Dirk Pitt

If I am aware of a problem, I want to deal with it now, not in 5 weeks. I do not want to risk upsetting my neighbours. I do not know why you have introduced "special case" as I do not recall me saying I was although many times I have been told " you are the only one". I came here asking about a process for removing a TPO, there have been a number of replies about putting in an application and the 5 weeks wait and telling my neighbours about the process but these do not answer the question. I get the feeling there is a reluctance to see a TPO removed and a mistrust of anyone wanting to remove one. Even though I think the thread has run its course and the answer now found I'm being told it is not up to me when to end a thread. I am on another forum and I see once the answer is there people keep adding to it and I find myself asking why, what is the point? Sorry if I have upset anyone. Hopefully the link I put in to a post earlier this evening will be of use to others. Dirk Pitt

What? Dirk pitt

Then I will leave you to carry on with it, I will look at any replies and reply as required and then call it a day. I do not know what else there is to be gained by continuing the thread as bearing in mind m original question the link I provided seems to give the answer. Dirk Pitt

I think we can bring this thread to a close, I have just found this. A very one sided policy and biased to those in power /assets/static/govuk-opengraph-image-dade2dad5775023b0568381c4c074b86318194edb36d3d68df721eea7deeac4b.png 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. dirk pitt

Ok, I can see how you came to think that, I'm sorry to have been so confrontational. Dirk Pitt

what on earth is your point and how does in answer my original question? It does not matter how quick an application can be made, it takes some 5 weeks before one gets a decision and the decision may be a refusal. Dirk Pitt

Is it really obvious? What do you base that on? Trees in our front and back garden have TPO's on them. The trees at the front screen us from the houses opposite and I wont trim them higher then the fence, the trees along one side that do not have TPO's shield has from the neighbours. I quite agree about trusting people and I guess when an honest one comes along, they are treated as someone not to be trusted. I would have no issue giving an undertaking not to fell them or polled them. dirk Pitt

a year dirk pitt

ya a clive cussler fan and it would be rude not to revisit the forum. CC is I understand dead. dirk pitt

I am sure what I want to do can be done without harming the tree, I do not want to remove whole limbs/branches. With their length and weight, they now hang down, cut some off the ends and I would suspect the branch to lift. This may lift the "crown" closest to the trunk which are shorter branches from "12ft to 18ft" but the crown at the edges of the tree where the branches are "10ft" longer is already "18ft" Dirk Pitt

I want to be able to maintain them such as cutting "branches" so pedestrians can walk under the trees when stepping out of the road away from traffic, to keep clear from my neighbours drive , so I can drive under them without catching my roof or the cycles on the roof, so I can mow around the trees without a face full of tree, so I can cut the odd branch to help maintain shape. I know making a planning application is not hard, I've made 1 but once I spot an issue I want to be able to deal with it now, not wait 5 weeks. A TPO leaves the tree owner at the mercy of a council official that cares little or nothing about how the tree a/effects the owner. Any application I make to work on a tree can be turned down. The TPO's were put on when building work was done over 40 years ago, the building work has been done by a previous owner and so as that threat has past, is the TPO now justifiable? Most of the trees in the village do not have TPO's and that perhaps is justification for removing the TPO's on my trees. Any further planning application to build could allow the council to slap TPO's on again. I read something on the Amenity of trees and I dont think any work I'd like to do would be against that. I assume there is no official policy or process to remove a TPO. I am guessing most of you are professionals, would you work differently on a tree without TPO to one that has a TPO, for example how much you take off the top, sides, bottom? You probably know how much the council will allow you to remove from experience and so your applications for work I would assume are generally made with that in mind but a tree without a TPO you make take off what you can without causing harm. I had a company make the first application for work, most of which was turned down. When the council came out, they told me to fell 2 trees due to disease. Once down, 1 was right to fell, the second, I dont think needed to came down yet so getting a company to make the application just cost me a lot of money. As for the comment "Assuming it looks nice and can be viewed that would make it suitable for TPO protection. " Can you imagine if every tree in that criteria had a TPO? Dirk Pitt

What is a reasonable amount? This is down to each persons interpretation and I bet in "a number of cases" the person that wants to cut a branch will have a different opinion to the council officer in charge for TPO planning permission. All this discussion is not taking me to a process for removing a TPO. If anyone can direct me to a process for England to have TPO's removed I would appreciate it. Dirk Pitt

Whilst I agree with you where is the line between taking off to much and taking off enough? If I took off any overhanging braches up to 12 foot would that be too much? If I cut back too far, how far back is too far? If I take off just enough now I will have to cut back again next year. If I take off "too much" now then not only will the braches grow again I will not have to cut them any time soon. I would prefer not to be caught between council, law and neighbour. As it is, it too best part of 5 weeks to get permission to clear the overhang from neighbours drive. Dirk pitt

