TPO tree removal

[DanVC]

I know that if a protected tree is felled without consent because it is dead or dangerous (proven), a replacement tree must be planted and this automatically becomes subject to the original TPO.

 

My question relates however to if permission is given by an authority to remove a protected tree, is the replanting solely subject to condition and therefore not automatically subject to protection?

 

Thanks.

[Adam M]

The tpo needs to be varied or a new tpo made. The new tree isn't automatically covered unless the original tree was removed illegally. This means that the tpo is then subject to the objection process.

[Chris at eden]

The tpo needs to be varied or a new tpo made. The new tree isn't automatically covered unless the original tree was removed illegally. This means that the tpo is then subject to the objection process.

 

Sorry but not in my opinion. Trees which are replaced in accordance with section 206 are automatically protected by the original order. This would include:

 

1. As Adam said if the tree is removed in contravention.

2. or, if the tree is removed as it was dead, or an immediate risk of serious harm. This second one doesn't apply in woodlands.

 

Trees replaced subject to condition are not protected so a new order would be needed. You could vary but in my experience the council's legal department would prefer that a new one is made.

 

The other distinction is that 206 is a duty so cannot be appealed whereas conditions can. Although in reality you could ignore the duty and appeal the TRN as a work around. Doubt it would get you far though.

 

Cheers

[daltontrees]

Sorry but not in my opinion. Trees which are replaced in accordance with section 206 are automatically protected by the original order. This would include:

 

1. As Adam said if the tree is removed in contravention.

2. or, if the tree is removed as it was dead, or an immediate risk of serious harm. This second one doesn't apply in woodlands.

 

Trees replaced subject to condition are not protected so a new order would be needed. You could vary but in my experience the council's legal department would prefer that a new one is made.

 

The other distinction is that 206 is a duty so cannot be appealed whereas conditions can. Although in reality you could ignore the duty and appeal the TRN as a work around. Doubt it would get you far though.

 

Cheers

 

Well advised. And specifically s206(4) "In relation to any tree planted pursuant to this section, the relevant tree preservation order shall apply as it applied to the original tree."

 

And the remedies open to a LPA are easier to pursue for contravention of the duty unde s.203 than for failure to meet a TPO approval condition, although pretty weak.

 

Aforegoing does not apply to Scotland.

[Adam M]

Sorry but not in my opinion. Trees which are replaced in accordance with section 206 are automatically protected by the original order. This would include:

 

1. As Adam said if the tree is removed in contravention.

2. or, if the tree is removed as it was dead, or an immediate risk of serious harm. This second one doesn't apply in woodlands.

 

Trees replaced subject to condition are not protected so a new order would be needed. You could vary but in my experience the council's legal department would prefer that a new one is made.

 

The other distinction is that 206 is a duty so cannot be appealed whereas conditions can. Although in reality you could ignore the duty and appeal the TRN as a work around. Doubt it would get you far though.

 

Cheers

 

Hi Chris, what bit of what I said is different to what you said? (apart from I neglected to include the exp replacement)?

[Chris at eden]

Hi Chris, what bit of what I said is different to what you said? (apart from I neglected to include the exp replacement)?

 

Hi Adam

 

Not sure what exp is?

 

The OP was about trees which are removed because they are dead or dangerous and that the replacement was automatically protected. This is essentially correct although the wording for those exemption or exceptions has now changed. Ah, maybe that is what exp is?

 

I got the impression from your post that you were saying this was not correct and that the replacements were only automatically protected if the tree was removed in contravention.

 

Apologies if I misunderstood you post, just trying to advise the op.

 

Cheers

[Adam M]

Hi Adam

 

Not sure what exp is?

 

The OP was about trees which are removed because they are dead or dangerous and that the replacement was automatically protected. This is essentially correct although the wording for those exemption or exceptions has now changed. Ah, maybe that is what exp is?

 

I got the impression from your post that you were saying this was not correct and that the replacements were only automatically protected if the tree was removed in contravention.

 

Apologies if I misunderstood you post, just trying to advise the op.

 

Cheers

 

No probs, and exp = exception

[DanVC]

Thank you everyone for your replies and discussion.