Jump to content

Log in or register to remove this advert

LA granting TPO consent for trees in their own stewardship


kevinjohnsonmbe
 Share

Recommended Posts

This is quite a long and fairly complex scenario.

 

The full detail and supporting submissions can be found here (and I suspect only a very few (although I very much hope it is the people I'm thinking of) will go so far as to reading the background)

 

http://planning.cornwall.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=PE81Y8FG06P00

 

PA18/08061 | Works to trees covered by a Tree Preservation Order (Cornwall Council planning page)

 

Brief background:

 

TPO's trees in a closed cemetery in the care of LA.

 

Usual history of inspections and works as a consequence.

 

Summer this year a partial failure of a mature Beech with clearly observable historic defect features and previous (but discontinued bracing) resulted in the pic below.  

 

From this came the pitch fork wielding irrational demands for all the other trees to be felled.

 

A meeting, LA tree officer, local residents, ward councillor ensued and the LA's "arms length" company submitted a woefully inadequate TPO for crown reduction 2 remaining trees (1 Beech 1 Syc).

 

The remaining Beech has now been exposed (were the failed tree was removed) to 180 degrees of direct sunlight which was previously shaded by removed tree.

 

LA proposal is to crown reduce the 2 remaining trees.

 

My contention is that there is absolutely no arboricultural justification for this and that it is a lame attempt by the LA to ameliorate local concern.

 

It is an expense to the tax payer and potentially harmful to the retained trees.  Worse than nugatory, actually overtly bad practice.

 

The recent thread in the "arbcology wood decay fungi for arborists and mycologists" Facebook Page  which discusses the relative pro / cons of crown reduction is a timely and relevant example of how harm can be caused.

 

It would appear that the only option to challenge the LA in their decision would be to refer the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman (Mynors 24.3.8 p679 2nd Ed) unless anyone has any other ideas?

 

Apol's for really quick canter through...  More detail at the link for those that might be interested.

 

For David at VALID, this whole scenario would make for a fantastic case study! @Acer ventura

I'm also hoping Jules, Gary, Chris and Ed will have a look @Chris at eden.  @EdwardC@daltontrees @Gary Prentice and anybody else!

 

 

 

IMG_8859.jpeg

IMG_8861.jpeg

IMG_8869.jpeg

Edited by kevinjohnsonmbe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Log in or register to remove this advert

11 minutes ago, EdwardC said:

I feel your frustration. In my past life a tree on Parish Council land blew over and damaged a building. All the nearby trees then had to be felled. All protected, all perfectly fine and against my recommendations, but I was told in no uncertain terms that is what was going to happen. I refused to have anything to do with the application or sign off the decision and made my objections quite clear. Not my only run in with the higher echelons, no surprise I was eventually made redundant.

 

Anyway, your only opportunity to challenge the decision would likely be via the High Court. That would have to be on a point of law rather than the decision. Maybe because they didn't put up site notices as required by the 1999 Tree Regs. (And no, they're not all superseded). Assuming of course they didn't actually put up site notices. Time limits will almost certainly apply to doing this kind of challenge. Another problem here might be that it is was the arms-length company that applied, not the Council itself so the High Court may decide notices weren't needed.

 

The Ombudsman can't change the decision, just slap the wrist of the hand that feeds it. You would have to demonstrate maldministration. Which if the notices weren't put up, and the Ombudsman decides they should have been, shouldn't be difficult. The injustice that follows would be that you missed the opportunity to object to the proposal and offer your professional views.

 

Regards the specification, NOTE 2 para 7.7.2 BS 3998 says 'Annotated photographs should be provided would be helpful in describing the desired  result'.

 

So unlikely the poor specification element of the complaint would stand up. However, para's 7.1 & 7.2 BS 3998 should also be considered and there doesn't appear to be any evidence that it has.

 

Good luck, but I honestly think you're on a hiding to nothing.

I'm part way through the LGO referral form.  I don't anticipate that it will change the decision but it could serve to embarrass.  

 

That, and spreading the detail as far and wide as possible across local and national web platforms.

 

I'll grab and upload some current canopy pictures tomorrow so that all and sundry can see the impact that the previous tree removal has had on the retained tree and how blatantly illogical it is to propose further canopy reduction of a tree which has just lost so much shade.  

 

The Cornwall branch AA Autumn conference is a couple of weeks away (and although there has been a notable historic lack of meaningful branch output, the guest speaker this time is not to be missed). Hopefully, there'll be some of the people responsible for this decision in attendance....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, eggsarascal said:

I wonder who the guest speaker is?

Dude...

 

It’s like Jeremy Barrell! 

 

I have, like, no idea what the equivalent in drains & pumps would be, but iffum yome into vacuum cleaners, it’d be, like meeting James Dyson or iffum yome into  cheap ale (or Brexit) it’d be like supping a pint with Tim Martin....

 

and then aside side from all of that, it’s actually IN Cornwall! Have you ANY idea how rare that is??

 

I am genuinely beside myself with anticipation!

Edited by kevinjohnsonmbe
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Dude...

