LPA Refusal

[daltontrees]

Wish it was only one. 3998, 5837, 8545 here in the office. At home for course work is parts of the old one for transplanting rootballed trees, another one on soil testing (PI, MPI and the like)and I don't know what else. It's an expensive past time for the individual to keep informed.

 

But yes, 3998 definitely or even TreeLifes abridged version, which I think is around £35.

 

I recall some related debate recently on UKTC. Whilst it wasn't conclusive (nothing ever is there), one issue was that Council's cannot specify that work is done by a contractor, as that is beyond the remit of conditions. The owner has the right to do the work himself. And then we are in the territory of Councils only being willing to agree to works being done if they are done properly. That in itself seems reasonable in some cases. I recall, though that Guidance that might(!) still be in effect suggests specifying stuff in accordance with BS3998. And there appears to be a difference between what a Council can specify in aTPO approval and what it can specify in planning approvals affecting trees (whether TPO'd or not).

 

Re: RE: RE: Competence -special case and thereabouts in the archive.

 

What I advocate is using specific passages from BS3998.

 

Last week I had to do this, a TPO'd tree that the Council is really precious about, and the Council requested a lot of detal about how the work would be done. I have a text-only version of the Standard, so I pasted in the relevant paragraphs and then stripped out all the bits that weren't relevant. The text was then changed in narrative style to be a Method Statement.

 

In ways this is bettter than specifying compliance with BS3998, because it is much more focused, doesn't require a scouring of the whole Standard by every potential contractor to find out which bits are relevant, and doesn't even require contractors or tree owners to have a copy of the Standard.

 

But it took half an hour. It had to be done to get consent and to have enough precision to allow the Council to check the work afterwards.

[Gary Prentice]

I recall some related debate recently on UKTC. Whilst it wasn't conclusive (nothing ever is there), one issue was that Council's cannot specify that work is done by a contractor, as that is beyond the remit of conditions. The owner has the right to do the work himself. And then we are in the territory of Councils only being willing to agree to works being done if they are done properly. That in itself seems reasonable in some cases. I recall, though that Guidance that might(!) still be in effect suggests specifying stuff in accordance with BS3998. And there appears to be a difference between what a Council can specify in aTPO approval and what it can specify in planning approvals affecting trees (whether TPO'd or not).

 

Re: RE: RE: Competence -special case and thereabouts in the archive.

 

What I advocate is using specific passages from BS3998.

 

Last week I had to do this, a TPO'd tree that the Council is really precious about, and the Council requested a lot of detal about how the work would be done. I have a text-only version of the Standard, so I pasted in the relevant paragraphs and then stripped out all the bits that weren't relevant. The text was then changed in narrative style to be a Method Statement.

 

In ways this is bettter than specifying compliance with BS3998, because it is much more focused, doesn't require a scouring of the whole Standard by every potential contractor to find out which bits are relevant, and doesn't even require contractors or tree owners to have a copy of the Standard.

 

But it took half an hour. It had to be done to get consent and to have enough precision to allow the Council to check the work afterwards.

 

Talking about precision, I've just inquired with planning about a group order, from 1984, which listed trees of 'whatever species'. I asked how he like to defend that in court:biggrin:

 

But back to your original point, perhaps if councils rejected more applications and notices we'd all get into the habit of being more specific and accurate in what we're doing or supplying to others to do. I see some extraordinary bad apps accepted and consented, which allows the 'tree cutter' to do pretty much as they please.

[Gary Prentice]

Woodland= all trees, of all sizes, an ongoing entity.

 

A group TPO- trees present at the time of the order

 

A bit of difference

[daltontrees]

Surely all applications should have enough precision to allow the Council to check it has been carried out correctly. If they haven't then they shouldn't be validated until they do.

 

 

Yes but as Gary says and as we all know, some Councils let through all sorts of rubbish and in the longer term this colletively sends out the message that precision doesn't matter.

[Dorset Treeman]

Sorry, not been on Arbtalk for several months.

Thank you for all of your replies.

The owner had previously applied to reduce the crowns of two ash trees that were adjacent to each other, to allow more light to the garden. The decision was to allow the reduction on one of the trees, but not the adjacent one (this one) on the grounds that it was more visible and a reduction would have a negative impact on the amenity.

The client then decided if the tree could be crown lifted, that would allow light to the garden, albeit when the sun is low in the sky.

As mentioned originally, this was refused on the grounds of two large pruning wounds on the same level.

We submitted a further application to remove one of these branches, explaining that it was our intention to apply for removal of the second branch, if the tree shows good response to the pruning in the formation of callus tissues. We stayed how the finishing cut would be made and what time of year it would be done, to demonstrate that everything would be done to allow the tree to be able to cover the wound.

This was approved and the branch has been removed. We will now monitor the trees reaction before deciding to apply to remove the other branch or not.

[Dorset Treeman]

Sorry, not been on Arbtalk for several months.

Thank you for all of your replies.

The owner had previously applied to reduce the crowns of two ash trees that were adjacent to each other, to allow more light to the garden. The decision was to allow the reduction on one of the trees, but not the adjacent one (this one) on the grounds that it was more visible and a reduction would have a negative impact on the amenity.

The client then decided if the tree could be crown lifted, that would allow light to the garden, albeit when the sun is low in the sky.

As mentioned originally, this was refused on the grounds of two large pruning wounds on the same level.

We submitted a further application to remove one of these branches, explaining that it was our intention to apply for removal of the second branch, if the tree shows good response to the pruning in the formation of callus tissues. We stayed how the finishing cut would be made and what time of year it would be done, to demonstrate that everything would be done to allow the tree to be able to cover the wound.

This was approved and the branch has been removed. We will now monitor the trees reaction before deciding to apply to remove the other branch or not.