpo permission.

[Chris at eden]

I don't think they have that option. As I understand it they have great difficulty in enforcing it, having to prove that a) the condition was correctly written, and b) they've plenty of evidence that they have attempted to enforce the condition.

 

If they ignore the TRN them the LPA has the right to enter the land and plant the tree, then recover reasonable costs. Yes they need to be water tight but they are prepared by legal, not the TO in my experience so should not be an issue. Tree replacement is a pain to be honest, as is TPO enforcement of any kind. The main problem in my opinion is that non compliance with a TRN is not an offence. If it was and had a fine I'm guessing they would be ignored less often.

[Chris at eden]

Pins is the planning inspectorate, the people you appeal a planning refusal (or a planning condition) to.

 

TRN, tree replacement notice, normally conditioned when consent to remove a TPO'd tree.

 

Not quite.

 

Refusals and conditions are ultimately still appealed to the secretary of state I believe but the majority are then delegated to the pins automatically. The SoS can jump in at any point though and take over. Unlikely with TPO's though.

 

TRN's are not conditioned. To do so would be maladministration. TRN's are served in accordance with section 207 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 when it appears that:

 

1. a replacement condition has been ignored
   
2. the duty to replace in accordance with section 206 has been ignored.
   
3. the duty to replace in accordance with section 213 has been ignored
   

 

Sorry to be picky.

[Gary Prentice]

Not quite.

 

Refusals and conditions are ultimately still appealed to the secretary of state I believe but the majority are then delegated to the pins automatically. The SoS can jump in at any point though and take over. Unlikely with TPO's though.

 

TRN's are not conditioned. To do so would be maladministration. TRN's are served in accordance with section 207 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 when it appears that:

 

1. a replacement condition has been ignored
   
2. the duty to replace in accordance with section 206 has been ignored.
   
3. the duty to replace in accordance with section 213 has been ignored
   

 

Sorry to be picky.

 

 

You're not being picky, you're just informing me of the gaps in my knowledge:biggrin: I stand corrected, both in my terminology and understanding:thumbup:

[daltontrees]

If they ignore the TRN them the LPA has the right to enter the land and plant the tree, then recover reasonable costs. Yes they need to be water tight but they are prepared by legal, not the TO in my experience so should not be an issue. Tree replacement is a pain to be honest, as is TPO enforcement of any kind. The main problem in my opinion is that non compliance with a TRN is not an offence. If it was and had a fine I'm guessing they would be ignored less often.

 

THe Council can enter the land, plant the replacement tree and recover the cst, thogh, can't it? Not quite a disincentive to not replant, but at least the replanting can be assured, which is the main thing.

[daltontrees]

I see that in Scotland the situation is slightly different in that the Council can also recover "such proportion of their administrative expenses as seems to them to be appropriate". This should encourage the offender to replant, as it will almost certainly be cheaper.

[Gray git]

Here is an interesting twist to my original post.

The listed building which the tree grows next to is actually part of the former council offices which are currently empty but they are still paying rent on this as they had a long term tenancy agreement with the local Lord until a point a new tenant can take over the property.

Yesterday I get a call from the planning department asking if I can prioritise the work on this tree as a new tenant has been found but won't take the offices until the tree has been worked on and gutter and roof damage repaired.

Shame it took them 10 weeks to grant the permission, could have saved themselves a whole bunch of rent!

[Billy]

Here is an interesting twist to my original post.

The listed building which the tree grows next to is actually part of the former council offices which are currently empty but they are still paying rent on this as they had a long term tenancy agreement with the local Lord until a point a new tenant can take over the property.

Yesterday I get a call from the planning department asking if I can prioritise the work on this tree as a new tenant has been found but won't take the offices until the tree has been worked on and gutter and roof damage repaired.

Shame it took them 10 weeks to grant the permission, could have saved themselves a whole bunch of rent!

 

 

Typical!

[Chris at eden]

THe Council can enter the land, plant the replacement tree and recover the cst, thogh, can't it? Not quite a disincentive to not replant, but at least the replanting can be assured, which is the main thing.

 

You would think so wouldn't you but people still try to get out of the replanting as long as possible. So 10 site visits later and 10 letters if you are lucky the tree goes in. If not then you have to go in and plant the tree yourself and hope that you can recover the costs. LPA legal departments are not big on taking risks and in reality the local authority doesn't have the resources to do that anymore.

 

If when you turn up o plant the tree the owner prevents access they are subject to a £1,000 fine. Why not put that fine on the none compliance of the TRN? Obviously give them every opportunity to do it but ultimately if they still refuse, hit them with the fine and then say you still need to replant. That way it ends up costing them more, so an incentive.

 

Just my opinion but it takes the responsibility and cost away from the LPA and puts it back where it belongs.

[Gary Prentice]

A local LA apparently no longer prosecutes for TPO contraventions, so to plant a tree in someones garden then chase the money - doubt it.

[daltontrees]

You would think so wouldn't you but people still try to get out of the replanting as long as possible. So 10 site visits later and 10 letters if you are lucky the tree goes in. If not then you have to go in and plant the tree yourself and hope that you can recover the costs. LPA legal departments are not big on taking risks and in reality the local authority doesn't have the resources to do that anymore.

 

If when you turn up o plant the tree the owner prevents access they are subject to a £1,000 fine. Why not put that fine on the none compliance of the TRN? Obviously give them every opportunity to do it but ultimately if they still refuse, hit them with the fine and then say you still need to replant. That way it ends up costing them more, so an incentive.

 

Just my opinion but it takes the responsibility and cost away from the LPA and puts it back where it belongs.

 

True, but it would take a change in primary legislation to make non-replanting an offence. Can't see that happening any time soon.