Chris at eden
-
Posts
1,432 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Classifieds
Tip Site Directory
Blogs
Articles
News
Arborist Reviews
Arbtalk Knot Guide
Gallery
Store
Calendar
Freelancers directory
Everything posted by Chris at eden
-
Council tree officer ignoring trees in TPO
Chris at eden replied to ArthurJob's topic in Trees and the Law
Dia is very important with regard to the 150mm rule. You can buy diameter tapes that have the Pi conversion on them. That is what I use. For the purpose of BS5837 dia is measured at 1.5m. DBH (1.3) is a forestry measurement. For the full set nurseries measure at 1m. -
Council tree officer ignoring trees in TPO
Chris at eden replied to ArthurJob's topic in Trees and the Law
🤣 I’m going to screen shot that onto my website. -
Council tree officer ignoring trees in TPO
Chris at eden replied to ArthurJob's topic in Trees and the Law
TOs are generally pro tree. Planners generally think trees and TOs are a bit of a pain. If the TO is saying they are low quality I doubt the planner will care. But what will the ombudsman say? If the trees are less than 150mm they are automatically Cat C. Low quality. Should not be used to prevent development as they are easily replaced. The TO will say that and the ombudsman can’t really argue. Same if it go’s to committee. Most of the time members go with officers recommendations. I have represented LPAs in planning committee dozens of times and I have never lost. I’ve also never lost a PINS appeal. If the TO is any good this will be a walk in the park. if they are rubbish and it’s refused the applicant will probably win the appeal. Obviously, if they are better than the OP is saying then it may be worth looking at. If they are less than 150mm though it a long shot. Unless there is some special circumstance. Green belt for example. some pics would be useful. -
Council tree officer ignoring trees in TPO
Chris at eden replied to ArthurJob's topic in Trees and the Law
If the trees are less than 150mm diameter then they are automatically category C. I’m guessing this is what is meant. They should then not be allowed to impose an unreasonable constraint on development as they are easily replaced. But TPOs can be made on small trees based on future amenity. So this could also be the situation. TPO protected cat C trees. Not exactly joined up thinking is it. -
It’s an old and not very well prepared TPO. I’m not sure why you would spec hardwoods but I suspect they meant deciduous trees such as oak. Remember though, unless you are in London the council probably didn’t have a TO at that time. It would have been made by a planner who probably wasn’t overly happy about it. I would personally have specified it as mixed broadleaf and coniferous if I wanted to cover everything. The holly will be protected. Spruce, not so sure. You should run it by the TO though as you will need to work with them in the future so it would be good to develop a positive relationship. I doubt they will object to your plans. Other than the holly. Holly is an important understory tree within native woodlands. It provides shelter / nesting sites and food for woodland dependent species. Having a good understory with at least some evergreens also helps maintain higher temps in the winter.
-
This guidance was withdrawn 9 years ago so isn’t relevant. You now need to use: Tree Preservation Orders and trees in conservation areas - GOV.UK WWW.GOV.UK Explains the legislation governing Tree Preservation Orders and tree protection in conservation areas. I know a lot of the info is the same but not all of it. You may as well use the correct document.
-
Based on the photo it probably meets the criteria in terms of amenity and expediency. As such you will be looking at other issues for example risk. You are probably right to be concerned re the lean and in particular lifting of the root plate. If it has moved recently it may even meets the immediate risk category. If not it will be an app or objection. Just to be clear, I wasn’t saying there is no risk. Just that you can’t just put in a five day notice saying it is dangerous anymore. It has to be justified. That is why the wording was changed, dangerous is too ambiguous. Also, if you put in an app and it is refused, you can’t appeal it until the TPO has been confirmed and they may not confirm the order for six months. Putting in an objection will almost certainly delay confirmation so there are decisions to be made. it really needs to be looked at properly so you can make those decisions. Where are you based?
-
You will need a report if you are applying to fell based on condition. Not for a five day notice as the risk would need to be so obvious and immediate that you wouldn’t have time and it can be assessed by a layperson. For example, a large hanging branch over the road.
-
There is no 5 day exemption for DDD any more, it went with the 2012 regs. It is now dead trees, dead branches within trees or where there is an immediate risk of serious harm. Note the word immediate.
-
The LPA doesn’t assess tree condition, only visual amenity. There is no reason that cannot be done from the road. The owner can then either object based on condition or apply to fell based on condition. The safety of the tree is the responsibility of the owner not the LPA. Although it would be a bit dodgy to TPO something that was obviously dangerous when viewed from the street. The OP just needs to follow the process with one of the above options. The owner hold the liability. Unless, they submit an app with supporting evidence and the LPA disagree and refuse and then the tree falls as a result.
-
Listed building and scheduled monument are not the same thing although they ca be applied to the same building. You don’t have to inform historic England for TPOing trees near listed buildings. Only scheduled monuments.
-
How long do planning conditions last?
Chris at eden replied to James Royston's topic in Trees and the Law
Conditions that relate to tree retention are usually limited to 5 years but in this instance they will say that. I.e. no trees within a period of 5 years of the completion of the development shal be .........etc. Completion is when it is signed off by building control. I have seen conditions that say for the life of the development though and this means while the site is used in accordance with this planning app. I know of a Leyland Cypress hedge that is protected in this way as it is part of a bat mitigation strategy. It’s used for foraging. They do say for the life of the development though. They don’t necessarily all cease when the build is finished. But they could possibly have appealed against the six tests? Don’t know where you would go now though, planning consultant I suppose. Also, what is the penalty? It isn’t stated in the above text. -
Newest arrivals. 😁
-
On the other hand though, if they had approached the LPA to check, it makes no sense that they were not informed. That would be a legal requirement even if they didn’t own the tree. Could be that the land is unregistered (but owned pre the set up of land reg) and the neighbour enquired and triggered the TPO. In that case it would be acceptable to serve the neighbour as an interested party and fix the TPO to the tree or the gate to the land and address it to the owner / occupier. That would then fit into the ‘I have not been told’ bracket. More info needed before anyone can say whether they could go for JR on a point of law. Cheers Chris
-
You would think so, or there was the threat of doing something. Otherwise, how would you meet the expediency test?
-
I think they had been served with the provisional TPO, I.e. under section 201. It’s the confirmation they were not told about.
-
Did you object? It’s not an appeal. You would be looking at a judicial review if anything.
-
No worries.
-
They push the roots down. You get them on proper root battlers usually more pronounced. I did some monitoring works about 15 years ago and the chap had decided to get there early and crack on. He put the ribs on the outside. He was gutted when I told him.
-
Yeah, i didn't see the leaf scars at first. I'm pretty sure computer screen have destroyed my eyesight.
-
Yeah i know, not having a pop, just responding your question. I think it is almost certainly Swamp Cypress or Dawn Redwood.
-
There is another post where this is being debated John. The OP posted it 3 items. I thought Taxodium at first but I'm not sure now if those tiny makings are leaf scars and opposite now. As you say you cant see the leaflets.
-
They look too soft to be evergreen to me.
-
Bloody hell, you have good eye sight. Some of the bottom pics are opposite and if you zoom right in there a tiny leaf scars opposite the buds. Can't say that is something i have ever looked for, as you say they look different in terms of shape if you see the whole tree. I'm sticking with Taxodium but you got me questioning myself now. More pics as suggested.
-
Any cypress knees at the base?
