UKTC Archive

Re: TPO Compensation

Subject: Re: TPO Compensation
From: Julian Morris
Date: Jan 03 2019 18:46:49
Thank you, that has cleared it up perfectly for me. In England anyway...

Julian A. Morris - Professional Tree Services
jamtrees.co.uk  and  highhedgesscotland.com
0778 XXX XXXX - 0141 XXX XXXX


Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2019 at 5:49 PM
From: "oisink@xxxxxxxxxxx.com" <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
To: "UK Tree Care" <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: RE: RE: RE: TPO Compensation

I presume the 1969 TPO you refer to is in Scotland. 

If in England, section 193 of the Planning Act 2008 omits the content of 
all existing TPOs, other than the identification of trees. This content is 
replaced by the new TPO contained in the 2012 Regulations, with the effect 
that all TPOs, whenever made, are in the same form and subject to the same 
provisions as to matters such as appeals and compensation.

Oisin

-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info 
<uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info> On Behalf Of Julian Morris
Sent: 03 January 2019 17:34
To: UK Tree Care <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: Re: RE: RE: TPO Compensation

I'm glad they're gone, but after looking at a 1969 TPO today and going 
through what would happen if the Council wanted to deny compensation in 
2019 I could see no support in the 2102 or 1999 Regs or the 1997 or 2008 
Act that they could not still certify special amenity after a refusal, and 
duck the compensation. After all, the TPO is a freestanding self-contained 
set of rules that survives legislation changes. 

Hopefully of purely academic interest. Dammit, now I've got to check the 
Scottish rule.

Julian A. Morris - Professional Tree Services jamtrees.co.uk  and  
highhedgesscotland.com
0778 XXX XXXX - 0141 XXX XXXX


Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2019 at 5:18 PM
From: "oisink@xxxxxxxxxxx.com" <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
To: "UK Tree Care" <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: RE: RE: TPO Compensation

For England, not since the 2012 regs. And in any case, when they did 
exist, an Article 5 Certificate was specific to a decision, it did not 
exist on the file in relation to new decisions.

-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info 
<uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info> On Behalf Of Julian Morris
Sent: 03 January 2019 17:09
To: UK Tree Care <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: Re: RE: TPO Compensation

Almost...

There are Orders in existence where Article 5 directions would deny the 
right to compensation. That's why I suggested checking what the TPO says.

Julian A. Morris - Professional Tree Services jamtrees.co.uk  and  
highhedgesscotland.com
0778 XXX XXXX - 0141 XXX XXXX


Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2019 at 3:13 PM
From: "Howe, Ron" <Ron.Howe@xxxxxxxxxxx.gov.uk>
To: "UK Tree Care" <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: RE: TPO Compensation

You're almost right Julian.

Compensation can only be claimed  for damage resulting from a refusal.
The LPA likely to refuse if there is a 'reasonable' alternative 
solution ... if of course, the tree is important enough.

All TPOs however now come under one set of regulations since 2012, 
which cancelled all the previous varying clauses and the 
compensation rules are in section 6 of the 2012 Regs.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/605/contents/made

Compensation of this nature goes to Lands Tribunal ... I've been there 
several times and won.

Also, I don't see why rebuilding a wall with a bridging beam should be 
over 50% more ... it's not rocket science. I imagine the builders 
haven't got a clue. I have loads of example round here and it involves 
either a pre-stressed concrete beam or an RSJ.

Ron Howe
Tree Officer (Planning)
Mole Valley District Council
Tel. 01306 XXX XXX


-----Original Message-----
From: uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info 
[mailto:uktc-request@xxxxxx.tree-care.info] On Behalf Of Julian 
Morris
Sent: 03 January 2019 11:01
To: UK Tree Care
Subject: Re: TPO Compensation

[Text converted from HTML]
Trevor, not that simple. Firstly claims for compensation canot be 
met retrospectively. The damage needs to have happened after a 
refusal, and the refusal has to be done in the knowledge of 
reasonably foreseeable damage. Secondly, an application for removal 
of the tree might reasonably be met with refusal by the LA because 
(as you say
yourself) an alternative solution to removal is possible, even if it is 
expensive.

Oh and thirdly, it depends what the TPO says. Orders can 
legitimately include or exclude rights to compensation.

Julian A. Morris - Professional Tree Services jamtrees.co.uk and 
highhedgesscotland.com
0778 XXX XXXX - 0141 XXX XXXX


Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2019 at 10:26 AM
From: "theapsy@xxxxxx.com" <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
To: "UK Tree Care" <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Subject: TPO Compensation

Hi All.
Can you help out with this scenario please.
Mrs 'Smith' has a protected tree in her rear garden that is 
clearly
pushing over her listed boundary brick wall.
Having received quotes, it's going to cost £5,000 to demolish and
re-build the wall with the tree in situ (i.e using special / 
bridging foundations). Or, it's going to cost £3,000 to demolish and 
re-build the wall with traditional foundations (if the tree can be 
removed).
If an application to remove the protected tree (supported by a 
report
and copies of the quotes etc) is refused, is the Council liable to 
pay compensation for the difference between the two?
Or am I simplifying the matter too much?
Cheers
Trevor Heaps


--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy 
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/




--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy 
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/
Important: If you currently use a gsi-family domain name (gsi.gov.uk, 
gcsx.gov.uk or gsx.gov.uk) you must replace it with a government domain 
like gov.uk, gov.scot, llyw.cymru or gov.wales by March 2019.


This email is only intended for the individual or organisation to whom 
or which it is addressed and may contain, either in the body of the 
email or attachment/s, information that is personal, confidential 
and/or subject to copyright. If you are not the intended recipient, 
please note that copying or distributing this message, attachment/s or 
other files associated within this email, is strictly prohibited. If 
you have received this email in error, please notify the sender 
immediately and then delete it.



--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy 
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/





--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy 
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/




--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy 
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/





--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy 
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/




-- 
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/





-- 
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info

The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees arboricultural consultancy
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/