Chris at eden

I worked as a TO for two different authorities for over 18 years and never saw a POS transferred to the locals. Its not bad idea though. The last place I worked had a load of land that had reverted to crown ownership as the developer went bump. It was a complete nightmare getting any one to deal with it. Folk just thoiught it reverted to the LPA due to the TPO.

Two problems here. 1. Someone built a housing estate there recently. It can’t be unregistered. It’s either withe the developer or transferred with one of the houses. Or with the LA and the OP has it wrong. 2. Ownership makes absolutely no difference to prosecution. It’s still a criminal offence. The LPA can still prosecute the tree surgeon and the person instructing the works even if they don’t own it.

Not sure what you mean. What power does a police caution give? It’s just a warning instead of prosecution. If you do it again it can be used against you for prosecution. Not sure what else it does. The LPA has to follow the same procedure. To issue a caution the offender must already have admitted to the crime. You must have enough evidence to prosecute. And it must be in the public interest. If they refuse the caution you have to prosecute. You can’t use it as a deal to get someone to admit guilt for a lesser punishment. the LPA follow all the same rules in terns of investigation. PACE, RIPA, etc. so I assume it’s the same for this as well. The PACE interviews are pretty tightly controlled or at least they should be. They are all recorded and conducted under caution. You should have the PACE guidance on the desk. All that hammering the interviewee you see on the tv isn’t allowed. You can’t raise you voice. You can’t stand up. These things can be seen as intimidating and used against you in court. If you move and the chair squeaks on the floor you have to state on the tape what the noise was and confirm that you have remained seated. It not a half arsed thing that the LPA do. I hated doing prosecutions when I worked as TO. It’s not particularly nice. Not sure if that answers your question.

The open space isn’t adopted according to the OP so not council owned. Councils only adopt a POS once the development is complete and as long as it meets the required standard. Loads end up left with the developer which seems to be what has happened here. Sometimes the developers cease trading and the land reverts to the crown and becomes a right pain in the ass as no one will take responsibility.

The cautions stay on file with the council in case you breach the TPO again in future. The council are the. Enforcing agent for TPO contravention, not the CPS.

More or less as Mick said but the best time to prune deciduous trees is summer when they are actively growing in my opinion. The way they can begin to compartmentalise cuts straight away. The wound response of deciduous trees in the winter is pretty much zero so they don’t compartmentalise until next spring. Plus, most decay fungi sporulate in the autumn so spores are prolific at that time. That is in an ideal world but trees are pruned year round and as long as done properly should be okay. As mick and Dan said, keep cuts as small as possible.

All TPOs are provisional at the start. You need to check if it was confirmed. LPAs have already justified the TPO, not always correctly to be fair. It’s the applicant's job to show why it doesn’t meet the criteria. For example, if it’s declining and unsightly they could agree removal and condition replacement. Or if it’s causing damage, you could fell and replace further away. They are unlikely to revoke the order in that situation.

Good advice

Not always. I met a solicitor a few years ago that had been doing property conveyancing for over 20 years. He’d never heard of a TPO. I thought he was joking at first but it held up the house sale as the seller hadn’t complied with a tree replacement condition. I agree with the in writing thing but it shouldn’t make a lot of difference who asks. I never took that into consideration in my TO days. it doesn’t really affect the expediency test

You can’t back date a TPO. They have to go through legal and only take effect once served irrespective of the date on them. Councils are generally squeaky clean when it come to the law.

That is my understanding as well. All the plants in the uk are female apparently.

Where are you based?

I agree with the other comments. It’s too close to the house at 2m. But from a TPO perspective. Visual amenity - it currently has zero looking at the pics. It may in time grow to have some visibility but if so it will probably impact negatively on the house. Not just risk of damage but in terms of dominance. Can’t comment on risk of damage as not enough info but as a minimum the canopy will be rubbing against the building. Expediency / threat - minimal. The tree is 2m from the boundary meaning that the neighbour can’t fell it as that would be trespass and criminal damage. They can cut the overhanging branches to clear the house but that is reasonable and they would be able to do it to abate / prevent the nuisance under exemption even if it was TPOd. The only issue I can potentially see is if they cut off the roots that are trespassing again under exemption and if this destabilises the tree. If I was the tree officer (and I did that job for 17 years), I wouldn’t TPO the tree either. I don’t think you will get far with this if you make a complaint. It will be pretty easy for the council to defend. Not the news you want but that is my opinion. Jules (another member on here) may have something to add. He’s pretty good with the legal stuff so keep a look out. Cheers Chris Note. The above is based on very limited info as I haven’t visited the site so you should not take this as professional advice. Your own appointed Arb should be able to give you better site specific advice on the tree assuming they are competent to do so.

