daltontrees

It's pretty grim, concrete footway on one side, impermeable road on the other side and possibly cars have been bumping up on the verge and parking on the roots. Abrasions, superficial decaly and severance already evident. It's a wonder they're still standing

I wold say that the tree can spare none of those roots.

Sounds like it's been what is sometimes called a 'negative survey' i.e. only recording the trees that need work. The report should say as much and should clarify that all the rest are OK. If it doesn't, bin it and get a real surveyor in.

It's not a planning application. It has its own statutory rules. It is application for 'consent'. Planning is an application for 'permission'.

There seem to be 2 versions of this post. I have replied under the other one.

No you don't. The statutory 6 weeks is for Cosnervation Areas. There is no deemed consent for TPO applications, ever. I am guessing you re in England. If Council does not make a decision, it is treated as if it is a refusal. After exactly 8 weeks or any time after, you can appeal to Secretary of State against the deemed refusal. The Council might still make a decision after that and before an appointed Inspector makes a decision.

Legally no requirement to replant. Record all the evidence then remove as and when you see fit. Let Council know and suggest revocation of TPO for that tree.

Another small nail in the coffin of Arbtalk as a credible contribution to arboriculture.

Assuming you are in England.... 2012 Regulations 15.—(1) Section 211(a) (preservation of trees in conservation areas) shall not apply to— .... (b) the cutting down of a tree in accordance with a felling licence granted by the Forestry Commissioners under Part II of the Forestry Act 1967 (Commissioners’ power to control felling of trees); So, applyfor and get license. FC should consult with Council. Doing it the other way round is no use, CA consent is not exemption from requirement for license.

Let me be the first. We don't even know what the owner has asked.

What have you been asked? Has the owner said, what do you think I should do with this tree? There has to be some objective. Does he want to keep it but is worried about risk? Does he want to get rid of it but feels bad about it? What?

I think it has to be asssumed that as with plannng permission the tree obligation runs with the land (s.207 1990 Act), so the current owner could be het. But prosecuting a 2nd hand owner would I think be less potent, as there can be no asssumption of wilful disregard of the requirement. Liability ends after 4 years unless tree replacement notice served.

Ridiculously restricted choices. Tulip tree, an aggressive monster, won't stop till 20m. Pin oak much smaller and there's even a dwarf version. Think 10m. Fickle about soil pH. Nyssa also smaller (10m) and also pH sensitive. Or tell the TO that the birch is native and suitable for the situation and soil, and let him try and serve a Tree Replacement Notice requiring another species.

If you purchase and the original owner is away there is possibly less likelihood of comeback on you. On the face of it a birch is as good as sycampre, and considerably less light demanding so better near habitation.

That is or was a japanese maple, slow to grow and poor at recovering from pruning, especially major pruning. You might get somewhere asking the police to prosecute for criminal damage. Ignore those on here who are advising (hopefully in jest) spiteful and childish retribution. Arbtalk is a total embarrasment sometimes, especially when members of the public come asking for advice. We don't all have pooh fixations, honest.