Already removed tree worth preserving in the development plan

Hello everyone,

as already hinted in one or two other topics, we recently signed the purchase contract for a piece of land. Handover in the next 1-2 weeks. We have already been on site with a friend who is a garden and landscape builder and jointly found that the current owner apparently removed a tree that is listed as worthy of preservation in the development plan. It is still visible on the Apple Street View images from 2019, so it must have happened in the last 3-4 years.

Questions to the development plan experts here in the forum:

[*]How should we deal with the situation? We will demand the entry from the owner on the handover protocol stating that the tree was already removed at the time of handover.

Regardless, we definitely want to have a tree there. We can imagine something not too tall, apple or similar. Preferably two of those.

[*]Do we need to consider anything when choosing a native deciduous tree? Does it have to be equivalent to the removed tree?
[*]Should this whole thing be reported to any authority? Or just keep quiet, plant a replacement and that’s it? It seems nobody has been bothered by it in recent years at least.

I would be grateful for assessments!

We will require the owner to include the entry in the handover protocol that the tree had already been removed at the time of handover.

Or simply keep quiet, plant a replacement, and that's it? At least in recent years, it doesn't seem to have bothered anyone.

The two options contradict each other. As soon as you get confirmation from the previous owner that the tree was already gone, you have it in black and white that you knew about it.
I have another suggestion: The previous owner contacts the responsible authority and arranges for an appropriate replacement planting at their expense. I would record that accordingly in the handover protocol.

The two variants contradict each other. As soon as you get confirmation from the previous owner that the tree was already gone, you have it in black and white that you knew about it. I have another suggestion: The previous owner contacts the responsible authority and arranges for an appropriate replacement planting at his own expense. I would record that accordingly in the handover protocol.

Well, for me, this splits into two strands: - I don’t want to be held responsible for the felling. Hence the signature. - I’m happy to plant a tree myself after consulting with the authority. In the hope of being able to discuss the exact tree species. I’m not concerned about the costs of planting or the coordination with the authority. I don’t want to prevent the tree. On the contrary, we want to have a tree there. There are clear guidelines for conifers, but not for deciduous trees. Therefore, the initial question is whether one is free to choose the deciduous tree. An online search has so far shown that these development plan requirements are usually less about protecting the individual tree and more about the character of the area. Whether that is actually true, I do not know.

Whether there are specific requirements will be told to you by the responsible authority. We had to carry out replacement plantings for tree felling twice; once it was up to us what we were allowed to plant, once there was a list of specified trees.

I would simply take a photo of the spot and that’s it. The tree is gone now, you can’t do anything about it anymore. That you want to plant a new tree is very nice and nothing wrong with it.

As already hinted at in one or two other topics, we recently signed the purchase agreement for a plot of land. Handover in the next 1-2 weeks. We were already on site with a friend who is a garden and landscape gardener and jointly established that the current owner apparently removed a tree registered as worth preserving in the development plan. It is still visible on the Apple Streetview images from 2019, so it must have happened in the last 3-4 years.

- I do not want to be held liable for the felling. That is why the signature.

Although I am not a lawyer, I do not see you in any criminal danger: not for failure to report, because the criminal liability of an accomplice to knowledge, to my knowledge, only covers crimes that can still be averted currently, and here it is only an administrative offense. And not for the "inventory difference" of the tree at least if you immediately—preferably witnessed and recorded—document which trees are present. Where there were more trees before than at the time of your recording, I do not see you obligated to investigate.

Submit your preliminary building inquiry and your building application without waking sleeping dogs. If they inquire on their own, you can still show cooperation. Otherwise, simply replant afterwards (within what is allowed) according to your own taste, without unnecessarily calling the new tree a replacement planting.