Sect 211/CA hedge advice

[cheradenine]

Hi. Advice Pls!

 

We have moved to a house in a CA, where the previous 90yo elderly owner had let everything grow out of hand - particularly large numbers of horrible, nasty, not-nice conifers throughout the garden, and a row of them on the boundary that are now, severely, blocking out the light. (Seriously, it’s like living in a forest). None of the trees is subject to a TPO.

 

We have saved up the not inconsiderable pennies and are using an arborist to do the work. The Section 211 notice (prepared by arborist with plan) has been submitted (and I understand the ramifications of it being a notice rather than an ‘application’).

 

As predicted, the local busybodies camping on the planning portal site went to DEFCON 1 when they read the notice to fell 9 conifers. The fact that - literally - we are the only people that can even see those trees seems not to be important when the opportunity to interfere arises.

 

TO duly beetles round - kind of realises the ones out back shouldn’t be a problem (After all, they’re impeding some other trees that might one day become nice; hard to make a case for public amenity that nobody can see).. But he’s on about leaving “one or two of the better” Thuja along the boundary (as ‘specimen’ trees, whatever that means) and wants to “discuss” it.

 

Leaving aside my irritation that our ‘notice’ is being treated as an ‘application’, TBH, as far as I’m concerned, that row of conifers is a hedge - it was clearly planted with the intention of screening next door; you can see it's been topped at some point - it's got out of control due to neglect; the arborist has put it on plan as a blob, and it’s on the 211 as a ‘row’. Albeit it’s a hedge now 30ft tall.

 

Now I’m sure everyone involved are nice people really, the TO likely has the grey mafia to answer to and it’s not in the Arb’s interests to rock the boat, but I feel like I’m being manipulated merely to extract some kind of compromise on behalf of those that don’t have to live with it. I’m further worried that accepting changes my ‘hedge’ into a ‘hedge, and some specimen trees’ - so future management then becomes harder.

 

I can smell a fight coming, so I want to make sure my legal understanding is correct. Is this a hedge? (ISTM it matches the definition in in the Anti-social behaviour act). If so, what are the rules about hedges? I’ve read elsewhere (AA site) that a TPO can’t be applied to hedges, but I can find no direct reference. May I regard that portion of the 211 as therefore a mere courtesy, and it can do so anyway? The fear is of course a TPO being applied - and I have no basis to know how likely or possible that would be - but it would feel odd to me given the discussion of “one or two” implies none of them being particularly special, cypress hardly being rare (there’s a metric boatload of them just next door), it’s not some beautiful old oak, it’s not screening anything, it’s apparently just to “create some visual variation” ?! I get the feeling this ambiguity and veiled threat is used to bully people into withdrawing from doing things that in no way could legitimately result in a TPO..

[Chris at eden]

Sounds like you have a decent understanding. They cant TPO a hedge. The direct reference you are looking for is in the online guidance. See below link:

 

Tree Preservation Orders – general | Planning Practice Guidance

 

You will note that although they cant TPO a hedge, they can TPO an overgrown hedge which has become a line of trees.

 

Send me some pics by email if you wish and I will give you my opinion. Website link below and email address on there.

 

Hope this helps.

[cheradenine]

Thanks for the link. I'll get the camera out and take a pic or two.

 

It's quite interesting that the paragraph 012 was what I'd seen - but I cannot find a reference to this in the actual legislation

 

For example, the Anti-social Behaviour act s.66 handily defines 'high hedges' :

(1)In this Part “high hedge” means so much of a barrier to light or access as—

(a)is formed wholly or predominantly by a line of two or more evergreens; and

(b)rises to a height of more than two metres above ground level.

(2)For the purposes of subsection (1) a line of evergreens is not to be regarded as forming a barrier to light or access if the existence of gaps significantly affects its overall effect as such a barrier at heights of more than two metres above ground level.

(3)In this section “evergreen” means an evergreen tree or shrub or a semi-evergreen tree or shrub.

 

It seems to me that if I were in dispute with a neighbour over my high hedge based on the above, a defence of "it's not a hedge, the trees are now tall enough to have become a row of trees instead of a hedge" would rightly get dismissed!

 

Most of the rest of the guidance is pretty easy to find in the primary legislation, and I'd thought 'planning guidance' was just a kind of 'reasonable interpretation of the law' (and sometimes can be completely wrong -- a good example being that about permission for Solar Panels in a CA). I can't even find mention of hedges. Makes me a bit nervous that it's actually got no legal standing at all ?!