Couple win case against council on TPO tree

[Gary Prentice]

It was my feeble attempt at sarcasm .....

 

Sorry, went right over my head that:blushing:

[David Humphries]

Come on David, we all know that every tree with a conk is in danger of imminent failure and every tree within a kilometre of a house is going to cause it to collapse around the owners ears.

 

Absolutely

 

 

 

 

.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

That same education must also include Arbs as well as the public

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

And planning departments?

 

Despite existing protections, and regardless of the obvious majesty of tree in your pics, I'd bet, at some point, "someone" is going to have a real or perceived issue with it and, human nature being what it is, the tree will undoubtedly lose.

 

Surely a lack of foresight allowing a build so close to such a tree? If the tree was considered important enough to warrant retention, surely it would have been better to push the building line back far enough to allow for the decades / centuries of tree growth?

 

Maybe in a perfect world....

[difflock]

Never mind filling the gutters with Leaves and encourgaging Insects.

[Gary Prentice]

In my experience, the TO rightly wants to protect and retain as many trees on a development site as possible (that's his/her job) but the planning office have targets set by the authority for new houses each year/5 yr term.

 

The conflict between the two different departments ends up in either tree loss or retained trees under pressure to be inappropriated pruned or removed as soon as the new occupier moves in.

[daltontrees]

The Khan case was presented by the defence that she couldn't be negligent as she could be expected to know that trees caused damage. Something like that anyway.

 

The judge didn't agree from what I remember. Something about the paper she was reading in court and the number of articles which are in that paper which relate to trees and subsidence over the last year or so.

 

Delaware mansions is where they underpinned the whole building not just the damaged part to prevent future damage or continuing nuisance as they put it and claimed for the lot. The council objected to this and lost, got hit with a £1m bill.

 

As I recall, case law has moved to wards clarifying that a tree owner is responsible for subsidence damage caused by roots even if the party suffering damage has not notified the owner.

 

Harsh as this seems, my feeling is that this is the only fair way the law can stand. A tree owner can foresee harm or damage for parts above the ground, and is well able to guard against them by inspection and observation. But below ground the owner can't, and the onus is on the owner to seek professional advice proactively rather than reactively.

 

There's an important distinction between that scenario involving 2 owners and no TPO/CA and the scenario(s) where damage is caused or increased by a Council knowingly or negligently refusing to allow preventative tree work on a protected tree. There is case law for both examples of this, where the protected tree is damaging its owner's building AND where it is damaging a neighbour's building.

[Mick Dempsey]

In my experience, the TO rightly wants to protect and retain as many trees on a development site as possible (that's his/her job) but the planning office have targets set by the authority for new houses each year/5 yr term.

 

The conflict between the two different departments ends up in either tree loss or retained trees under pressure to be inappropriated pruned or removed as soon as the new occupier moves in.

 

 

Ok, Devils advocacy.

 

Is it really the TOs job to retain "as many trees on a development site as possible"?

Shouldn't it be to retain as many as is reasonable or sustainable or some other word.

When I see opinions like that from TOs I think it would confirm to any developers that TOs are "the enemy" and seek to retain trees out of spite or simply to justify their jobs.

[David Humphries]

And planning departments?

 

Despite existing protections, and regardless of the obvious majesty of tree in your pics, I'd bet, at some point, "someone" is going to have a real or perceived issue with it and, human nature being what it is, the tree will undoubtedly lose.

 

Surely a lack of foresight allowing a build so close to such a tree? If the tree was considered important enough to warrant retention, surely it would have been better to push the building line back far enough to allow for the decades / centuries of tree growth?

 

Maybe in a perfect world....

 

 

That particular tree in the images above is on the edge of a National Nature Reserve of ancient wood pasture containing about 200 very old oak pollards.

 

I don't know the actual history of the planning/developement but about 20 of the pollards around the edge of the site were engulfed by the housing.

 

Although they suffer from their proximity to people they're doing fairly well and are (as far as I am aware) not causing too many 'perceived' issues. They all have TPO's.

 

.

 

 

 

Not a perfect world, but a world where both people and nature can coexist

 

 

 

 

.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

That particular tree in the images above is on the edge of a National Nature Reserve of ancient wood pasture containing about 200 very old oak pollards.

 

I don't know the actual history of the planning/developement but about 20 of the pollards around the edge of the site were engulfed by the housing.

 

Although they suffer from their proximity to people they're doing fairly well and are (as far as I am aware) not causing too many 'perceived' issues. They all have TPO's.

 

[ATTACH]209488[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]209490[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]209491[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]209492[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]209493[/ATTACH].

 

 

 

Not a perfect world, but a world where both people and nature can coexist

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

I guess they would benefit from - if you don't like the trees, don't buy the house - sort of situation.

 

Does that sign say "Do not Climb?"

 

Not sure my dog would approve of that!

[David Humphries]

Does that sign say "Do not Climb?"

 

Not sure my dog would approve of that!

 

 

Not entirely sure, it might of once said "Do not Limbo"

 

Strange folks in Suffolkshire

 

 

.