an interesting one...

[Arctostaphylos uva-ursi]

.....and I thought they were beech!

 

 

 

sorry I'll get my coat.

 

Very true though Ed.

[Roz]

For what its worth as a lowly TO my thoughts if I received the application .....

 

On the evidence submitted in the tree report from the consulting arborist I would have made a site visit spoken with the consultant and arranged to meet them on site. The underlying/historical reasons given for wanting removal may be none arboricultural and a bigger picture of light etc BUT

 

Clearly a significant tree but based on the consulting arb report the tree has physical issues which compromise its functionality despite the tree appearing to be in good vigour – but is that due to grafted roots?

 

The lean has increased from 5-10 degrees in 2006 to 11.7 in 2016 – so it’s either moved 6.7 degrees or 1.7 degrees, that’s a big discrepancy but the tree is clearly moving. I don’t have a fully working knowledge of QTRA but from the info in the report clearly the risk is considered unacceptable – taking all that into account and looking at the target area combined with the vertical crack, what has occurred within the rooting area historically I would be writing a report recommending the Beech was felled, I would feel that the risk is too great for the council to take the hit.

 

On the basis also that Beech trees are shallow rooted and any reduction in the canopy to reduce weight would need to be significant and Beech trees are not tolerant of heavy reductions, it’s adjacent to another Beech reduction of sorts would need to be considered.

 

There are times when I feel TO’s have to accept that a tree is at the end of its safe useful life within the urban environment and while we can say lets’ reduce it and see what happens, oh just leave it etc etc we are not god. There is a process and a replacement can be planted, I know that doesn’t replace the loss of a mature tree in the short term but where there are groups of even aged trees surely we have a duty to look at the long term management of the area which should include replacements?

 

I forgot to add – I think a possible PICUS but that would have its limitations, if Merripilus was present and given there had been Dmp test and no significant cavities found it wouldn’t really help. Although I know a gut feeling isn’t fact but given the lean something had to be going on?

 

Some excavation around the roots may have shed light on issues and wouldn’t have taken 8 weeks to do and there in would have been potentially damning evidence…….I don’t feel that the TO necessarily did a thorough job in requesting further investigation however how far do you go?

[Jon Heuch]

The homeowner appears to have been "content" to accept the refusal notice rather than progress the matter.

 

The survey report failed to provide sufficient evidence to PROVE the probability of failure (or provide sufficient weight of evidence in support of the probability.)

 

The TO appears to have relied upon the old "amenity" chestnut to recommend refusal.

 

Will be interesting to see where liabilities are laid!

 

There was an appeal in process but as PINS were told the tree blew down they will not be issuing a decision notice.

 

As for where the responsibilities lie, the Courts have clearly stated that all an applicant has to do is show on the balance of probabilities that an outcome is likely. In such circumstances the Council would be liable for any loss or damage arising if they were to ignore evidence provided with an application. Lands Tribunal has ruled very clearly on this. Amenity is irrelevant with regards to compensation.

 

In this case we have two inspections made 10 years apart - such evidence is typically missing and IMO is highly valuable. In addition, there is a clear recommendation for removal of one tree.....but do the photos show that two trees failed?

[Gary Prentice]

I have done pull tests in the past but we now use motion sensing.

 

I'm a bit rusty on the terminology, but what's the difference?

 

What I was alluding to were attaching sensors, basically two tiny prongs that the device measures the deflection of, when a load is applied to the stem.

[Arctostaphylos uva-ursi]

The difference is that TMS relies on natural loading of the canopy (i.e. by the wind) whereas Tree Pulling relies on a load being physically applied (i.e. by tirfor).

We opted for TMS in the end because it is easier to apply in tight situations and doesn't upset the public!

[Roz]

Was it a cop out on the TOs part to refuse and let an inspector decide?....internal politics.? public pressure? I suspect that also has a lot to do with it unfortunately!

[Gary Prentice]

The difference is that TMS relies on natural loading of the canopy (i.e. by the wind) whereas Tree Pulling relies on a load being physically applied (i.e. by tirfor).

We opted for TMS in the end because it is easier to apply in tight situations and doesn't upset the public!

 

Thanks for that.

 

Time for some more research then:biggrin:

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

(1) There was an appeal in process but as PINS were told the tree blew down they will not be issuing a decision notice.

