daltontrees

No the time extension rule for planning apps does not extend to TPO apps.

Yes they do differ. In a CA you notify and the Council can only stop you by making a TPO. In a TPO you apply and the Council can stop you by refusing, or in this case doing nothing, which is what is known as a 'deemed refusal'. This rule only varies between Councils when they don't know what they are doing and don't know the law as it stands.

Appeal. It is a deemed refusal. Theere's a right of appeal. It costs nothing. Do it right away, as the right of appeal has a time limit. You might actually be too late. If you want specifics, say what country you are in.

CAVAT, apart from being a load of bollocks, is not applicable to private trees.

I interpret the Regulations differently. The CA exemption is in Reg 15 which exempts work "in the circumstances mentioned in regulation 14.". The circumstances in Reg 14 are that "Nothing in regulation 13 shall prevent... the cutting down, topping, lopping or uprooting of a tree ... which is dead;" Regulation 13 relates only to TPOs. The special 5 day rule in Reg 14 can only only apply to TPO situations. The requirement for a 5 day notice is not a 'circumstance', it is an additional legal rule for TPO'd trees. It is an alternative to a TPO application. If anything this is supported by the part of the guidance you cite. However, the guidance is badly written and should say "A section 211 notice is not required where the cutting down, topping, lopping or uprooting of a tree would be permissible under any exception to the requirement to apply for consent as if a tree was under a Tree Preservation Order." I guess the subtle but important grammatical distinction was beyond the writer of the guidance. This is consistent with the principle that CA tree rules are precautionary rather than preventative. Thus, in TPOs application are downgraded to notifications, and in CAs notifications are downgraded to nothing. The more I look at it the more I am convinced that the law is framed in the way I interpret it i.e. no 5 day notice for dead CA tree removals. In Scotland the rules are a little different and are scattered across various instruments in a way that makes their understanding really really difficult, but essentially there has never been a 'dead' exemption, on the basis presumably that a dead tree is not a tree and is de facto not protected. No notice of intention to remove a dead tree is required or even possible at law. An attempt at interpreting the English s.211 notice requirements in CAs for dead trees would be futile. The CA exemptions in Scotland have never been stated as being those relevant to TPOs.

The 5 day rule only applies to TPO'd dead trees. Does not apply in CAs.

When you say RPA, do you mean CA? The normal situation is, any works implicit or explicit in the approved application don't need separate notification. It is also very common for permission conditions to say no trees are to be touched during development. If it's a CA and they removals are not mandated by the planning permission, the way forward is to see if the permission conditions contain an approval mechanism for additional tree works. If so, use that. If not, it's normal CA rules. Best to document for client protection whether the tree condition is wholly or partly due to the works that have taken place around them. Remember, if it's a CA you don't have to give a reason for the works, but it sure as heck helps if you volunteer them when you notify.

I have always thought that in some way the planning application should confer some temporary protection of a tree, but there is no basis in law for this that i can find. However, take a tree down on a site with a live application and you might find your client gets a TPO on the whole site the next day. Indeed, this happened to a client of mine last month. About 100 trees TPO'd because a few small trees got bulldozed during site preparations. If nothing else, you will piss off the planners at a time when compromises need to be negotiated. You'll know this anyway, but BS5837 only requires risks that are 'serious and imminent' to be flagged up. Any lesser risks can also be mentioned under the general heading of management recommendations but they may be hard to justify doing urgently unless they are a risk in teh context of current or permitted development. I know you to be a QTRA user, so I'd also mention that I equate 'serious and imminent' to QTRA 'unacceptable', about 1/1,000 or greater, as this seems to be an appropriate benchmark. It's a different business assessing risk relative to proposed development. This is hypothetical risk that can only materialise when consent is granted and development is underway or completed. I think it's pretty hard to justify pre-emptive felling for that kind of risk, but it can be thrown into the mix in a planning application as the basis for removal. If the tree is over 5 cu.m. and not in one of the exempted clsses, a felling license/permission may be needed. The risk exemption is 'prevention of immediate danger' which I benchmark to QTRA 'unacceptable' too. Trees with large cavities may be batty, so I'd look out for that. I think it is worth bearing in mind that unless motives are to be misconstrued the removal of a whole tree on a planning application site is hard to justify if lesser works like reduction would reduce the risk considerably while deferrring a decision on the rest of the tree.

