Sylvia

Just to explain my interest: In our case next door's tree damaged a company car but the company stood the cost and the neighbour paid to have the tree removed - not sure if they claimed it on their insurance. A TPO'd Beech in our front garden if it blew over would probably hit the house across the way - not to mention anyone walking up the road - now and again I pay £200 to get it checked and get a report - but my cash is running low and the report never says it's safe as houses - just that I should get it checked again next year.

Kent neighbours argue over who should pay for costly tree removal | Mail Online what is the right answer in a case where a tree owned by one neighbour is blown over and damages next door's property?

signed https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitio...ime=1388923276 thanks. Found this: Ancient Tree Forum | The Tree Council In a new partnership with the Woodland Trust, the Ancient Tree Forum is determined to conserve our priceless legacy of old trees and ancient woodland and create a succession of veteran trees for the future. The partnership will continue to raise awareness of the value and importance of veteran trees and ancient woodlands and their rightful place as part of our UK and Europe's heritage. Tree Council Board look influential?????

Can a Local Authority/UKGov compulsorily purchase ancient /ancient semi-natural woodland if it gets in the way of "sustainable"-profitable development? What vexes me is that there's no statutory protection and that this minister can say primitive stuff like this and loads of people will say oh well that's OK - you can just move the soil somewhere else and plant trees ............

Although eveywhere else in policy ancient woodland is considered "irreplaceable": http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/standing-advice-ancient-woodland_tcm6-32633.pdf "Ancient woodland loss Natural England‘s advice is that measures such as the provision of replacement habitat which seek to address issues of loss or deterioration of ancient woodland are not ‗benefits‘ within the meaning of the NPPF. As discussed in Appendix 5, a ‗twin-track‘ approach allows such measures to be considered through, and without prejudice to, the planning application and determination process. Where the benefits from a development are deemed to outweigh the value of the ancient woodland to be lost, despite the policies lending protection to ancient woodland, then the measures outlined below are examples of those that might be considered on a case-by-case basis:  Beneficial management of alternative sites A proposal may be put forward to secure a long term management agreement on an area of unmanaged habitat (often another ancient woodland nearby).  Planting of a much larger, new woodland area New woodland planting may have greater benefit where it provides connectivity between areas of existing woodland or other semi-natural habitat."

Natural England - Publications and Maps : Ancient Woodland Inventory (Provisional) Limitations of the Ancient Woodland Inventory Only ancient woodland sites that were over 2 ha on the 1920's base maps are included on the Inventory. Some of these may now be less than 2ha because of subsequent clearance. Woods that were less than 2ha on the base maps are not included even though some of these are ancient. The inventory is classed as "provisional" because it is under a constant system of review and update as new information is received or actual changes are recorded. If you have information that would help us to update the inventory please let us know."

BBC News - Owen Paterson backs ancient woodland 'offsetting' "Developers could be allowed to destroy ancient woodland if they agreed to plant many more trees elsewhere, the environment secretary has suggested" Is this a good idea? Do 500 newly planted trees an hour away by car equal,say,1 acre of Ancient Woodland?

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/appPDF/Help001_england_en.pdf 7. Trees and Hedges Please mark on a scaled plan the position of all trees and hedges on your own property and those on adjoining land which are within falling distance of your proposed development (i.e. where the distance from the development to the trees and hedges is less than (or equal to) their height). This should include all trees and hedges that are within falling distance of any trenches or foundations that you propose to dig as part of the proposal. This information will help us consider how your pr oposal might affect these trees and hedges. If you know what species the trees are, please name them . Number the ones that you will need to remove or prune in order to carry out your proposal. [PLEASE NOTE this is an application for planning perm ission. It is not an application or notification to remove or prune protected trees (i.e. trees which are included in a tree preservation order or located in a conservation area). If you are granted full planning permission, you will not need to obtain separate consent for tree works which are required to implement the planning permission. However, works to protected trees which are not required to implement the planning permission must be the subject of a separate application or notification using the tree works form.]

