Unauthorised tree work in CA.

[s o c]

Is it worth the risk of falling out with with neighbors ?

sure you are in the right but the stories that get around are never accurate.

you could end up being branded as putting in reports because you didn’t get jobs. Your other neighbors could get wrong impression.

it would be different if not so close to home.

[Mick Dempsey]

7 minutes ago, EdwardC said:

It didn't have an order on it. It was in a conservation area. It's not just oaks that need protecting, and it's not actually just about the trees. It's about the wider public amenity, of which all trees, of whatever species, are a part.

 

Should criminals benefit from their crimes at the expense of professional tree surgeons. No.

 

The council should treat the complaint in the strictest confidence. The neighbours will never know, unless they read what's posted here and put 2 and 2 together.

CA/TPO same diff, you can’t cut your own tree until Glorious State says so.

[eggsarascal]

2 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

It would take no more time to forward detail to LA than it has done to post here.  Why should those that "do it right" give way to those that don't.

 

If it bothers you enough to post on here it should bother you enough to take the time to email the LA and let them take it forward.  No good complaining if you don't follow it up.  

I'm getting quite annoyed with agreeing with you, people will be starting to think we get on.

[john p]

I have, on occasion, played fast and loose doing a bit of pruning in a CA, but never considered doing a removal or pollarding (topping) without consent. Tbh, councils have neither the money or inclination to chase up dodgy tree cutters,

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

10 hours ago, jfc said:

 

Down the road from me a birch is being dismantled (I quoted for it but was too expensive apparently), no tree work application submitted (home owner was told CA needs application at time of quoting). Anyway another company is currently doing it, I spoke to them saying this has no permission. He responded by saying it has a Co dom stem so can have a retrospective done on it after removal. I am annoyed at his blatant ignoring of CA rules, debating passing on photos to the council. Opinions please!

 

The 'test' a previous LPA I worked for was "would we have TPO'd it?" If not, prosecution was a non-starter, perhaps not unreasonably. If the answer was 'yes,' then they would ask is it in the public interest and unless was a persistent offender they would conclude no. If it was a persistent offender most likely was a formal caution, not prosecution...very frustrating, but!

 

Cheers,

Paul 

[tree-fancier123]

it seems to me if her neighbour gets in trouble about the CA birch it will be obvious to the neighbour that the person who reported it was the tree woman up the road, as CA tree law isnt common knowledge. Some people do turn nasty and have a long memory. It doesn't seem beyond the realms of possibility that your van/car could be scratched  with a key, or similar retaliation for dobbing them in , even a year or more down the line. You may feel it's worth the risk to nail your colours to the mast; personally I live in constant fear of other people and would rather keep my mouth shut

?

[oldwoodcutter]

Well most of us get asked to quote in CA’s, and I dare say a fair few have knocked an odd branch off in 10 minutes from that tree tucked away in Mrs Miggins secluded back garden .

And of course most of us know who our competitors/colleagues are in our own area and you never know what the future holds.

So to use a relatively modern term, I’d say suck it up and try to make a living for yourself without pissing on any one elses strawberries.

 

[openspaceman]

16 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

It would take no more time to forward detail to LA than it has done to post here.  Why should those that "do it right" give way to those that don't.

 

If it bothers you enough to post on here it should bother you enough to take the time to email the LA and let them take it forward.  No good complaining if you don't follow it up.   

True but in this instance the OP is easily traceable and this is a public forum. Having fallen out with neighbours in the past, over a party wall issue, I'd avoid it if possible.

 

 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

14 hours ago, eggsarascal said:

I'm getting quite annoyed with agreeing with you, people will be starting to think we get on.

There is some serious absence of moral fibre being demonstrated here. 

 

We dont get to “choose” which laws we “agree with.” It’s part and parcel of enjoying the liberties of a free society - there are certain inferred responsibilities. 

 

Which laws that are broken are suitable to report to the appropriate authorities? Theft? Arson? Murder? All OK?

 

Speeding? Drink driving? Shoplifting?  Planning? Not OK??

 

Living in fear of retribution? Christ alive, you’d be a prisoner in your own living room. 

 

Its the law breakers that should live in constant fear of discovery, not the good citizen - heaven help us! ?

[eggsarascal]

16 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

There is some serious absence of moral fibre being demonstrated here. 

 

We dont get to “choose” which laws we “agree with.” It’s part and parcel of enjoying the liberties of a free society - there are certain inferred responsibilities. 

 

Which laws that are broken are suitable to report to the appropriate authorities? Theft? Arson? Murder? All OK?

 

Speeding? Drink driving? Shoplifting?  Planning? Not OK??

 

Living in fear of retribution? Christ alive, you’d be a prisoner in your own living room. 

 

Its the law breakers that should live in constant fear of discovery, not the good citizen - heaven help us! ?

If we aren't careful we will start sounding holier than thou, let's face it we ALL bend/break the rules when it suits us. Most if not all of us will break the speed limit, most of us would have got in a motor the morning after having one over the eight, to go to a factory open day for instance, or lifted a biro from the office. Moral fibre!