I wouldn't rule out an on-the-spot TPO. These have been done in the past. If it's permitted by SOs, and a witness second Council officer is there, the Order's effective. Last Council I worked for had SOs that allowed it in emergencies if it was done with the verbal agreement of the committee chair or vice-chair. Throw it in the bin at your client's peril!

My ubnderstanding has always been that cherry 's main means of defence after breakages or abrasions (and so after pruning) is the production of gum which blocks the infection pathways. This is at its maximum production in summer months, therfore that is the best time to prune. However, I don't know how a tree knows when it is 'summer'. Some tree species react to day length, some to air temperature. If cherries react to daylength then gum production will tail off even if autumn and early winter is mild. If so, pruning now would be risky.

I wonder. Armillaria famoiusly can move on to its next host by root contact, and doesn't seem to fruit that often. Do you think this one is fruiting because the tree is elevated off the ground and there is no other way of moving on?

In theory (and I have heard of it happen) the TPO could hand-write a TPO there and then like a parking ticket and serve it on you. The COuncil doesn't need to 'determine' the application, it's not an application, it's a notification. It nooed sto decide whether to stop you by making a TPO or if it is being helpful it could tell you that it's OK to go ahead. I once had 2 squad cars and 4 rozzers turn up, along witht the whole committee of the local residents association, just as I had attached a cable to the top of the biggest tree on a site and the guys were tensioning the winch up. It was really hard to get it across to the baying crowd that I didn't need a bit of paper to say I could go ahead, I just needed the absence of a bit that said I can't go ahead. In the end I told them that we were in teh right, we were doing teh work and if they stopped us I would sue for a day's wages for 6 guys, trasnport etc. Alternatively they were welcome to stay and be witnesses in a CA prosecution if they really really thought I was dumb enough to be going ahead without having followed due process. There was mumblings, scribbling of my reggie plates and phone number, pocketing of the business cards I handed over and then sheepish withdrawal when I said there was a small chance the tree might go the wrong way and squash them or a car.

That's never Honey Fungus. Looks right for Mycena. No threat to tree anyway, might even be doing some good.

No comprende!? You don't need to justify felling in a CA. Except retrospectively when exceptions are relied on.

I've had acoupel of itneresting ones recently tyhat maybe illustrates the issues. The first was that a Council was adopting (in its published guidance) a higher standard of proof for something than the law required. I have gone through the Council like a wrecking ball, they won't do this to me or anyone else again. I have written to the Chief Executive (yes, paper) demanding that the guidance be withdrawn, as it is ultra vires. I am like a Jack Russell with these things I will not let it go, and I fully expect the guidance to be withdrawn. The monitoring officer is on it a tthe moment. The second was a high hedge case, the Council granted a Notice, my client thought the height reduction was excessive (it was) and appealed. My appeal found in his favour but didn't go far enough. I discovered the appeal Reporter hadn't measured the hedge, and so the calculated action hedge height was wrong. DPEA said the only remedy was a JR at the Court of Session (£10K, and within 6 weeks) but I argued that we were not disputing the result of the calculation but the failure to measure and therefore to use the right info. DPEA dingied it. I complained. Dingied it still. Appealed to ombudsman, who after 6 months said no point in upholding the complaint since the DPEA had no legal mechanism to change its decision anyway. I protested that even if no remedy was possible it was part of the ombudsman's remit to report anyway so that this could be used as evidence of a basis to change the law if necessary. Eventually the obudsman took up the case again, I thunk someone went out and checked the measurements, found a mistake and concluded that this probably resulted in an unfair High Hedge notice and begrudgingly the DPEA admitted the error but said it couldn't do anything about it. However I can now use this as proof that the Notice is unenforceable. In other words, we got there eventually. But i think anyone less tenacious would have given up long ago as evey possible obstacle was presented. It was exhausting, to be honest. 2 1/2 years!

