daltontrees

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

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.

Then you'd be as big an arsehole as the neighbour...