WARNING TO OTHERS

[Gary Prentice]

13 minutes ago, AHPP said:

I think it's a nice tree but at the end of the day it's his tree. My sympathy is with him and anyone else who is told what they can and can't do with their own property. Anyone on here who's happy to see him penalised, I ask you whether you would be happy for other people to tell you what kitchen cupboards you're allowed?

Purely in the interests in creating discussion...

 

I find folks attitudes a bit strange. Outrage because an owner mullered his own 'protected tree while as a contractor, probably everyone will happily fell a similar tree that isn't protected. The reasoning given for felling a really good (unprotected) tree is usually along the lines of "it's the owners tree to do what he wants with", "if I don't another contractor will". 

 

So why are people so outraged? Is a decent tree that the LA have, for whatever reason, deemed worthy of protection/under threat/whatever suddenly of so much greater 'value' than one that isn't? Most of know or have worked on protected trees where we can't even understand why they're protected. 

 

I'm really interested in peoples thoughts on this.

[AHPP]

4 minutes ago, Matthew Storrs said:

I agree, I don’t like being told what to do so I’m not going to pay any tax anymore- not a penny it’s my money I can do what I like with it!
 

I agree.

[AHPP]

3 minutes ago, Gary Prentice said:

Purely in the interests in creating discussion...

 

I find folks attitudes a bit strange. Outrage because an owner mullered his own 'protected tree while as a contractor, probably everyone will happily fell a similar tree that isn't protected. The reasoning given for felling a really good (unprotected) tree is usually along the lines of "it's the owners tree to do what he wants with", "if I don't another contractor will". 

 

So why are people so outraged? Is a decent tree that the LA have, for whatever reason, deemed worthy of protection/under threat/whatever suddenly of so much greater 'value' than one that isn't? Most of know or have worked on protected trees where we can't even understand why they're protected. 

 

I'm really interested in peoples thoughts on this.

“Always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever.”

[Gary Prentice]

3 minutes ago, Matthew Storrs said:

I agree, I don’t like being told what to do so I’m not going to pay any tax anymore- not a penny it’s my money I can do what I like with it!
 

Being pedantic, and again encouraging debate. Tax is one thing that to some extent is applicable to everyone. A TPO is something different, something on an individuals property that an outside agency takes control of for the benefit of all while not contributing towards its care. To be blunt tree ownership is a financial burden, despite all the benefits they provide they cost money at some time or another. Then the LA get involved, serves a TPO and rarely considers the financial burdens that they've imposed.

 

I've an appeal in at present - keeping the tree will cost the neighbour an additional £3000 to sort his drive, the owners two year old drive is already damaged - another say £3K to redo with CellwebTRP in the near future. Neighbours garage was knackered but is within the RPA, so special engineering for foundations if he decides to re-build (the concrete raft the old one was on is to badly damaged to serve as a foundation for a rebuild) so more extra costs.

 

The LA refused felling because the tree has amenity value, but haven't deemed it necessary to assign a 'value' in £££. Kind of saying our cost/benefit analysis says it stays even though we have no 'benefit' figure using Cavat, Helliwell or any other evaluation methodology. 

 

I don't condone this fellows actions but I do have some empathy.

[Gary Prentice]

12 minutes ago, AHPP said:

“Always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever.”

Hope you're a bit cheerier over christmas 

[Matthew Storrs]

10 minutes ago, Gary Prentice said:

Being pedantic, and again encouraging debate. Tax is one thing that to some extent is applicable to everyone. A TPO is something different, something on an individuals property that an outside agency takes control of for the benefit of all while not contributing towards its care. To be blunt tree ownership is a financial burden, despite all the benefits they provide they cost money at some time or another. Then the LA get involved, serves a TPO and rarely considers the financial burdens that they've imposed.

 

I've an appeal in at present - keeping the tree will cost the neighbour an additional £3000 to sort his drive, the owners two year old drive is already damaged - another say £3K to redo with CellwebTRP in the near future. Neighbours garage was knackered but is within the RPA, so special engineering for foundations if he decides to re-build (the concrete raft the old one was on is to badly damaged to serve as a foundation for a rebuild) so more extra costs.

 

The LA refused felling because the tree has amenity value, but haven't deemed it necessary to assign a 'value' in £££. Kind of saying our cost/benefit analysis says it stays even though we have no 'benefit' figure using Cavat, Helliwell or any other evaluation methodology. 

 

I don't condone this fellows actions but I do have some empathy.

Yeah I do see where your coming from. But at the same time at what point is it deemed acceptable for a council to step in to safeguard something which might hold value for others living in the area. Is it any different to say planning law? I know if I moved to a nice rural location,  no neighbours, house backs onto fields. Suddenly the farmer has sold the fields to a developer and because there’s no restraint they decided they’re plonking 20 hideous characterless dwellings right slap bang up against your house de-valuing it in the process. I wouldn’t say I’m pro government intervention- I think  compulsory purchase sucks but same time the line has to be drawn somewhere and that bloke crossed it. Then again  £60k is probably little more then the Disco on his driveway so he’s probably feeling ok with the result!

[AHPP]

26 minutes ago, Gary Prentice said:

Hope you're a bit cheerier over christmas 

I'm in an apocalyptically bad mood (which is unlikely to improve through the oncoming festival of plastic shit). Is it obvious?

[Alex O]

If people don’t want trees near there house then don’t buy the house in the first place same as spending a lot of money on a block driveway which is going to get ruined in a couple of years, put gravel down or something that can move with the trees. I understand that at some point something will need do to any tree but don’t be an arse about it like this guy.

[Gary Prentice]

5 hours ago, Alex O said:

If people don’t want trees near there house then don’t buy the house in the first place same as spending a lot of money on a block driveway which is going to get ruined in a couple of years, put gravel down or something that can move with the trees. I understand that at some point something will need do to any tree but don’t be an arse about it like this guy.

So when quoting to fell a tree, do you turn down jobs where the owner has just bought a house with an existing tree?

 

"same as spending a lot of money on a block driveway " If you're referring to my appeal case, I should have said that in the neighbours case the drive was cast-in-situ concrete that predated the tree planting by a few decades. The owners original drive also predated the tree but was (hopefully) restored by just replacing the top/wearing surface - if it wasn't the drive contractors would have severed all the roots.

[Gary Prentice]

6 hours ago, Matthew Storrs said:

at what point is it deemed acceptable for a council to step in to safeguard something which might hold value for others living in the area.

Sorry Matthew, I'm not making an issue about TPOs and Planning, as such. My question is the condemnation of damaging a 'protected' tree being shown on this thread while we all, as contractors, happily fell sometimes outstanding and exception trees that aren't protected. 

 

I'm happy, well I'm not sure that I am really, in including myself in this - felling terrific trees because that's what the owner wants and can do due to the lack of statutory protection. It smacks of hypocrisy, condemning causing the loss of a protected tree while merrily felling similar trees that aren't. 

 

I just wonder how others salve their consciences (if they do) or even many even consider it much and just accept it as part of the business.  

 

No biggie, just something that I've contemplated over many years, without forming any particular conclusion that I think I've ever been particularly happy, in myself, about. 

 

Maybe I should have been a TO.