WARNING TO OTHERS

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

On 24/12/2019 at 08:15, Anno said:

if they are involved in resurveying and revoking old orders the process is fair and fully thought out.

That'd be the day!  If only it actually happened!!

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

4 hours ago, Gary Prentice said:

Another topic entirely, but I wonder what percentage of 'protected' trees actually merit a TPO? All I ever hear are TOs complaining that lack of resources prevent resurveying (particularly of old area TPOs). This is a comment, not a criticism. 

Meh.....  The problem (in larger part) would not exist if historic orders were properly reviewed and updated.

 

 

 

 

[Stubby]

5 hours ago, Khriss said:

@GaryPrentise my ha'penny worth is - i always feel sad when i fell a good specimen of tree. However i have felled 10s of 1000s of trees. I have planted 1000s of trees. It IS my profession..... But i hope i have the right attitude to it,  not just 'its a job' K

To be fair Khriss the end result , no matter what your attitude , is exactly the same as the geezer who sees it as " just a job " ...10s of 1000s of trees felled . ?

[Khriss]

Tiz just so i can sleep at night Mr Stubby  ? but here is some of the best news fr next year

Cult cartoon ready to steam in for comeback

WWW.BBC.CO.UK

---

It's 60 years since Ivor the Engine's debut - now Oliver Postgate's creation could run again.

 

K

 

 

[Stubby]

1 hour ago, Khriss said:

Tiz just so i can sleep at night Mr Stubby  ? but here is some of the best news fr next year

Cult cartoon ready to steam in for comeback

WWW.BBC.CO.UK

---

It's 60 years since Ivor the Engine's debut - now Oliver Postgate's creation could run again.

 

K

 

 

Yes I saw that on the news . I am excited .

[Gary Prentice]

On 28/12/2019 at 10:07, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Meh.....  The problem (in larger part) would not exist if historic orders were properly reviewed and updated.

 

 

 

 

I don't think that I've ever met a TO who hasn't lamented on the inability to do away with old area orders, to be replaced with tree specific ones, due to lack of resources. Realistically we're probably lucky to even have a proper tree officer in the first place, instead of a planning officer who has sat through a weeks course in preparation for covering the arbs role.

 

While the government fail to acknowledge the importance of trees in the environment, (locally not globally), nothing will change.

[Gary Prentice]

On 24/12/2019 at 08:15, Anno said:

 it is unusual, having worked for two Local Authorities, to get the backing to prosecute 

It certainly appears that very few, consistently, prosecute contraventions. Maybe if the fines imposed came back to the LA, instead of to the Government coffers, there would more incentive.

On 24/12/2019 at 08:24, Calamity Wayne said:

The one main advantage I find with a TPO, is that you can do a sensible reduction rather than the topped mug-tree the customer wants. When you have the reduction restrictions to work to on the TPO approval in writing, it makes it easier to put your foot down to the over-reduction most customers want.

Exactly. I've found it even easier, as a contractor, to write the specification for the application.

 

Things would work even better if the planning department were more strict in their validation of the application, only accepting very detailed work specs and following up after the work was done. We've all seen pruning works on protected trees which either should never been allowed or must have been in excess of the consent given. LAs need the resources to police the process far more stringently than most appear to do.

On 24/12/2019 at 09:22, Paul in the woods said:

I've never understood why a tree that is TPOed for the benefit of the community isn't paid for by the community, i.e. council. And by that I mean any works required on the tree or remedial works to damaged property.

One word. Resources.

 

TPOs are funny things, they just protect the tree but they don't provide the means to allow the LA to enforce the maintenance of the 'asset' that the tree is.  As long as the owner doesn't harm the tree it's acceptable for them to ignore it and do nothing that might be beneficial to safeguarding its existence.

On 28/12/2019 at 08:43, MattyF said:

No Garry I don’t and I also feel not enough trees are protected.

Sorry Matty, I don't understand what you don't!

 

I agree that not enough trees are protected, I'm aware of many that should be but aren't. Being pragmatic I just accept that it is an imperfect system and everyone involved is doing the best they can with the resources that they have got. 

 

After the last big emergence of DED the Isle of Wight authority redid the TPOs on the whole island. There's a paper, online, about it, which explains the time and costs involved. It's an eye-opener to the magnitude of revoking and producing an amended TPO. 

 

I'll post it if I can find it (or email to you). It's worth reading to better understand the hoops that need to be jumped through to protect trees and the costs imposed to do so.  

[Paul in the woods]

8 hours ago, Gary Prentice said:

One word. Resources.

 

TPOs are funny things, they just protect the tree but they don't provide the means to allow the LA to enforce the maintenance of the 'asset' that the tree is.  As long as the owner doesn't harm the tree it's acceptable for them to ignore it and do nothing that might be beneficial to safeguarding its existence.

LAs have far more resources than the tree owner. I doubt many people would wish to pay more tax to enable more TPOs and their maintenance which is why I have sympathies with people having trouble with TPOs. (I don't support illegal acts though).

 

I also wonder how many trees are removed in case they get a TPO?

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

4 hours ago, Paul in the woods said:

LAs have far more resources than the tree owner. I doubt many people would wish to pay more tax to enable more TPOs and their maintenance which is why I have sympathies with people having trouble with TPOs. (I don't support illegal acts though).

 

I also wonder how many trees are removed in case they get a TPO?

Nothing to disagree with there!

 

Making a 'system' ridiculously complex (and therefore expensive) is about the only thing that CAN be guaranteed when government / local government is concerned.  It's a giant Ponzi scheme.  

 

 

[Gary Prentice]

11 hours ago, Paul in the woods said:

I doubt many people would wish to pay more tax to enable more TPOs and their maintenance

I don't know, plenty of people seem happy to pay a premium for supposedly 'greener' products/services.

 

Not being argumentative as such, but I wonder at the awareness of the man on the Clapham omnibus about the environmental benefits of urban trees.