Tpo ruling

[Joe d]

Hi could do with some advice please , recently we had a client that applied to fell a tree covered by a tpo back in 2007 , permission was granted under the 5 day emergency works ruling , however this work was never carried out for whatever reason , does anyone know if this would still stand or a new application will have to be submitted ? Thanks

[Ian C]

A new app is needed I would think by now.

[skyhuck]

The original consent was obtained incorrectly, the 5 day rule is for safely works that require doing immediately.

 

Someone has been extracting the urine:sneaky2:

 

If the tree had failed injuring someone or damaging property, the owner would be 100% liable, you could not really have better evidence that a tree is unsafe than an agreed 5 day notice, IMO.

[karl]

if the TO had looked at it back then , I don't understand why they would have forced the work through if they considered the tree such a risk

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Hi could do with some advice please , recently we had a client that applied to fell a tree covered by a tpo back in 2007 , permission was granted under the 5 day emergency works ruling , however this work was never carried out for whatever reason , does anyone know if this would still stand or a new application will have to be submitted ? Thanks

 

Stand to be corrected here, and think it could be open to legal challenge, but the 2012 regs combined(?) n superseded all previous regs did they not? Therefore the 2 year rule for expiry of permissions would logically apply...perhaps.

 

Further, as mentioned, a 5-day notice is a safety issue thing and technically consent cannot be granted.

 

The words messy n confused come to mind so to safe guard yourself, and your client, I would go back to the LPA for guidance / advice n don't be surprised they say to 'apply for consent.'

 

Cheers..

Paul

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Forget the history - start afresh.

 

If it had a hazard based approval to fell in 2007, that might indicate that the initial appraisal was overly risk averse. The LA may or may not have visited the tree or may have taken the assessment at face value. Either way, with the benefit of hindsight, you might say it was not an immediate risk of causing serious harm because it still stands.

 

Has the target area changed since then?

 

Re-assess, re-apply....

 

Exceptions relating to applications to carry out work on trees subject to a Tree Preservation Order | Planning Practice Guidance

[Mark Bolam]

Perhaps it was filled with concrete after the 5-day notice was served, which, as we all know, would have made it safe again.

[Peter]

Tut tut Mark, filling trees with concrete is outdated and barbaric in modern tree care.

 

Expanding foam is the modern way.

[Mark Bolam]

Of course.

 

I think I need to go bak to tree colledge.

[Ian C]

Actually shitgo reccomends copious amount of gorilla glue now.