daltontrees

Oh great it's been another waste of time, as usual OP hasn't bothered his/her hole to reply or acknowledge help. Can't be bothered with this any more. In future if think I can help I will ask at least one supplementary question and if an OP doesn't reply then I'll assume they are a time-waster.

too many unkowns to attempt an answer. Cypress, what species? Location and soils, esp shrinkable clays? Why 3 metres? And I'm not sure I understand the question.

Slight amendment to what I said. The RPA is quite arbitrary and there is no evidence that it is correct, and plenty of evidence that it isn't. But isn't a development context it is unfortunately considered industry best practice. What it isn't is the extent of rooting. The full extent is probably abot 4 times as large. So if the TO is making a fuss abut a TPO application and proposals to work close to tree but outside RPA, there may be legitimate grounds to make a fuss. Also if it's an ancieint or veteran tree.

To answer your questions. Yes. Tell them to f*&% off as nicely as possible. Yes, but it's progressively rrare on accont of the 2nd answer.

Nope. The whole point of permitted development is that permission is not required because in principle the use is acceptable. The only requirement is "a written description of the proposed development, the materials to be used and a plan indicating the site". TCP (GPD)(England) Order 2015 Schedule 2 Part 6 E. The Council can contest the use only the way it can contest any other use of permitted development rights i.e. if it does not comply with the rights. But that is an enforcement issue, not a permission issue. You don't need to prove you need it. Only if challenged. Of course the Council could take an application for determination as a tip-off of the proposed use, but it can't use that as a reason to withhold approval of the design aspects, that would be ultra vires. It can only force you to stop, but it can't stop you starting.

That's not my understanding. Forestry buildings are permitted, but an application for determination as to whether prior approval is required needs to be submitted. The Council cannot contest the use, only the siting, appearance and materials. But the buildings must be used for forestry on that land. You can't use it to build a facility that you're running a business from, even if it's a forestry business.

If it is permitted development then it doesn't need permission i.e.it is permitted. What country are you in? Different rules around the UK.

Hmm, I wouldn't be confident of that yet.

I haven't been following this too closely, but your suggested text probably isn't adequate. Case law indicates that liability starts from the time when the tree owner became (or, in some cases, shuld have become) aware of the damage being caused. As Iunderstand it the neighbour's insurer is just casting vague aspersions without proof. Typical insurer bullying (or at best, lazy) tactics. But the onus is on you now to satisfy yourself (not them) as to your liability. Once you've done that it's a matter of whether you tell them or not. If you are confident that you are not liablie, you needn't say anything more, but if you have gone to the effort of getting professional advice I'd share it with them. And you wouldn't have to to say you'll remove the tree. Just that you'll take appropriate action. Which might be something less drastic than removal. And be aware that you are discussing this in public. The insurer could have access to this forum, just as you have.

Shouldn't really be discussing in public.

2 situations. Before permission there is NO impediment to pre-emptive felling, not even ater an applicaiton goes in. The Council can be annoyed as they want by it but they cannot lawfully delay or refuse permission because of pre-emptive felling. There's a BNG implication (England only) but that's a different matter. After permission, if there are conditions that say no felling, then felling would be an enforcement issue, but enforcement powers are weak, being only enough to stop someone continuing to do something or making them do something they haven't done yet. And after development is complete the planning conditions disappear.

Grouping trees is the lazy and allowable shortcut of the chancer. It really makes it impossible to compete with them if you bid to do a survey properly. the new Standard should be a little bit better in some respects but the committeee tried to delete the requirement for a topo survey for peripheral trees, and the RICS guidance for topo surveys has a major flaw that ensures there is no consistent approach to capturing individual trees. So it might also get considerably worse.

Unfortunately there is no protection of trees during the planning application process, pre-emptive felling can take place any time even after application is submitted. It's a joke really.

No chance of it dealing with carbon capture. None. We tried to get it to address biodiversity (which is after all a legal requirement in England) but the Chair of the committee isn't interested and he vetoes anything he doesn't personally want.

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