Jump to content

Log in or register to remove this advert

Routinely refused works ?


Apex
 Share

Recommended Posts

Word for word this advice is on one local council's advice page.

But is it right ?

 

"TREE WORKS THAT ARE ROUTINELY REFUSED BY THIS AUTHORITY

 

• Crown reduction. This work will usually only be permitted where there are clearly identified health and safety implications of not carrying out the work. Proposed crown reductions of healthy trees for reasons of improving sunlight/daylight penetration, creating or improving views or imprecise tree management reasons are unlikely to be approved.

 

• Crown thinning. This work will usually only be permitted where there are clearly identified health and safety implications of not carrying out the work i.e. management of a lapsed pollard or a previously crown reduced tree.

 

........Having read this it would appear the council's advice contradict the guidance in BS3998:2010.

 

This was recently addressed with the Council in a local Arb working group meeting. The Council requested I put this to the wider Arb community and receive feedback before they will consider making any possible changes to the Council's policy.

 

Any comments would be gratefully received ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Log in or register to remove this advert

  • Replies 33
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I like it, and its good to see someone in Local Authority who is obviously passionate about trees and looking beyond short term resolutions to issues that once the works have been carried out never last much beyond one or two growing seasons before needing to be addressed again and usually have long term adverse affects on the trees health and development and the clients pocket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look at the terminology of the statements, then reflect upon how words may have been overlooked in knee jerk reaction responses, then you can see that they are statements to guide those submitting applications.

 

The use of 'clearly identified health and safety implications' denotes that the usual submittance of 'I can not sunbathe' mentality to tree management will not be accepted. A long-term vision of aesthetically pleasing, urban contributing, and safe for retention; within the surrounding area trees, seems to be the councils objective in my opinion.

 

The safety aspects are in keeping with the guidance of current best practice for tree management and reducing the risk averse society that has evolved.

 

The other aspect to consider is the cost implication of councils looking through endless tree work apps that are not in keeping with environmental mind-sets that are trying to be adopted and implemented by people with a broader awareness of the vital contribution that trees play in the planet.

 

Only by slowly changing the awareness and respect of trees by the 'not in my back yard' masses will we benefit from the variety of attributes trees possess for our planetary existence.

Edited by jaime bray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this for TPO trees? If so then I agree, all works to TPO trees need to be for a reason of safety and/or damage prevention, not for "I want more light" reasons.

 

If its for tree in a conservation area then I disagree. They can only prevent works by issuing TPO's, conservation areas are just places where you need to inform your intent so the LA has the opportunity to place a TPO if they choose. They cant say if you can thin or reduce a tree or not, they can only TPO it and then make the conditions in my first paragraph apply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks like they are explaining clearly that they are protecting trees which need it.

 

There are too many people out there who think they can do what they like to trees.

 

I'm sure we have all met the chav brigade who dont like clearing up leaves and want all the trees removed. I, for one, support LAs who adopt a tougher stance.

 

As for the newly promoted hippy.. well good luck to him.

 

Our job,as professionals, is to do what is best for the trees - let's support a LA that seems to share this view.

 

Too many dick-head Audi driver types who love concrete!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


  •  

  • Featured Adverts

About

Arbtalk.co.uk is a hub for the arboriculture industry in the UK.  
If you're just starting out and you need business, equipment, tech or training support you're in the right place.  If you've done it, made it, got a van load of oily t-shirts and have decided to give something back by sharing your knowledge or wisdom,  then you're welcome too.
If you would like to contribute to making this industry more effective and safe then welcome.
Just like a living tree, it'll always be a work in progress.
Please have a look around, sign up, share and contribute the best you have.

See you inside.

The Arbtalk Team

Follow us

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.