Indeed, why complain except to help the next guy? If you are within rights to remove tree, do it and let the Council decide whther it should try and do anyhting about it. Its legal dept will probably close the file at that point.

I don't think this is quite right. If a TPO is made to stop removal of a dodgy tree, the Council is not liable for damage. It only becomes liable after a subsequent TPO application is refused AND if the application made it clear that the damage was foreseeable. There's another twist too. If the damage was so foreseeable that it was serious and imminent, the Council would not be liable because the risk reduction works could have been (and therefore should have been) done under exemption. But in general yes, Councils usually know and sometimes should be reminded that their refusals do not come without risk to them.

The Council is entitled to say that it would like lesser works than the notified ones, But it can't insist, all it can do either expressly or hinted at is to threaten to put a TPO on unless you agree. Sometimes this is bluff, sometimes ignorance, sometimes real. But if your bluff is not called by a TPO within 6 weeks, you can go ahead and remove the tree. But remember, the Council can make a TPO after the 6 weeks but before removal and it trumps the notice.

I believe you are right the 6 weeks start when you send the notice, but to my mind that would put the onus on you to prove you sent it on a particular date and calculate your expiration. Maybe not a huge problem to do but on the other hand if you work to the dates on the planning portal then it takes the problem away, customer can also see the date is official, so I have always just followed that path as least resistance. 6 weeks from Council's receipt of the notice, or the date they could be expected to have received it, basically posting date plus a couple of working days. I have recently had a Council take 2 weeks to acknowledge receipt, and they said 6 weeks started then. I disagreed and they reluctantly accepted I was right. Tree was removed 6 weeks and 3 days after notice was posted. I always post my notices, but I think the situation in Scotland is diffrerent whereby ePlannign route is not mandatory. You literally can't go wrong with a posted notice and proof of posting. It is un-resistible by the Council, so I'd say that's the line of least resistance.

I think you are right, but I don't agree about Google Lens, it is pretty hit or miss when I try it. It's pretty rubbish on fingi, anyway, and occasiolanly right about plants.

Kevin is right up to a point. The law (E&W) says a Notice cannot require removal below 2m and this has been interpreted as not allowing action that will kill the hedge and therefore indirectly result in less than 2m. Personally I think that is a load of bollocks, but it seems to be embedded in practice now since one of the very earliet appeals. It is a matter of interpretation, not a matter of law. Again, personally, I am convinced it would not stand up in court, but then who has £7,000 to raise a judicial review against and Inspector's decision?

Anybody out there in central Scotland thinking about getting into consultancy and survey work over the next few months with a view to building up to a few days a week? Give me a shout. I have loads of work and my assistant is at capacity too. Also I noticed South Lanarkshire Council is looking for a full time arb assistant, looks like decent money if you don't mind working for a Council and prefer to stay dry and warm. I'll pass on the job spec if anyone wants it.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/phytophthora-pluvialis#symptoms

I'm not going to spend time answering his question unless he aswers mine, otherwise I will be (re)writing a book on generalities relating to trees near buildings. Again.

I have always tied my own. I was taught to tighten it up so hard that it cannot possibly ever ever come undone. Like 200kg pull. To make it LOLERable stick a waterproof label with date of tying on it and then seal in with heat shrink wrap tube. My hot tip is to remember to put the shrink wrap tube on the loop before you tie the knot. The sliding one cannot be tightened up and is therefore in theory vulnerable to working itself loose. Even if you adjust it to its final loop lengths then tighten it, it doesn't cinch together quite the same.