In our front garden we have to rather large (estimated 70") beech
trees. The nearest of these though is 8 feet from the house. Yes, we
knew about them before we moved in, but I am really concerned about
this now.

The trees have a preservation order on them but I wondered if this was
a good enough reason to ask for permission to chop them down?

If others have been successful, is it only dead/dying trees that ever
get past our friendly councillors?

On a secondary and lesser note, we also have a very large copper beech
tree in our back garden (well it's in the neighbours) but this blocks
out nearly all our sunlight. Again, I suspect this isn't a good
enough reason, but I thought the point of TPO was for trees adding to
the visual look of the neighbourhood. Noone can see this apart from
us and the neighbours though.

Please don't get me wrong - I do like trees - I would just prefer them
to be a little further away from the house!

thanks
Mark

Mark Bridgett wrote:
In our front garden we have to rather large (estimated 70") beech
trees. The nearest of these though is 8 feet from the house. Yes, we
knew about them before we moved in, but I am really concerned about
this now.

The trees have a preservation order on them but I wondered if this was
a good enough reason to ask for permission to chop them down?

What, you're going to ask to chop them down *because* they have a
preservation order on them? I assume that's not what you meant but
I'm still not quite sure what you did mean!


If others have been successful, is it only dead/dying trees that ever
get past our friendly councillors?

No, I think danger to a building is a quite valid reason. However you
will have to get professional opinion to confirm that there is a
danger to your house.


On a secondary and lesser note, we also have a very large copper beech
tree in our back garden (well it's in the neighbours) but this blocks
out nearly all our sunlight. Again, I suspect this isn't a good
enough reason, but I thought the point of TPO was for trees adding to
the visual look of the neighbourhood. Noone can see this apart from
us and the neighbours though.

I suspect that others can see it, especially if it's as big as you
say, surely it's visible above the house.

--
Chris Green )

In article ,
writes:
|
| If others have been successful, is it only dead/dying trees that ever
| get past our friendly councillors?
|
| No, I think danger to a building is a quite valid reason. However you
| will have to get professional opinion to confirm that there is a
| danger to your house.

It is. But, if there is a 70' beech 8' from a house, cutting
it down might cause all sorts of problems. Serious consultation
would be needed.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

"Mark Bridgett" wrote in message om...
In our front garden we have to rather large (estimated 70") beech
trees. The nearest of these though is 8 feet from the house. Yes, we
knew about them before we moved in, but I am really concerned about
this now.

The trees have a preservation order on them but I wondered if this was
a good enough reason to ask for permission to chop them down?

If others have been successful, is it only dead/dying trees that ever
get past our friendly councillors?

On a secondary and lesser note, we also have a very large copper beech
tree in our back garden (well it's in the neighbours) but this blocks
out nearly all our sunlight. Again, I suspect this isn't a good
enough reason, but I thought the point of TPO was for trees adding to
the visual look of the neighbourhood. Noone can see this apart from
us and the neighbours though.

Please don't get me wrong - I do like trees - I would just prefer them
to be a little further away from the house!

Problems created by felling the trees could be worse than keeping them. Chances are you aren't going to get much fresh
damage to the house for a long while - there's a good chance of getting damage from soil shrinkage if you remove them.
Then what about the guys who are going to do the work? You really do need to be certain they're up to the job. 2 or 3
tonnes of beech on your roof is expensive.
A consultation with a good arborist is essential - and don't go to the local authority tree officer with an 'attitude'
it will make things worse - they could give you some helpful advice and point you towards reliable arborists etc if work
does need doing.
I would be tempted to try and assess the likelihood af anything heavy falling on the house and look at getting that
removed. Otherwise leave well enough alone until the tree starts getting decayed and dangerous - could be 40 or 50 years
down the line.
Since you bought the house having seen the trees I doubt you will get much sympathy from the powers that be or the
locals unless you can produce a very good case for removing them. It's just possible you could get agreement to some
crown lifting on the Copper Beech to help with your light. Weigh present/possible future damage to your building against
possible legal costs and the cost of the tree work - around 450 quid a day for a good team.

Rod

In article ,
(Rod) wrote:

unless you can produce a very good case for removing them

I believe that whilst the Council can refuse to allow you to chop the
tree, they can be liable for damage you suffer as a result. If they
know that you know that, they may be constructive.

Steve Harris - Cheltenham - Real address steve AT netservs DOT com

Thanks all for the good information.
regards
Mark

Rod wrote:

"Mark Bridgett" wrote in message om...
In our front garden we have to rather large (estimated 70") beech
trees. The nearest of these though is 8 feet from the house. Yes, we
knew about them before we moved in, but I am really concerned about
this now.

The trees have a preservation order on them but I wondered if this was
a good enough reason to ask for permission to chop them down?

If others have been successful, is it only dead/dying trees that ever
get past our friendly councillors?

On a secondary and lesser note, we also have a very large copper beech
tree in our back garden (well it's in the neighbours) but this blocks
out nearly all our sunlight. Again, I suspect this isn't a good
enough reason, but I thought the point of TPO was for trees adding to
the visual look of the neighbourhood. Noone can see this apart from
us and the neighbours though.

Please don't get me wrong - I do like trees - I would just prefer them
to be a little further away from the house!

Problems created by felling the trees could be worse than keeping them. Chances are you aren't going to get much fresh
damage to the house for a long while - there's a good chance of getting damage from soil shrinkage if you remove them.

Surely this depends on the soil type doesn't it?

--
Chris Green )

wrote in message ...
Rod wrote:
Problems created by felling the trees could be worse than keeping them. Chances are you aren't going to get much fresh
damage to the house for a long while - there's a good chance of getting damage from soil shrinkage if you remove them.

Surely this depends on the soil type doesn't it?

--
Chris Green )

That's why I said in the bit you didn't quote that the op needs to consult a good arborist.

Rod

wrote in message ...
Rod wrote:
Problems created by felling the trees could be worse than keeping them. Chances are you aren't going to get much fresh
damage to the house for a long while - there's a good chance of getting damage from soil shrinkage if you remove them.

Surely this depends on the soil type doesn't it?

--
Chris Green )

That's why I said in the bit you didn't quote that the op needs to consult a good arborist.

Rod