UKTC Archive

Re: mischievous applications

Subject: Re: mischievous applications
From: TreeCraftLtd
Date: Dec 27 2002 21:27:53

In a message dated 23/12/02 10:48:53 am, c.hastie@xxxxxxxxx.co.uk writes:

<< >THe law I though on this one is that we (LPA) are only liable if the
applicant places forward a specific reason for felling the tree.

That may be a reasonable summary of the law for post-1999 TPOs, but
since Edmund stated that there have been 4 applications in 10 years I
have to assume that the TPO is older than 1999.

Is the tree worth an Article 5 Edmund? Failing that, and since your busy
doing it generally anyway, it may be worth revoking and reserving to be
sure that your dealing with the modern regs. Then you are only liable
for damage that is reasonably foreseeable in the light of evidence
submitted with the application. >>

Chris, 

Could you elaborate, as I am a little confused?  Under what circumstances can 
the LPA be considered liable for the condition of a TPO tree?  

I would assume that the LPA can only be held liable if an application is 
refused consent.  

Are you saying that when considering post 1999 TPO's the LPA is only 
responsible if the applicant points out a defect as a reason for work to the 
tree or complete removal?

Regards, Andrew


-- 
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxx.co.uk