Arborist’/tree surgeons and morals

[Gary Prentice]

44 minutes ago, felixthelogchopper said:

It has been known.

Conservation areas come to mind, you buy a property and then the LA either creates one or extend an existing one. Happened to me recently, in that last year a client could do what he wanted with his trees one day, the next they were in a CA so he couldn't.

[Shane]

16 hours ago, Gary Prentice said:

I do believe that the AA have had complaints about contractors simply contacting the local planning office to check for TPOs. 

Better arrest me now.

I frequently contact my LA to check about TPOs. If you are asked to quote for a really nice specimen tree and the client tells you there is no TPO I think it is unprofessional to NOT check.

When I contact them I do only give them the address, I don't tell them which tree it is, they then check on their records for me and tell me either NO TPOs or, YES there's a ...... etc.

 

I don't see a problem. 

 

On a few occasions where they are 'mis-informed'  I have just politely told the client that they ARE TPOd and advise them on the required procedure. I have ended up doing more than half of such jobs. 

 

As for morals with trees, if its legal and I refuse it, they will just get someone else round anyway. I have hidden the sign-written vehicles on a couple of jobs though.  

[Gary Prentice]

Don't care who tells me it's not protected, conveyancing solicitor, architect, building contractor or whoever -every enquiry gets searched.

 

Initially some planning departments will demand to know what tree, what do you want to do etc. Politely decline the enquiry, they don't need to know to provide the information requested.

[stihlmadasever]

Why wouldnt you check with your LA for a tpo on a tree ?

I really couldnt give a toss if the AA were receiving complaints,its the right thing to do imo.

Luckily most councils have a downloadable tpo register now...

[skyhuck]

8 hours ago, felixthelogchopper said:

Out of interest, do you feel the same way about Listed Buildings?

IMO, this is a ridiculous comparison, a property is an asset and almost without fail will increase in value, often the listed features add to its value. A property if maintained correctly will last pretty much indefinitely.

 

A tree on the other hand generally has no real value, except to those who like it, but even then its still in real terms a liability that requires maintenance and has a finite life.

 

Personally, I think TPO'd trees should be maintained from the public purse. 

[john p]

IMO, this is a ridiculous comparison, a property is an asset and almost without fail will increase in value, often the listed features add to its value. A property if maintained correctly will last pretty much indefinitely.
 
A tree on the other hand generally has no real value, except to those who like it, but even then its still in real terms a liability that requires maintenance and has a finite life.
 
Personally, I think TPO'd trees should be maintained from the public purse. 

I’m with you on the public purse for tpo trees, as an asset to the community they should be maintained by the council, can’t see it happening though!

Actually thinking about it judging by most l.a work maybe not maintained by the council but funded instead.

[sean]

1 hour ago, skyhuck said:

 

Personally, I think TPO'd trees should be maintained from the public purse. 

I’ve been saying the same for ages. Met somebody the other day with a TPO Oak with Ganoderma which they are having to pay for a Picus investigation on due to Ganoderma decay and then pay for future management costs and inspections. They are pretty skint and want to just pay a one off cost of removal which being TPO’d they obviously cannot do without proof it is justified.

[benedmonds]

1 hour ago, john p said:

I’m with you on the public purse for tpo trees, as an asset to the community they should be maintained by the council, can’t see it happening though!
 

It's tricky, the council TO's rarely care about the ongoing costs. I have an appeal in at the moment where a client can't sell his house as the garden is basically a tree... He has been living there 40 years with this tree, a nice enough tree but totally unsuitable for a small garden. It is unfair that to sell his house he would have to massively reduce the cost of his property.  He is paying a HUGE cost for the perceived benefit of the many..

Edited November 30, 2017 by benedmonds

[WesD]

6 hours ago, Shane said:

Better arrest me now.

I frequently contact my LA to check about TPOs. If you are asked to quote for a really nice specimen tree and the client tells you there is no TPO I think it is unprofessional to NOT check.

When I contact them I do only give them the address, I don't tell them which tree it is, they then check on their records for me and tell me either NO TPOs or, YES there's a ...... etc.

Same, I check every tree so I know I’m covered but I have no problem taking anything down. 

 

I sometimes think this is such a shame to remove but then I think about where my rope guides going. I work to live and as others have said if it’s not you removing it someone else will, I have a family to feed and bills to pay maybe if I was loaded I’d be more picky but I’m not. 

[felixthelogchopper]

4 hours ago, skyhuck said:

IMO, this is a ridiculous comparison, a property is an asset and almost without fail will increase in value, often the listed features add to its value. A property if maintained correctly will last pretty much indefinitely.

 

A tree on the other hand generally has no real value, except to those who like it, but even then its still in real terms a liability that requires maintenance and has a finite life.

 

Personally, I think TPO'd trees should be maintained from the public purse. 

Firstly, I asked a question and didn't draw a comparison. Secondly, is your only idea of value in monetary terms?