Moonshine

Cutting down a TPO tree by mistake - Enzo's homes

Recommended Posts

Guest Alphonsox

No way that was an accident - That should be a criminal offence leading to gaol time for those responsible and cancellation of planning on the site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The council sold the land to the developer.

 

Perhaps they should have kept ownership of the bit around that tree then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Alphonsox
10 minutes ago, ProDave said:

The council sold the land to the developer.

 

Perhaps they should have kept ownership of the bit around that tree then?

 

They quite possibly did.

" She also said that photos of the tree appeared to show it outside a fence which surrounded the development site"

 

Doesn't detract from the fact that the tree had a TPO that was obviously disregarded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Alphonsox
Just now, Tennentslager said:

Hey @Alphonsox how come you have the jazzy moving avatar. Did you win the leaderboard or what?

I WANNA know...is that @recoveringacademic heart trace after measuring his joists or what is it... intrigued I am.

 

 

I was stuck in a very, very tedious meeting at work and decided to experiment. I walked out of that meeting with a feeling of achievement, an almost unique feeling at the moment.

To be honest I think it may get tedious, I'm considering less active variations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Tennentslager said:

[...]

I WANNA know...is that @recoveringacademic heart trace after measuring his joists or what is it... intrigued I am.

 

Ah' v  ice in ma vains pal! 'N wee bit lager...... Nae hart trace visible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Alphonsox said:

Doesn't detract from the fact that the tree had a TPO that was obviously disregarded.

 

TPOs can be notoriously vague ..! I looked at a property last year called The Beeches that - not surprisingly - had a set of beech trees in the garden. 

 

There were 4 TPOs on the beech trees, and in the past 5 years, each had been crowned under an application. Reading the TPO it went along the lines of “Beech tree

(1 of 4) to east side of garden of The Beeches” etc, but didn’t get any sort of indication of exact location. 

 

The issue ...??? There were 5 beech trees in a row..... which one has no TPO..??

 

I’m pretty sure a lot of people won’t have even seen one, and they can be the vaguest of documents - nearly as bad as pre-1985 listing documents and mistakes do happen. I do wonder where they will get a mature redwood from though to replace it .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Alphonsox
16 minutes ago, PeterW said:

There were 4 TPOs on the beech trees, and in the past 5 years, each had been crowned under an application. Reading the TPO it went along the lines of “Beech tree

(1 of 4) to east side of garden of The Beeches” etc, but didn’t get any sort of indication of exact location. 

 

The issue ...??? There were 5 beech trees in a row..... which one has no TPO..??

 

I'll accept that selecting 1 out of 5 identical beach trees might be open to interpretation, but this was a 200 year old Redwood the size of an Apollo rocket......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did they gain anything from cutting it down? I think mention of jail time or cancel of planning policy is a bit drastic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Alexphd1 said:

Did they gain anything from cutting it down? I think mention of jail time or cancel of planning policy is a bit drastic. 

 

I'm no Tree-hugger and have cleared my fair share of timber, but surely anyone certified as competent with a chainsaw would say "this one?, really?, are you sure?".  The instruction to fell must have been a management decision, and as such, whether there is gain involved or not, I think justice should be seen to be done.  Maybe I just don't like people taking the pi$$!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TPOs typically come with a fairly hefty penalty. From memory £20k for interfering with a tree under order.

 

We had a house purchase some years back which was complicated by a TPO. At the last moment the solicitor called me and told me he'd found a TPO on a large cypress in the rear garden. Funny, I thought, there weren't any trees in the garden. Went for a look a found a large stump. Turns out liability is transferable with title, so if we'd bought the house, we'd have assumed liability for absence of said tree should the LA decided to act. We had to shop the sellers in and tell the LA that they'd illegally felled the tree. Luckily the LA decided to let it go and removed the TPO and the purchase went ahead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everybody to their own but I think there is a lot bigger crimes go unpunished than somebody cutting down a tree.....

 

Up to £20k fine up here if caught per tree but very rare they follow it up.

Edited by Alexphd1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If then you have an existing mature tree on your property can you fell it or is there an automatic TPO on it by default?

 

I've a 50+ year old beech which is majestic but imo too close to the road and overhead cables. Then 3 equally impressive "firs". I'd take the lot down given the opportunity but conscious of the wildlife havens they all are. Gone, it would free up the front garden and I could have a nice circular drive with maybe a pond or cedar as the centrepiece. The fir nearest the house is superb but it's like the bloody thing from Avatar!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Onoff

there’s no automatic protection of trees unless you live in a conservation area. Also you’ve got to be careful if your house is listed.

The LA keep a list of TPO protected trees but it’s obviously not a good idea to make an enquiry giving your exact address.

Edited by Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Onoff said:

 

 

I've a 50+ year old beech which is majestic but imo too close to the road and overhead cables. Then 3 equally impressive "firs". I'd take the lot down given the opportunity but conscious of the wildlife havens they all are. Gone, it would free up the front garden and I could have a nice circular drive with maybe a pond or cedar as the centrepiece. The fir nearest the house is superb but it's like the bloody thing from Avatar!

 

If close to electic cables may be worth contacting electric company.  A number if years ago we managed to get electric company to cut down group of overgrown fir trees, which were impinging on the cables, from our front garden at no cost to ourselves.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Alexphd1 said:

Did they gain anything from cutting it down? I think mention of jail time or cancel of planning policy is a bit drastic. 

 

But the rules are there, and there for a reason.  The tree, given its size will presumably have some benefit to the wider community in terms of amenity.  Unless the developer has owned the land for 200 years and somehow been taken by surprise that this tree has grown unnoticed, he/she will have bought the land and gone through the planning process in the full knowledge of the TPO restriction.  

 

Depends on their planning permission, but I imagine there may well be specific conditions relating to the tree.  They may well have rendered their planning permission null and void themselves by felling the tree (putting themselves in a position where they are unable to comply with conditions).  

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Revoke the existing planning permission and grant them a new one with a pre-condition that they must plant a new tree but the work cannot start until November 2218.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20k fine will be cheaper than finding a replacement tree of same dimensions and importing it from usa 

they knew what they were doing --

If they could stop the building works until  they replace it  AND give them the fines as well ,cos the fine is for cutting it down 

that might make something happen --but we all know it won,t

40 houses that only £500 per house --nothing

could be 10K of wood in that as well?

Edited by scottishjohn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any such fines should be percentage of turnover and revocation of planning permission.  You say to a company they may have to pay a fine of 10% of their turnover and watch their behaviour change once there's been a case or two...

 

Alas, this country shies away from fines that would actually act as a deterrent... (GDPR aside but what's the bets they'll still use carrot instead of stick there too!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The boss of the company, Enzo Sauro, said the giant redwood had been cut down by mistake and they would "replace it with a mature replica tree"."

 

So they are looking for an enormous plastic tree? 😅

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the basis that the tree weighs hundreds of tonnes, are they seriously suggesting they will be able to replace like-for-like?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now