I am in England, if you can point me to a process for England I would appreciate it. Dirk Pitt

sorry for not coming back to this thread, I again did not get any notifications. I thought I had solved the problem. Dirk pitt

Why do you ask, does the process differ if one wants to fell them and planning permission for a building can override a TPO in any case. No I do not want to fell them or remove them, just be able to maintain them as and when. We do not want to build on any of the land and so the trees are not at risk. The trees give us privacy. Even the epicomic growth has been left if it is above the fence. If I notice a low hanging branch that may be an issue to a neighbour, I cannot cut it back but have to apply for planning permission and wait a couple of months. This may cause friction with the neighbour if they ask me to cut it and 8 weeks later it is still there. Dirk Pitt

Search as I might I cannot find a process for applying to have TPO's removed. Is there one and if there is please can you give me a link to it, thank you. The TPO's were put on about 50 years ago and from the documentation this is word for word the reason given for the TPO's being placed on trees. "A planning application has been received for residential development in the area where these trees are located. The local planning authority therefore consider that it is expedient to make an order to safeguard these trees from indiscriminate felling or lopping which otherwise might arise from building operations taking place" The building work has been completed and the house has changed hands more than once. I feel the reason for the TPO's is no longer valid and therefore can and should be removed. Any planning application made, could have TPO conditions applied in future. From what I have read, having a TPO removed is difficult but only because the council may refuse, however, I am basing this on not being able to find a process for the removal of a TPO. Advice on how to go about having a TPO removed will be greatly appreciated. Expedient " the situation in which something is helpful or useful in a particular situation, but sometimes not morally acceptable than you in advance Dirk Pitt

just like an exhaust on a car but if you run the engine for long enough the heat transfer will dry out the exhaust would the same be for the flue, uninsulate it, but heat it for a long time and it will dry out and get hot? dirk pitt

A very full explanation of why not to remove the outer skin, thank you. It seems a shame to waste all that heat and the regulations seem short sighted if they have included other forms of protection against fire for example, double skin where it passes thru floors and ceilings, close to combustible material etc. You mention nothing about gasses cooling and tar, does that mean that what has been said in previous replies does not apply? Seems the flue will have to stay but boxing in a twin skin flue to prevent fire seems unnecessary as the prevention of fire is the role of the second skin Can you advise where I can get hold of a copy of the UK regulations that apply for the installation of a log burner and what the regulation is called? We have building regs for the installation. thank you in advance Dirk Pitt

Thank you Dirk Pitt

It had building regs when we moved in and since we moved in only a few months ago we have had it inspected and swept. We were concerned but the chap said all was fine. We are having a second log burner installed but in a different roof in 3 weeks, I will ask the engineer to look the existing flue and give us advice. thanks for the replies Dirk Pitt

I know it is for a reason but what is the reason? If to keep away from combustible material then asking if I can put a heat shield up shows I'm considering the safety aspect. If it is to stop people burning themselves then that train of thought is let down by the fact the log burner gets hot. If it is due to cooling and tar then removing it is a non starter but if flues that run directly up a chimney are not double skinned, then tar seems odd . Without me knowing the reason I cannot make an informed decision. You have said it is for a reason but not told me what the reason is. Can you tell me what the reason is please? Dirk Pitt

Thanks Openspaceman for the reply. The log burner could burn someone but that is not protected. I take your point about tar but what about those flu's that just go vertical up the chimney, if they are not double skinned would they too suffer from tar deposits ? Point taken about towels, not something I had considered. thank you for making it dirk pitt

Hi one and all, I have a query about the double skin flu of our log burner. No idea what make it is but it is a multi fuel, it also can heat hot water for the central heating. The flue leaves the log burner and goes vertical for about a foot, then off at "45 degrees" for about 5 foot and then vertical. It passes thru the ceiling, up thru the bathroom, thru the bathroom ceiling into the loft and out via the roof. From the second "45 degree" bend the flu is double skinned thru the bathroom, no idea about the loft. The double skin seems to be some form of plastic. I would like to remove the second skin in the bathroom so the heat from the flu heats the bathroom. Can I legally do this? What is the purpose of the second skin, I presume not to stop someone touching the flu as the log burner is just at hot. Is it due to the close proximity of combustible material? If due to combustible material can I put a heat shield up and what is the distance the flue must be from combustible material if not double skinned? I did contact Hetas and ask but they were unable to help thank you in advance Dirk Pitt