Are some people just thick or what?

[High Scale]

I am a hacker.

[Dean Lofthouse]

I think I was refering to general attiude. I do a lot of utilities work, some of which can be particularly ugly. I do it for primarily for money. But I would not like to be called a butcher.

 

That's a different senario, I know they do it to save money but you'd think in the long term, it would be better to remove the trees under power lines, would save a lot of money long term and they could have a tree planting scheme elsewhere to balance things out.

 

Would be better than leaving half a tree wouldn't, plus it wouldn't make you feel guilty. :wave:

 

Get your calculator out anyway you, "logsplitter" working away is no excuse for not having the time.

[bill]

i would have told them that they would get a hefty fine if they touched them, but to apply for the work so that this would bring to light to the tree officer that these people had no respect for the trees. i wouldnt waste my time with these idiots.

[treemotion]

Well guys if your happy earning some wedge keeping your customers happy to me your doing well.

 

Its a tough buiz but fcuk me i would not do anything else

 

We all judge others tree work and we ALL think we could do a better job lol.

 

 

I think we shud all sitck together and help out the ones who dont know any better.

 

:wave: sounds like im after missuk lol.

[Dagmar]

As I see it there are two problems with the current TPO system.

 

The first one is that there are simply not enough tree officers to run an effective proactive management scheme. In some instances there well be just one for a whole county and even when there is more than one they will still be under-financed and thus prone to reactive decisions. This translates to the making of correct decisions as opposed to the right decision . Simply because a tree exists in certain place does not mean that it has has to continue to exist there. We forget that these trees were almost all planted when the landscape was markedly different and the reasons for the original plantings may not be valid, nessescary or desirable. That's not to say that it should be scrapped, but the TPO system has probably outlived its usefulness in it's current form. It did what was required of it when incepted in that it quickly solved and stopped the problem of wholesale felling of signifcant trees, whether for development or pure whimsy. But the concept of preservation is flawed, you cannot preserve trees you can only conserve them as an asset, wherever they may occur. Perhaps the TPO should become the TCO ( Tree Conservation Order) and relate to whether the tree(s) in question really are desirable in situ on a number of basis.*

 

It's also worth remembering that in our ever expanding towns some tree can be detrimental to air quality in an urban or suburban location, this in itself may not be a reason to justify removal of particular tree but it a factor to consider in whether to retain it:

 

Read it here:

 

http://www.nerc.ac.uk/publications/planetearth/2002/autumn/aut02-trees.pdf

 

 

Secondly, the TPO application process is perceived as heavy handed. Stories of trees having TPO's placed on them as a result of an arborists enquiry as to it's status abound and are likely to deter contact with the tree officer rather than encourage it, which would be more desirable. Granted that the 'jobsworth' attitude of some tree officers doesn't help the situation and the lack of an independent review body is also lamentable. There has been a strong case for a 'Tree Commission' made at UKTC website by John Flannigan read it here:

 

http://www.tree-care.info/cms/

 

 

The TPO system is, I understand, currently being reviewed although this is proving a long process and there are few clues to the eventual findings other than an end to the Area Orders type. If changes are not made to make the process more accessible, especially to home owners, we will see more trees being bark-ringed by property owners and when the tree has died applying for it to be felled on the grounds that it was like that when the moved in or was subject to vandalism by persons unknown, (blame an unspecified neighbour perhaps?)

 

 

 

 

 

* I'm not in a position to suggest what these may be.

[Mr Ed]

. Perhaps the TPO should become the TCO ( Tree Conservation Order) and relate to whether the tree(s) in question really are desirable in situ on a number of basis.*

 

 

 

 

 

* I'm not in a position to suggest what these may be.

 

As ever, well researched and thought provoking points.

 

As to the bits I highlighted, When a TPO decision goes to appeal, the Consultant who comes out (if its the midlands or north it will be my Father:)) basis his decision on whether they feel the tree is worth preserving in its current position.

It would also seem the trend is for the LA officer to refuse any permission, forcing an appeal, and let the government consultant make the decision.

[Amelanchier]

...This translates to the making of correct decisions as opposed to the right decision...

 

?

 

...Simply because a tree exists in certain place does not mean that it has has to continue to exist there. We forget that these trees were almost all planted when the landscape was markedly different and the reasons for the original plantings may not be valid, nessescary or desirable.

 

Indeed. But once a tree exists we must consider its value as is. There is no difference to my mind between a self-sown ash and a planted deodar. Valid reasons? Not relevent to amenity issues.

 

...But the concept of preservation is flawed, you cannot preserve trees you can only conserve them as an asset, wherever they may occur.

 

There is a case for calling them 'protection' orders

 

...It's also worth remembering that in our ever expanding towns some tree can be detrimental to air quality in an urban or suburban location, this in itself may not be a reason to justify removal of particular tree but it a factor to consider in whether to retain it.

 

Benefits easily outweigh such issues.

 

... Stories of trees having TPO's placed on them as a result of an arborists enquiry as to it's status abound and are likely to deter contact with the tree officer rather than encourage it, which would be more desirable.

 

See my comments above on this catch 22.

 

...Granted that the 'jobsworth' attitude of some tree officers doesn't help the situation and the lack of an independent review body is also lamentable..

 

An competent individual appointed by the secetary of state deals with appeals. I think they would challenge that point.

 

 

...The TPO system is, I understand, currently being reviewed although this is proving a long process and there are few clues to the eventual findings other than an end to the Area Orders type...

 

The guidance to reduce reliance on area orders predates this review. This review will not end their use. They are a valuable tool.

 

...If changes are not made to make the process more accessible, especially to home owners, we will see more trees being bark-ringed by property owners and when the tree has died applying for it to be felled on the grounds that it was like that when the moved in or was subject to vandalism by persons unknown...

 

Good point about accesibility. There are issues for the increasing integration of trees into the planning system and resulting complication.

 

A dead TPO tree might be exempt in terms of removal. It is not exempt from a requirement to replant.

 

Apologies if my statement seem abrupt. Its a concious decision to strip the point down.

 

[igottacabstar]

I'm siding with Dagmars post, sorry Tony:D

[Amelanchier]

Tank fly boss walk jam nitty-gritty, you're listening to the boy from the big bad city

 

This is jaaaam hot.

[Amelanchier]

I'm siding with Dagmars post, sorry Tony:D

 

It was expected.