Merry Christmas to all - but especially to Edward C - so many planning applications hereabouts say "I see no trees" - the most recent locally had previously informed the council he intended to remove the trees he later couldn't see and been told he couldn't - even after that in his planning application his agent still said there were no trees. As far as I can tell neither he nor his agent suffered any penalties. This is the official line for householder applications? http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/appPDF/Help001_england_en.pdf

Forestry Commission website - felling licences register - oooooooer offputting. "How to get information and/or submit a comment on an application listed in the Register of New Planting and Felling: You should contact your local Forestry Commission Area office to request the information. You will need to quote the reference number (shown in the “Ref” column). Personal information contained in the application will not be included (e.g. applicant’s name and contact details) when we provide copies. If the copy is large or if copies are requested regularly, we may charge a fee for this service. Comments on applications listed on the Register of New Planting and Felling must be submitted in writing by e-mail or letter to the appropriate FC Area office quoting the reference number. The Register of New Planting and Felling is updated weekly, usually on a Monday, and you have 28 days from when the case first appears on the register to submit any comments." I couldn't find any explanation of the abbreviations used for local cases listed. DEFRA magic maps totally fascinating - thanks.

On a day to day basis not much procedural guff is apparent to non arborist punters like me hearing the siren call of the chain saw - it looks on the face of it as though no-one knows or cares - just occasional glimpses like the above of what the process is ..... but how do we know what's kosher and what's not - and who are we likely to ask as we stroll past with the dog ? ............... reactions differ. Wish licences to fell were made public..............

moderngov for rest of docs.

http://democracy.leeds.gov.uk/documents/s105611/Report%20to%20Chief%20Planning%20Officer.pdf " 2.4 On Monday 24th June 2013, the Council’s Tree Officer was contacted by the Forestry Commission (F.C). The F.C had been contacted by a number of local residents concerned that trees had been felled on the site over the weekend and that further felling works were presently taking place. The F.C concern was that the works may require felling license consent under the Forestry Act 1967. The F.C sought to clarify whether the Council had knowledge of the works and if the tress were subject to statutory tree protection. The Council also received a number of complaints from concerned members of the public. At this time, it was still assumed that the site was Government owned and, therefore, subject to Crown immunity. 2.5 Following the F.C. enquiry, an immediate site visit took place involving both the Tree Officer and Landscape Architect (who was involved with the pre application discussions). It was evident that a large number of trees had been felled (16 in total) with much of the remaining site tree cover marked for removal. 2.6 The Tree Officer telephoned the F.C. and was advised that whilst the trees that had been felled did not require a licence, a felling license application would be required to remove any additional trees. It was suggested to the Tree Officer that the F.C considered that this was a development issue that could be considered through the Planning process rather than a felling license and this was conveyed to the agent. 2.7 Still under the assumption that the site benefitted from Crown Immunity, both the Council as planning authority and a local Councillor wrote to the DWP voicing concerns as to the tree removal and inviting further dialogue through the planning process. 2.8 A letter from the Department of Work and Pensions dated 7th August 2013 to a local Councillor confirmed the intention to fell trees at the site prior to the submission of a planning application and that the site had been sold to a private third party landowner. Due to the change in ownership the site did not benefit from Crown Immunity, and therefore the TPO was made and served on 14th August 2013, to ensure that a full appraisal of the health and status of the trees on site could be made and to protect any mature valuable trees present of high amenity value. A copy of the Order Map Schedule and supporting documents are appended to the report...... " If you're a local resident seeing someone felling trees what do you do?

"A Metro spokesman said: “The CAVAT method reflects a tree’s contribution as a public amenity and cannot be used to calculate a tree’s replacement cost. “In his report Mr Turner has ascribed a value to the replacement trees on the day they are planted, rather than when they have reached any maturity." I hoped /dreamed CAVAT would be about cost-benefit analysis - ie adding £14m to the bill for lost trees makes the project uneconomic? or eg the price of any house that to build requires removal of a mature tree must reflect the value of the tree - say £50k minimum?

