Tree Pres. order..advice.

George_Michael

Unless the trees are damaged, diseased or have suffered from ground erosion causing the roots to start showing, I can't see that there is any reason to think that 50+ year old trees will suddenly start posing a threat of falling over and I agree with your assessment of solar panels possibly be the true reason.

Even if your neighbour was happy with just pruning rather than topping, it is still a requirement to get council approval for any trees that have preservation orders on them.

Furts

ipri wrote: »

I have woke up with a new lease of life!!...I cant let the trees be butchered on his whim!...He has also approached the next property along...this means about 15/20 trees in all. Also a little suspicious about motives...he has solar panels.


I cant find a website that does not condemn "Topping" I am going to call local tree people at Council at 9am to discuss. Will keep you all informed.

Your neighbour should have notified his insurers of the trees and the TPO Orders. Hence he should be insured against any mishaps.

He should also have notified his insurers about his solar panels. So again he is insured again against any mishaps.

In both instances the premium should rise, because of the risk. The crux is has he really done this or is he scimping on insurance cover and trying to pull the wool over someone's eyes?

Biggles

ipri wrote: »

I am going to call local tree people at Council at 9am to discuss.

I wouldn't bother. Just tell him you like the trees as they are.

If he says he suspects one is diseased, ask him to pay for an ultrasound scan (hint: I had one and it cost £170) and then you'll consider it.

He either just wants more sunlight in his garden (I daresay the trees were already mature when he bought the property, so he knew all about them) or, as you suggest, wants to save a few pence more on his electricity bill. Neither are your problem.

glasgowdan

I just had our local council tree officer visit the home we're buying to look at a pine and birch that i want rid of. He offered advice on other trees and had a good blether. Said there's no issues at all with me removing them (conservation area).

No charges for it.

To OP, I'd def want the trees on my land left as they are.

I_have_spoken

He is concerned that, if they fall, they will damage his property,

How this often plays out is he'll inform his insurers of the risk, they'll inform the Council that due to the TPO they'll regard the Council as liable for costs. Most Councils will then remove the TPO, allowing the trees to be felled.

Furts

I_have_spoken wrote: »

How this often plays out is he'll inform his insurers of the risk, they'll inform the Council that due to the TPO they'll regard the Council as liable for costs. Most Councils will then remove the TPO, allowing the trees to be felled.

I had a home with a TPO tree growing over the top of it. This was an ancient, huge, oak tree. Going by memory the trunk would have been about 6 metres from my external wall. So this is about as extreme an example as one can get.

I had more expensive buildings insurance as a result, although not much more expensive. There was never any issue of the insurers contacting the Council, nor of the tree being felled.

This leaves me pondering about your comment - if it was that easy to get a TPO tree felled our urban areas would be decimated of trees. But they are not...