Visibility and threat are two different things. To warrant a TPO the LPA should meet two legal tests. Amenity - visible to the public, and it looks nice Expediency - tree under threat. If these two tests are not met they shouldn’t really TPO the tree. The amenity can be current or future so the whole, the tree is small may not stack up. If it can grow big enough to be visible then it may pass the test. In general, if the removal or damage of the tree would have a significant negative on the local environment, the LPA should consider making a TPO. There is no appeal as such in this situation. You would have to follow the councils complaints procedure if you are not happy with the service. Pics and info on the threat would be useful.

The regs say evidence needed for structural damage, not just subsidence. Also needed for works that relate to health and safety. Its in the regs and on the one app, full compliance with which is also listed in the regs. I agree though, the LPA must justify refusal. They must address points raised in the app. But, it can be as simple as saying that there is no appropriate supporting evidence. when the PINS do the appeals they make no attempt to assess risk. They usually say something like, in the absence of supporting evidence there is nothing to suggest that this tree is any more hazardous than any other tree. The other thing they often say is that residents should consider the impact of trees before buying a house. I’m alway surprised how blunt they are, I would never say something like that either as a TO or a consultant.

I agree. I don’t get where the op is coming from. It’s not difficult to do an app. Everyone has told him to just apply and he has come back saying all this talk hasn’t answered my question, what is the process to get it lifted. If he wants the TPO revoked the TO is going to assume he wants to fell it and that in itself justifies the expediency of the TPO. Assuming it looks nice and can be viewed that would make it suitable for TPO protection.

When you say VTA, did you get a report or was it just a conversation on site?

Its the amount of work you can do to achieve the objective while not damaging the tree. It’s not removing entire limbs when reducing the ends would do. Tree owners often have expectations that are not realistic when it comes to TPOs. I saw an application recently that was to reduce the height of a tree by half because the low branch were catching the roof of the cars when entering the drive. That isn’t reasonable. Lifting the low branches to 4m would be. cheers Chris

The word is revoke and it isn’t something you can do. The LPA may decide to revoke a TPO but only with good reason. Usually that they have made a new TPO to protect the trees as the area has changed. For example, an old TPO could show trees in a field which has now been built on so the trees are on a housing estate. You would make a new TPO showing up to date plans and then revoke the old one. They are not going to revoke one to save people time doing applications.

The time limit for TPOs consent validity is automatic in the 2012 regs. 2 years. They no longer have to set a condition for validity periods. But it can be varied by condition. For sample if it’s a management plan running longer than 2 years.

That is is the old blue book. It’s out of date. It’s doesn’t take into account the 2012 regs. It includes stuff like reg 3 notices, exemptions, etc. There is an online version now. Just Google TPO guidance and go for the 2012 webpage. There is also a short version that gives a brief overview. Again titled 2012.

Is it a job or just a one off survey of some trees? I am guessing you don’t have tree surveyors locally?

It’s policy. It’s in their local plan which has been signed off by the cabinet I think. Plus S197 says that you should make provision for adequate tree planting via condition, that’s the law bit. It doesn’t say how much. The England tree strategy published 2021 aim to increase canopy cover, not as ambitious as 30% but its there. Climate change mitigation. It’s not like they have plucked it out of thin air with no justification. Their TO knows his stuff. He’s probably ahead of the game with the 30% target but that’s not a bad thing. I don’t think it’s a slam dunk that you would win the appeal and I have never met a developer that wants to go to appeal to avoid planting trees. They don’t want to be sitting around for best part of a year for the appeal decision with no guarantee they will win.

It’s standard practice to check aerial photos and compare now with previous tree cover. Plus, as a TO you get calls everyday once the chainsaws start up.

Its surprisingly rare. It does happen but most folk play ball. I worked as a planning TO for over 12 years and it hardly ever happened. Even when you turned around saying we need a survey and AIA but there is no TPO they usually just got one instead of felling the trees. Remember trees and landscape is a material consideration so if you fell all the trees there is nothing to prevent the LPA from asking for a mega landscape scheme to offset the loss and this will impact on layout. I know one LPA that asks for evidence that existing and proposed trees will deliver 30% canopy cover for the site within 50 years. That’s a lot easier if you keep the big trees and work around them.