isdesigns

Good advise. Unfortunately, missed the boat! Thanks

Hello Landrover, Thanks for the posting. I do accept your observations, and would certainly argue strongly concerning the cause of the damage if the situation of a claim against me arose. The point however remains,, that the tree is too big for its proximity to the house, and will need removal at some point in the future. I think the tree has a lot more growing to do if left alone. Its about a planning application, and nothing to do with the tree. Their are lots of trees along the road, and this is the only one they have put a TPO on. We have 800 year old Yews in the churchyard no TPO's despite asking.

Hello armybloke and dalton trees, Thanks for the feedback. I tend to agree that the slabs for the drive are too large and it could be argued that this has lead to the crack in the middle shown in the photo. We have lived at this address for about 28 years, and the neighbours drive was laid before then so it has not done too badly I trimmed the ivy back last year which was growing up into the tree. Incidentally I have contacted my home and buildings insurer (Llyods) and checked my policy documentation which specifically states "what is not covered Loss or damage To garden walls, fences,gates,paths, drives, patios, terraces..............etc" So it appears that the imposition of the TPO makes me personally liable for the damage to the neighbours drive if they choose to argue that the damage was caused by the tree, that I am unable to do anything about. I have heard nothing from the person that I contacted from the list I was given (who shall remain nameless), so I will try the next closest. Thanks Ian

Hope I have just included two photos taken last feb when the TPO first started. The house is my neighbours and the branches are now touching the house. Access to the site is to the right of the photo and the drive would run parallel to the hedge and therefore under the canopy of the tree.

Thanks Armybloke, I will have a go at uploading a picture. Yes, it is a concrete drive that was laid in sections and now has cracked and lifted in several places due to the roots

Thanks Paul, I have made contact with one on the list closest to me, and we will see what he recommends Ian

Thanks for the advise. That's how I read it, but wanted confirmation. The tree (apprx 40 years old) is on the boundary with my neighbour, who would also like to see the tree down as it is very close to her property. The canopy is overhanging the corner of her house. She has sent an objection to the TPO previously, but has not received any acknowledgement to her letter. The tree is currently lifting my neighbours concrete drive and my understanding is that although I cannot fell the tree I am still liable for any damage that the tree may cause. This seems very unfair. I have another beech of a similar age on the boundary with the road, but have received no TPO for this, so it makes me all the more convinced that the TPO is motivated by a desire to frustrate any future planning application rather than to protect one copper beech amongst many other trees along the road, none of which have TPO's. Once the TPO is confirmed by the council, do I have any right of appeal? If the TPO expires again, can I legally fell the tree?

I did read all the responses, and thought I had posted a thank you note, but obviously not. My omission, sorry.

Hello, Thanks for your response. I am not sure what you mean by "encouragement", and do not know where else to go for help regarding this matter. Do you need some more information?

Hello, I have previously posted regarding a TPO which my council are attempting to impose on a copper beech in my garden. The TPO is nothing to do with the tree. It's purpose is to prevent a planning application for a property on the land. The TPO notice was served on 10th February of this year and stated that I could raise any objections within 28 days which I did. The letter went on to say "after which time we will decide whether to make the order permanent" I heard nothing from them until the other day (26th August). "In February of this year the council served the above Tree Preservation order,however due to time constraints this lapsed on 10th August and it has become necessary for the order to be served again." The letter quoted the same reference number as the original order. I was not advised of the six month window, and was wondering if I am now legally free to remove the tree due to the councils delay in making the TPO permanent. Any help would be greatly appreicated

Does anyone know what I can do to stop this. I have a plot of land at the side of our house that is ideal as an infill plot for building a house. We live in a rural location and the local council (Newcastle-under-Lyme) has repeatedly refused the application on the grounds of "Unsustainable Location". Local barn conversions, huge extensions, Farmers new houses, no problem! A small house for my 85 year old mother (30 miles away), not a chance. The latest outline application has been followed up with a TPO received yesterday on a copper beech tree on the plot which will now make the development of the plot much more difficult. Before anyone replies with "You should have chopped it down long ago" I know that now - it was a mistake not to. I believe the council have imposed the TPO to stop the development, and not to protect the tree, which is only about 40 years old. Reading the notes, I also understand that if the tree causes damage in the future I will still be liable despite the council imposing the TPO! This surely cannot be correct? HELP. Any advise gratefully received. Thanks