Deviation from tpo permission.

[treequip]

But..............

So you prune the tree, and then two years later the permission has expired. Now the preserved tree is in a state/condition for which permission was never granted?

What then?

 

Just re apply, its an unfinished project

[Stubby]

But..............

So you prune the tree, and then two years later the permission has expired. Now the preserved tree is in a state/condition for which permission was never granted?

What then?

 

You do it before it expires .................

[Gary Prentice]

But..............

So you prune the tree, and then two years later the permission has expired. Now the preserved tree is in a state/condition for which permission was never granted?

What then?

 

I can't see any comeback for doing lesser works. Has anyone ever been approached by the LA to be told they haven't lifted, thinned, reduced a tree to the full extent of the consent?

 

I wonder what the situation would be, if there was a replanting condition and you didn't fell and replant? You could have butchered the tree, destroying any amenity value and then argue that since you haven't removed it there's no requirement to replant.

 

Just thinking out loud.

[Shane]

Just because you apply to do something to a tree doesn't mean you HAVE to do what is approved. You can do 'up to' what is approved and not more.

 

The duration of the approval can be 12 or 24 months (not sure what criteria they use but I get both from our LA).

 

No reason not to do it in stages.

 

If you work in Ferring you will be hassled by Mr and MRS Nothing-Better-To-Do every time you go near a tree. No doubt other areas have a similar reputation.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

I can't see any comeback for doing lesser works. Has anyone ever been approached by the LA to be told they haven't lifted, thinned, reduced a tree to the full extent of the consent?

 

I wonder what the situation would be, if there was a replanting condition and you didn't fell and replant? You could have butchered the tree, destroying any amenity value and then argue that since you haven't removed it there's no requirement to replant.

 

Just thinking out loud.

 

Recently had just that scenario Gary.

 

Approved to fell 4x Mont pine within a linear group TPO of 21 trees, valid 2 years, conditioned to replant.

 

Felled 2 - replant condition applies. Reduced back weight on 1, took the top out and left the stem of the 4th.

 

Money issues with land owner precluded completion of the full spec.

 

There was a 5th that split a side and I took it down as a 5-day notice.

 

TO chased up replanting expecting 5 new trees. Chased me until I pointed out that the condition applies to the land owner not the contractor but that's another story!

 

I pointed out that only 2 had been felled with re-plant condition and 1 felled as a 5 day notice (conditions not applicable) and since 2 had not been felled there couldn't be a replant condition.

 

Any lesser work up to and including felling was, by default, approved by dint of the felling approval according to the TO.

 

This scenario gets a bit more complicated in that I initially applied for and gained approval for TPO work, then afterwards realised I'd need a FL so applied and got that too.

 

It's only a matter of interest and procedure, but I suggested to the TO that they should perhaps have cancelled the TPO application once it was realised that a FL was required and as such, it should be FC not LA that are chasing up the replant. Any thoughts on that??

[Gary Prentice]

Kevin,

I just got a headache from reading that, so can well imagine how all of this must have progressed. This is the site we were talking about some months back?

 

I'm not going to answer 'off the top of my head' as there are a number of points where I think I need to be 100% right, otherwise the final outcome would be wrong.

 

I'll PM you later.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Kevin,

I just got a headache from reading that, so can well imagine how all of this must have progressed. This is the site we were talking about some months back?

 

I'm not going to answer 'off the top of my head' as there are a number of points where I think I need to be 100% right, otherwise the final outcome would be wrong.

 

I'll PM you later.

 

Yes mate, it was the one we talked about before!!

 

It's all gone quiet for the time being but I need to poke the landowner again soon. I couldn't get (what I thought was) a sensible answer from TO or FC rep. I think it was "too hard" so I got views and opinions. I let it ride because it's the land owner rather than myself that carries the liability. I just wanted to try and get a definitive answer, I think I set my sights / expectation too high!! Don't spend any valuable time pondering it (unless it suits!!)

[Arborist]

I can't see any comeback for doing lesser works. Has anyone ever been approached by the LA to be told they haven't lifted, thinned, reduced a tree to the full extent of the consent?

 

I wonder what the situation would be, if there was a replanting condition and you didn't fell and replant? You could have butchered the tree, destroying any amenity value and then argue that since you haven't removed it there's no requirement to replant.

 

Just thinking out loud.

 

A large Horse Chestnut next door to me had a TPO on it and they got consent to fell but they left the main stem as a monolith.

The tree officer conditioned a new tree to be planted.

He said to me that the tree is still standing so they can't get them to plant a new tree.

[Chris at eden]

A large Horse Chestnut next door to me had a TPO on it and they got consent to fell but they left the main stem as a monolith.

The tree officer conditioned a new tree to be planted.

He said to me that the tree is still standing so they can't get them to plant a new tree.

 

That's a cop out by the TO. Is anyone really suggesting that for the purpose of the legislation which is all about visual amenity that the tree is still standing? its clearly not.

 

Serve a TRN and if the owner has an issue with that he can appeal. I'm fairly confident that the PINS inspector would have little sympathy for the tree owner. They are abusing the regulations.

[Chris at eden]

Just because you apply to do something to a tree doesn't mean you HAVE to do what is approved. You can do 'up to' what is approved and not more.

 

The duration of the approval can be 12 or 24 months (not sure what criteria they use but I get both from our LA).

 

No reason not to do it in stages.

 

If you work in Ferring you will be hassled by Mr and MRS Nothing-Better-To-Do every time you go near a tree. No doubt other areas have a similar reputation.

 

I don't see it. If you apply to fell and get consent based on tree replacement that continues the amenity on the site. If you then hack the tree to pieces and leave it looking a mess that destroys amenity. Risky move that one if you ask me. I still think you could serve a TRN and if they defend by saying they are not going to fell you could start looking at it as wilful destruction.

 

The two years is the default period as written into the regulations from 2012. They shouldn't be securing this through condition anymore. They can reduce or extend the period if they see fit though. I administer TPOs for an LPA as part of my working life and I've only changed the validity period once since the new regs came in.