Jump to content

Log in or register to remove this advert

More info required from tree office?!


shillo
 Share

Recommended Posts

Applied to reduce limb touching chimney to give 2m clearance. Literally a five minute job with pole saw. N S E or W?? The limb touching the chimney!! Height above ground level?? The height of the chimney!!
How would you reply?
Reference:3164/18/TPO Received: 21 September 2018
Proposal:
T1: Turkey Oak - please specify whether intended works are removal of branch touching chimney at ? metres from ground level on North/South/East/West side of tree or reduction of x1 limb by up to 2 metres at ? metres from ground level.
 
Request for Further Details for an application to Undertake Works to Trees in a Conservation
Area or to a tree subject to a Tree Preservation Order
APPLICATION INVALID
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Log in or register to remove this advert

On 01/10/2018 at 19:38, shillo said:
Applied to reduce limb touching chimney to give 2m clearance. Literally a five minute job with pole saw. N S E or W?? The limb touching the chimney!! Height above ground level?? The height of the chimney!!
How would you reply?
Reference:3164/18/TPO Received: 21 September 2018
Proposal:
T1: Turkey Oak - please specify whether intended works are removal of branch touching chimney at ? metres from ground level on North/South/East/West side of tree or reduction of x1 limb by up to 2 metres at ? metres from ground level.
 
Request for Further Details for an application to Undertake Works to Trees in a Conservation
Area or to a tree subject to a Tree Preservation Order
APPLICATION INVALID

To be fair, the application failed to meet the requirements for validation in the first sentence. For several years now, the requirement has been to provide the residual crown spread after pruning, whether that's the entire canopy or partial/in one direction. It's no harder to write a correctly worded application, than it is to write one that may not be validated. 

 

If it's only one limb, something like:

'Reduce lateral limb extending to the (N,E, S, W) at x m above ground level, to a residual branch length of x m to provide a two m clearance from the chimney. Pruning to be limited to the removal/reduction of secondary and tertiary branches only and in compliance with BS3998'

 

Bear in mind that if a TPO'd tree is mullered after receiving consent, the LA would want a cast iron specification of work that they could show a judge had been exceeded. I know it's annoying when stuff comes back, but shouldn't we all be on board to raise the standards and improve the system where we can?

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, EdwardC said:

There's a difference between specifying BS 5837 and compling with BS 5837.

But that's the climbers problem. And after that, the LA's to decide whether there's enough of a contravention that it's in the public interest to pursue it. 

 

Hopefully, everyone is reasonable enough to appreciate that trees don't read the rules and regs and just grow without neatly fitting into the little boxes that we try to fit them in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Gary Prentice said:

To be fair, the application failed to meet the requirements for validation in the first sentence. For several years now, the requirement has been to provide the residual crown spread after pruning, whether that's the entire canopy or partial/in one direction. It's no harder to write a correctly worded application, than it is to write one that may not be validated. 

 

If it's only one limb, something like:

'Reduce lateral limb extending to the (N,E, S, W) at x m above ground level, to a residual branch length of x m to provide a two m clearance from the chimney. Pruning to be limited to the removal/reduction of secondary and tertiary branches only and in compliance with BS3998'

 

Bear in mind that if a TPO'd tree is mullered after receiving consent, the LA would want a cast iron specification of work that they could show a judge had been exceeded. I know it's annoying when stuff comes back, but shouldn't we all be on board to raise the standards and improve the system where we can?

 

 

 

 

Yes i know your right, just ranting out loud!

 

Extra annoying as i know another local tree surgeon has recently just been let off for felling 6 mature tpo'd trees. Notorious for getting away with tpo stuff. Heard he got away with nailing a ganoderma bracket to a tree and claimed it had to be felled.

Why do i bother filling in forms?! Have to also do it online now which takes me flipping all night!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

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.