 

(2) As for where the responsibilities lie, the Courts have clearly stated that all an applicant has to do is show on the balance of probabilities that an outcome is likely. In such circumstances the Council would be liable for any loss or damage arising if they were to ignore evidence provided with an application. Lands Tribunal has ruled very clearly on this. (3) Amenity is irrelevant with regards to compensation.

 

In this case we have two inspections made 10 years apart - such evidence is typically missing and IMO is highly valuable. In addition, there is a clear recommendation for removal of one tree.....but do the photos show that two trees failed?

 

(1) Thanks for that info, that wasn't apparent from that which was immediately available.

 

(2) Struggling with this bit: The applicant has to provide sufficient justification / evidence to allow the LA to reach a decision - was that achieved? (Well, they made a decision!) But perhaps the info provided was not in sufficient detail or sufficiently compelling to facilitate a consent?

 

The LA has to refer back to the applicant if the info is vague or ambiguous. It doesn't appear that the information provided was vague or ambiguous, just insufficient perhaps?

 

The balance of probability is that all trees will fall over, it's just a matter of time. I didn't see anything in the survey report that gave a timescale within which the tree should be felled to avoid failure (I might have missed it, it was getting late last night when I read it.)

 

How does the probability v time scenario play out in that case?

 

(3) Good, quite rightly so.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

The "amenity chestnut"! What other chestnut is there when considering TPO's. Amenity is the only chestnut in town.

 

S198(1)TCPA If it appears to a local planning authority that it is expedient in the interests of amenity to make provision for the preservation of trees or woodlands in their area, they may for that purpose make an order with respect to such trees, groups of trees or woodlands as may be specified in the order.

 

It's amenity when making, it's amenity when applying for works, and it's amenity when appealing, (that's all PIN's are interested in). Have no doubt it's amenity, amenity, amenity.

 

If you want to get consent, or win your appeal, then you have to demonstrate that the reasons for the proposed works outweigh the amenity of the tree. On this occasion it appears that the consultant didn't convince the tree officer.

 

Why didn't someone have a dig around the root plate with a spade.

 

Ed

 

 

You missed one Ed!

 

It's "amenity" when the TO can't be arsed to think of anything else....

 

(I hope you take that in the way it was intended, it's not confrontational, but rather a humorous reflection on some of the frustrations that are experienced at the operators end of the process. There has been plenty of discussion regarding the ambiguity of "amenity", plenty of discussion about frustrations over seemingly odd decisions / random or made up conditions and plenty of discussion about under resourcing of LAs - they all play a part)

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

For what its worth as a lowly TO my thoughts if I received the application .....

 

On the evidence submitted in the tree report from the consulting arborist I would have made a site visit spoken with the consultant and arranged to meet them on site. The underlying/historical reasons given for wanting removal may be none arboricultural and a bigger picture of light etc BUT

 

Clearly a significant tree but based on the consulting arb report the tree has physical issues which compromise its functionality despite the tree appearing to be in good vigour – but is that due to grafted roots?

 

The lean has increased from 5-10 degrees in 2006 to 11.7 in 2016 – so it’s either moved 6.7 degrees or 1.7 degrees, that’s a big discrepancy but the tree is clearly moving. I don’t have a fully working knowledge of QTRA but from the info in the report clearly the risk is considered unacceptable – taking all that into account and looking at the target area combined with the vertical crack, what has occurred within the rooting area historically I would be writing a report recommending the Beech was felled, I would feel that the risk is too great for the council to take the hit.

 

On the basis also that Beech trees are shallow rooted and any reduction in the canopy to reduce weight would need to be significant and Beech trees are not tolerant of heavy reductions, it’s adjacent to another Beech reduction of sorts would need to be considered.

 

There are times when I feel TO’s have to accept that a tree is at the end of its safe useful life within the urban environment and while we can say lets’ reduce it and see what happens, oh just leave it etc etc we are not god. There is a process and a replacement can be planted, I know that doesn’t replace the loss of a mature tree in the short term but where there are groups of even aged trees surely we have a duty to look at the long term management of the area which should include replacements?

 

I forgot to add – I think a possible PICUS but that would have its limitations, if Merripilus was present and given there had been Dmp test and no significant cavities found it wouldn’t really help. Although I know a gut feeling isn’t fact but given the lean something had to be going on?

 

Some excavation around the roots may have shed light on issues and wouldn’t have taken 8 weeks to do and there in would have been potentially damning evidence…….I don’t feel that the TO necessarily did a thorough job in requesting further investigation however how far do you go?

 

I think that's a good post there Roz!