 

It’s like Jeremy fucking Barrell! 

 

I have, like, no idea what the equivalent in drains & pumps would be, but iffum yome into vacuum cleaners, it’d be, like meeting James Dyson or iffum yome into  cheap ale (or Brexit) it’d be like supping a pint with Tim Martin....

 

and then aside side from all of that, it’s actually IN Cornwall! Have you ANY idea how rare that is??

 

I am genuinely beside myself with anticipation!

Oh, Jezza!  why didn't ya say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Alex O said:

Wow not sure how they missed that. What’s a 1.5 meter reduction going to do those two trees. And are they wanting to clear the whole church yard now because of what’s happened.

There are 2 pretty awesome (and rare as hen's teeth) CPD events in Cornwall this month Alex:

 

20 Nov 18 - AA Cornwall branch Autumn conference 

https://www.trees.org.uk/Training-And-Events/Course-Detail?id=A352978D-DF9B-4490-8225-D1AE6068BEA1&fbclid=IwAR3PI77ba6amu8P5_H2Utf4SVFexQE2stT0Yj0Lb0RZa8D2a3zT3650lx9k

 

and 

 

26 Nov 18 - Cornwall Canopy Action Plan 

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/trees-woods-hedges-cornwalls-canopy-action-plan-a-stakeholder-event-tickets-51141976027

 

If you fancy, and you can get across the bridge as far as Liskeard, I'm driving down West for both!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TPO trees on LA managed land is a bit odd, not unusual, just a bit odd. Can you not talk to the TO?

 

Does the application not have to go to be discussed at a Council Members meeting? if so, you should get the chance to speak at this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are 2 pretty awesome (and rare as hen's teeth) CPD events in Cornwall this month Alex:
 
20 Nov 18 - AA Cornwall branch Autumn conference 
https://www.trees.org.uk/Training-And-Events/Course-Detail?id=A352978D-DF9B-4490-8225-D1AE6068BEA1&fbclid=IwAR3PI77ba6amu8P5_H2Utf4SVFexQE2stT0Yj0Lb0RZa8D2a3zT3650lx9k
 
and 
 
26 Nov 18 - Cornwall Canopy Action Plan 
https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/trees-woods-hedges-cornwalls-canopy-action-plan-a-stakeholder-event-tickets-51141976027
 
If you fancy, and you can get across the bridge as far as Liskeard, I'm driving down West for both!

Thanks Kev, sounds good but I’m off to Aus in the new year so just keep my head down at the moment trying to get through my regular customers before I go. But appreciate the offer Thankyou, Alex.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nimby said:

TPO trees on LA managed land is a bit odd, not unusual, just a bit odd. Can you not talk to the TO?

 

Does the application not have to go to be discussed at a Council Members meeting? if so, you should get the chance to speak at this. 

There is considerable "background" to this scenario.

 

The issue of liability and compensation for damage caused by (what can only ever be found to be) inadequate prior inspections and maintenance - which is the subject of current investigations / negotiations by insurance companies - and resulted in the failure posted earlier, has caused widespread concern amongst those living nearby.  The reality is that there has been a campaign over decades to have the trees removed and this is being used as the 'final push' to add weight to that viewpoint.

 

To be fair, the tree that failed WAS in need of attention and it was the  failure on the part of the LA to recognise and properly action this that has resulted in the current situation.

 

Current situation is that some of the more determined of those in the immediate vicinity now feel emboldened to insist upon further action whereas the tree that genuinely needed attention has failed and been removed.  

 

The remainder have no observable justification for remedial works but the LA (swayed by political pressure no doubt) have approved works which can only (IMHO) be seen to be (a) an unnecessary and inappropriate expense to the public purse and (b) detrimental (and therefore improper duty to maintain) the retained trees. 

 

The up-shot being that the locals that want the trees removed will remain unsatisfied, the longer term viability of the trees will be denuded and there will be necessary / inappropriate expense to the (supposedly stretched budgets.) All round, a Lose, Lose, Lose scenario.

 

To complicate matters further, it is the councils 100% share owned / profit share "arms length company" that has been directed to submit the application (and, no doubt undertake the works) so it is the LA spending public money on a task that is inappropriate and paying it's own company to do the work which will result in some profit share back to LA.

 

The arms length company has made an embarrassingly inept attempt at the initial and subsequent TPO application, the council's TO has made an embarrassingly inadequate assessment of the scenario and the LA has approved the application.

 

If you have a moment to look at the consulate and public comments at the planning page, and the works spec submitted by the arms length company, you'll see how genuinely poor that work is....

 

Here's a pic of the tree taken this morning.  The suggestion that this tree would in any way benefit from further crown reduction is, frankly, laughable (if it wasn't so tragic!) and as to the requirement to achieve the highways clearance, that too is laughable.  This is a single track lane access to a village car park.  There must be 1000's of miles of roads in Cornwall that would score infinitely higher on the 'need' for highway clearance before this one even appeared on the radar - it is just laughable. 

 

 

 

 

Screenshot 2018-11-12 at 10.47.05.pdf

Edited by kevinjohnsonmbe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.