an interesting one...

[Roz]

:001_smile:Thank You...

[Gary Prentice]

(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.

 

 

 

I think the applicants consultant recommended surveying again in 2019. That kind of suggests, at least to me, that he expected them to still be there.

[Parrott tree care]

Huge trees crash down in family's garden after council refused permission to cut them down

 

 

Typical council don't have a clue

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

I think the applicants consultant recommended surveying again in 2019. That kind of suggests, at least to me, that he expected them to still be there.

 

I read that as the remaining trees should be re-inspected Gary?

[Gary Prentice]

You're probably right, should have checked before replying

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

What else is there to think about. Do the reasons put forward to support the application outweigh the amenity of the tree. That simple.

 

Going back to the start. The only reason to make a TPO is amenity. There's nothing else I'm aware of in the legislation.

 

Enlighten me as to what else the TO should be considering, apart from amenity and the reasons supporting the application, when determining an application.

 

Ed

 

No small undertaking and not to be attempted without due thought and consideration!

 

I'm not at all sure you'll find the Voltaire-esque illumination you've asked for, but there may well be an immediate and obvious reason for that.....

 

There is nothing to disagree with in your preceding posts where you present the position that nothing more, or less, than amenity and the submitted justification for requesting consent for works should be considered in the decision making process that precedes a DN.

 

On that we are in complete accord.

 

Where, I think, we may diverge slightly, is that (I presume) you exist in a highly professional, fully resourced, experienced, qualified and equipped environment where consultee input to DNs is given all of the necessary attention and staffing prior to submission to the PO and as such, you may not have been exposed to, or even be able to comprehend the possible existence of, poorly conceived, inadequate or blatantly "made up" statements, requirements or conditions attached to DNs which eminate from (dare I say it) less well equipped, resourced and motivated working environments than I imagine yours to be?

 

And so, whereas enlightenment may be beyond my ability, it is with much regret that I may actually need to bring to your attention the disappointment that can be experienced when exposed to organisations with less qualified, experienced, engaging and professional staff - yes, I'm sorry to be the bearer of such devastating news, they do exist and the empirical evidence is here on this forum and within my own personal experience - where, it may be felt that, DNs can appear to be justified by 'amenity' (subjective and almost impossible to define) in order to avoid any deeper staffing of the application. Purely a personal opinion, but the A word can be the refuge of the inexperienced or overworked TO and whilst it may well be enough to deter the random homeowner applicant or equally over-worked and ambivalent contractor, in the long term, (again, a personal view) it's does no credit to the shared aspiration of achieving real amenity.

 

Perhaps we could re-visit the discussion when the outcome of this particular incident is in the public domain?

 

Beer O'clock!

Edited February 10, 2017 by kevinjohnsonmbe

[Gary Prentice]

I think you spelt 'refuge' wrong, Mr J:001_tt2:

[eggsarascal]

I think you spelt 'refuge' wrong, Mr J:001_tt2:

 

Could you hold your foot up in the future Mr Prentice?

 

I was all over it like a rash until you jumped in.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

No small undertaking and not to be attempted without due thought and consideration!

 

I'm not at all sure you'll find the Voltaire-esque illumination you've asked for, but there may well be an immediate and obvious reason for that.....

 

There is nothing to disagree with in your preceding posts where you present the position that nothing more, or less, than amenity and the submitted justification for requesting consent for works should be considered in the decision making process that precedes a DN.

 

On that we are in complete accord.

 

Where, I think, we may diverge slightly, is that (I presume) you exist in a highly professional, fully resourced, experienced, qualified and equipped environment where consultee input to DNs is given all of the necessary attention and staffing prior to submission to the PO and as such, you may not have been exposed to, or even be able to comprehend the possible existence of, poorly conceived, inadequate or blatantly "made up" statements, requirements or conditions attached to DNs which eminate from (dare I say it) less well equipped, resourced and motivated working environments than I imagine yours to be?

 

And so, whereas enlightenment may be beyond my ability, it is with much regret that I may actually need to bring to your attention the disappointment that can be experienced when exposed to organisations with less qualified, experienced, engaging and professional staff - yes, I'm sorry to be the bearer of such devastating news, they do exist and the empirical evidence is here on this forum and within my own personal experience - where, it may be felt that, DNs can appear to be justified by 'amenity' (subjective and almost impossible to define) in order to avoid any deeper staffing of the application. Purely a personal opinion, but the A word can be the refuge of the inexperienced or overworked TO and whilst it may well be enough to deter the random homeowner applicant or equally over-worked and ambivalent contractor, in the long term, (again, a personal view) it's does no credit to the shared aspiration of achieving real amenity.

 

Perhaps we could re-visit the discussion when the outcome of this particular incident is in the public domain?

 

Beer O'clock!

 

I think you spelt 'refuge' wrong, Mr J:001_tt2:

 

Could you hold your foot up in the future Mr Prentice?

 

I was all over it like a rash until you jumped in.

 

Pair of W anchors! I done the other one as well.... it was "as" but I changed it to "than"

 

First bottle of red, done.....

[Gary Prentice]

How are you drinking wine, what with your tongue so firmly wedged in your cheek this evening?