Spotted this - thought it might be of interest - apologies if it's deja vu. Trees facing axe for Leeds trolleybus ?worth £14m? - Yorkshire Evening Post

Trees facing axe for Leeds trolleybus ?worth £14m? - Yorkshire Evening Post

Anyway ...I googled evergreen broadleaf and there's quite a few - mostly rare/expensive? but also ligustrum - isn't that good ol' privet left to grow?

No "tree report" I've ever seen with a planning brief/application mentions the particulate pollution reducing capacity of leaves on trees near roads - usually if environmental factors are mentioned it's about noise reduction [not true?] or "amenity"/the look of trees? A lot of the trees planted by he Highways Agency between us and the A1 in the 1990s were larch - the only deciduous conifer? Birch have the same deciduousness?

Garden's full of tiny striped flying critters - next door's Horse Chestnut leaves are almost totally brown - no other tree types/Sycamore /Oak /Rowan etc. affected - do these leaf miners only eat Horse Chestnuts leaves and will they eventually kill the Horse Chestnuts ie no green leaf surface left from July onwards ........are "sticky buds" impervious?

Planning Officer's report: "6. The comments made by the Parish Council that the removal of the Leylandii Trees will have an adverse impact on the character of the Conservation area, has been addressed in the report. The trees are suburban in character and do not fit in with the rural character of this Conservation Area. Therefore, the loss of the trees is not a concern."

We're waiting for the decision - thanks for all your insights. The effect of the cutting back to boundary has been a bit of a shock - the most visible from the road was a fine big sycamore - TO allowed : "draw back crown on house side to no further than the boundary to suitable branch unions." That was interpreted as cutting off all branches overhanging the boundary back to the trunk - now in leaf it's half a tree.

To Oslac - sorry- it got complicated/?boring..... I oversimplified. The resident had already removed trees and hedges on his property - goodbye Pickfords and out with the chainsaw... soon after that he notified the local authority of his intention to fell trees on LA land but was stopped - but allowed to cut back to his boundary. He then applied to build an extension - his application form said there were no trees involved. That application was refused by the LA planners because of - amongst a good few other things - the threat to offsite trees; the resident appealed to the Planning Inspectorate. Not waiting for the appeal decision, the resident immediately submitted another similar planning application but leaving out the "offsite tree threat extension" . The planning inspector then dismissed the appeal against the refusal of the first application; it was dismissed on several grounds but - overruling the LA Tree Officer - the inspector ruled there was no threat to offsite trees from the proposed extension so the resident then amended his ongoing application, re-instating the extension that the tree officer had previously objected to as a future source of conflict/harm to the trees. No objection has been raised by the Tree Officer to this second application.

Thanks - my biggest worry is what the LA's intentions are - the wood's been thriving left to its own devices for 25 years - only tree creepers I've ever seen - a tree survey done for the last would-be developer judged only by something called amenity value and it seemed trees are only valuable if they look nice from a public road; the recommendation was to remove all ivy - the ivy is always full of birds and insects and dead or fallen trees are ecologically as valuable as standing ones? Ones with holes that birds love seem marked for removal? The Parish Council have accepted it will be built on - I've seen builders clearing other "brownfield" land hereabouts - anything goes/everything goes/scorched earth.

Thanks - you're right - I'd no idea it was notify and see if they stop you. So in this case the person wanting to remove trees on LA land notified the LA he was going to remove their trees and they stopped him removing them but allowed him to cut them back - as far as I know the LA haven't protected them with a TPO . The land's full of trees, birds and flowers and up for sale for housing. There's been some cutting back of big well clothed evergreens - leaving the trunks exposed on one side - looks wrong.

Thanks for the benefit of your expertise - we've all known and trusted the tree officer here for years - he's always reckoned to strike the right balance - seems odd that a Planning Inspector can overrule him. Also: people have no right to know about or object to an application to remove local trees when they have such importance to ecosystems/biodiversity/communities?