James Royston

The problem is that this particular tree officer didn't go to that meeting.

Hi Birchbark, I don't know what's causing the browning on your trees, or whether it's a serious concern, but I've known other redwoods to have similar looking symptoms at this time of year in the past and they went on to be absolutely fine in following years. It might be worth getting them checked out though, just to be sure.

Wow! Please do measure and let us know, that'd be great.

Haha, that's funny. Do you know the rough dbh of these leylandii?

Hi Wonky, I get what you're saying, that there is an implication in the council's comment that all trees over 32cm are protected. But this is assuming that Mitchell's rule is an appropriate method of deciding whether or not a tree is protected. It can't really be considered as appropriate can it? It seems unlikely to me. The tree owner doesn't want to cut anything down at the moment, so counting rings is not an option.

Yeah, true, I think that the tree owner could crack on and remove anything under 32cm diameter if they wanted to, but they aren't wanting to remove anything at this stage - they just want to know which trees are protected.

Hi Birchbirk, others may interpret it differently, but it looks like this TPO protects all species to me.

Hi all, I'm dealing with a site which has an area order on it which is just over 50 years old. The site contains trees which range from very young to obviously older than 50 years old. The tree owner just wants to know which trees are protected, they aren't intending on doing any work or cutting anything down, and at the initial stage they were just curious as to which trees were covered by the TPO. After 16 weeks of emails back and forth with all sorts of contradictory nonsense coming from the council, the council have now said that the only way to tell if these trees are protected is to use Mitchell's rule to estimate tree age, and that this is accurate enough to determine whether or not trees within an area order are protected. Apart from that, the council still haven't said which trees are protected, nor have they given us any indication as to how we are supposed to tell for ourselves, but they have said that any tree under 32cm diameter is definitely not protected. Does any one have any experience of this - how do we find out which trees are protected? Is the Mitchell rule appropriate? Cheers, James

It can be a minefield for everyone, not just the humble tree owner. I don't know where you are based, but if I were in your situation then I would contact an arboricultural consultant and get a proper report done, and then use this as the basis for an application to do whatever works are recommended by the consultant. From experience, it might be helpful to contact your local councillors at an early stage, just to make sure things are done properly and that your concerns regarding safety are given proper consideration by the council. In terms of liability - until you submit an application you will almost certainly be responsible for damage or harm caused by your tree. Once an application is submitted then the question of liabilities gets a lot more complicated. You will almost certainly get a different response about liabilities depending on who you talk to - I have dealt with solicitors who specialise in civil and commercial liability, and that was useful to me in explaining the liabilities of a local authority, but your situation is quite specific, so it might be worth you obtaining proper legal advice on this. Good luck in getting it sorted.

Thanks John, it gets even more confusing when you see the reason given for the condition - (8) So as to ensure the protection of trees and hedges to be retained during the carrying out of the development, to safeguard the amenities of nearby residents and to accord with Policies NE9 and D2 of the Unitary Development Plan.

Thanks Jules.

Yeah, true.

Haha, I like your style. But nobody is wanting to do anything at this stage, the owner just wants to know what's protected and what isn't.

I've seen the time limit ones before, as well as the 'for the life of the development', but this one has no timeframe. There's no mention of a penalty in the planning documents.

It was for the demolition and construction of a house - all completed years ago. It seems weird that a planning condition like this could continue forever into the future.

Yeah, that's what I thought too. But the LPA is saying otherwise, and I'm not a planning consultant.

Good evening everyone. I'm dealing with a site at the moment which was granted planning permission back in 2002. One of the conditions is, "(8) Trees and hedges within or on the boundary of the site shall be neither felled, topped or lopped except with the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority, nor shall they be damaged or killed by fire or by the application of toxic or injurious substances." There's no timeframe mentioned, so I was just wondering if anyone knew whether or not such a planning condition could continue in perpetuity? Cheers, James