WARNING TO OTHERS

[Gary Prentice]

7 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

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.  

 

 

You know Kevin, you come across as a bit anti-establishment, just every now and again 

[daltontrees]

On 30/12/2019 at 10:06, Gary Prentice said:

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.  

I'd be interested in seeing that.

[daltontrees]

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.

I've been saying this for years. The situation has got worse recently with Councils arguing CAVAT values for the loss of trees, as if the TPO acquires the tree for the public. And someone mentioned compulsory purchase. If it were a compulsory purchase the tree owner would be entitled to compensation.

As a consultant I'd love to be involved in a case contesting CAVAT in such a situation, because it's about time it was quashed, as it most certainly would be.

[Billhook]

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.

It certainly would make the people who slap the TPO on, think a little more carefully about the consequences

[Gary Prentice]

13 hours ago, daltontrees said:

I'd be interested in seeing that.

I'm struggling to find the document that I'm thinking about, I read it while preparing to decide on my Independent Research Project Assignment about 4 -5 years ago.

 

A quick google has provided an article from the Iow council as to why they were doing/going to do it. 

 

Isle of Wight Council

OLD-IWIGHT.ONTHEWIGHT.COM

 

 

[daltontrees]

4 hours ago, Gary Prentice said:

I'm struggling to find the document that I'm thinking about, I read it while preparing to decide on my Independent Research Project Assignment about 4 -5 years ago.

 

A quick google has provided an article from the Iow council as to why they were doing/going to do it. 

 

Isle of Wight Council

OLD-IWIGHT.ONTHEWIGHT.COM

 

 

That document is enough thanks. It concludes that " If all Orders are reviewed ...., the task will take eleven work-years to complete with one person working full-time on that project alone." That gives some idea of how much it would cost.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

38 minutes ago, daltontrees said:

That document is enough thanks. It concludes that " If all Orders are reviewed ...., the task will take eleven work-years to complete with one person working full-time on that project alone." That gives some idea of how much it would cost.

I've saved but not read yet Jules...

 

From your observation of the content of the document we can perhaps extrapolate the cost of "doing it" but is there any mention of the potential for year-on-year time/ effort / finance / admin efficiencies that might be realised from having an up-to-date system?  

 

 - What would be the offset saving of NOT having to deal with the administration of out of date, inaccurate, inappropriate TPOs?

 

 - Would a streamlined system represent an enduring efficiency in comparison to maintaining the status quo?   

 

I'll read full doc later and see if there are answers already there.... 

 

[daltontrees]

I wouldn't say 'observation of the content', I only read the punchline. I'll read it later too.