TPO tree pushing wall over and lifting neighbours drive

[Khriss]

Just read The Secret Barrister, frankly you would never go in a Court again. K

[Gary Prentice]

38 minutes ago, Chris at eden said:

Just a couple of point to address.

You don't need an engineers report for light structural damage, just written evidence an appropriate expert.  You would qualify under that heading but the resident wouldn't. 

My bad, I did just check that actually and, as usual, you're correct. I'd still disagree, cos I'm a pedantic bugger, that a reasonably intelligent homeowner, with a bit of thought, could provide sufficient information for the LAs consideration.

    

Its not the authority though is it.  Its on the one app form which is a legal requirement and provided by the government. 

I agree that isn't the LAs requirement , but ultimately they do have the authority to decide if the expert is expert enough to provide the information they require, I'm sure that you've seen some dreadful 'expert' reports over the years that, to be blunt, should be rejected out of hand as inadequate or unacceptable.

 

38 minutes ago, Chris at eden said:

The authority are jumping through the same hops as you.  If they accept sub-standard apps then they could be criticised for it.  MPs enquiries are pretty standard when folk don't get what they want with their trees.   Chris, I have no argument with LAs rejecting sub-standard apps - whoever submits them. I despair myself when I some pruning apps  LAs have validated just knowing that if consented the owner can more or less butcher the tree due to the lack of specificity (sp?). A favourite was 'crown lift over the drive'. After the owner cut off/had cut off every branch over the drive the legal department had to admit that they hadn't really contravened the consent.

 

  Not the applicant, they are not objective and don't have the necessary skills to look at the all options in most cases.     

As above Objectivity! It's a funny thing, an applicant thinks that a tree is casting 'excessive shade' over the patio, the TO doesn't. It's a subjective issue what ever side you're on.

 

 

 

TO's come in for a lot of flak  (really? )and yes some can be a pain in the arse, some of it is a bit harsh though.  When I have my TO hat on I try to be fair and sensible but not all do.  I still get some folk moaning about me, its just the job. 

I suppose that I'm lucky in not having to deal with 'difficult' TOs everyday, maybe the interaction improves with time and becomes more bound by professional respect and courtesy.

Thanks for the detailed reply Chris, as ever it makes me think and consider a bit more. It's all about the learning after all. 

[Chris at eden]

33 minutes ago, Gary Prentice said:

 

Thanks for the detailed reply Chris, as ever it makes me think and consider a bit more. It's all about the learning after all. 

No worries mate.  As I said, I have tried to be fair and sensible from day one but I think this is partly because I split my time between TO and consultant and so I see both sides.  I can imagine TOs get pretty wound up when they get constant flak from all sides.    My background in my 20s was also as a climber which I think helps when dealing with contractors.  I remember working in a tree in the 90s (when did I get old) and the TO had consented a height reduction of 50% (a bad start straight away).  He then stood on site telling me while I up the tree that I must prune to a side branch that was 1/3rd the diameter of the leader that I was reducing.  He could not get his head around the fact that those side branches don't exist with that level if reduction!!!  The bloke I was subbing for was having a meltdown.  The one I see now is a condition saying that felling must be carried out in accordance with 3998!!!  Some TOs are not the best but some are really good, its the same in the private sector though. 

 

I tend to include a condition covering max cut diameters on all of my decision notices to avoid that issue with lifting.  On the subject of objectivity, I started my Expert Witness training with Bond Solon just before Xmas, I did the report writing and court room skills days.  On the report writing day the trainer said when you write a report you should consider that if you were writing it for the other side, would you come to a different conclusion.  If the answer is yes then you have a major issue.  Its obvious really but that is that major problem with many of the reports I see, you can tell they have been directed by the client.     

 

[Khriss]

? @Chris and i am always pleasantly suprised when 'prune to species character' appears. ( every blue moon that is)  k

[Shaunpaul]

Is it not possible to rebuild the small section of wall that's damaged rather than remove the tree? We removed a TPOd tree that was pushing a wall over, however it had a gas pipe running through the wall so maybe that's why it was given the go ahead. We always prefer to retain the tree when possible, but saying that, it's not my wall or driveway ?

[Khriss]

49 minutes ago, EdwardC said:

Is that the same as 'prune to shape'. I once asked a landscape architect who wasn't happy with the 'pruning to shape' he'd specified for some hollies on a site we were working on, what shape he wanted. He was acting for the client, who was originally happy with our pruning. The client changed his mind when told by the landscape architect it wasn't what had been specified. Unfortunately he couldn't explain what shape 'prune to shape' was. I suggested a topiary penis. Lead balloon springs to mind.

Yr tree ID book gives a good idea, flowing long branches fr hornbeam an petraeus. Drooping fr yr pendulas an willows. If it looks like its a hat rack - its not getting my name on it. K

[Khriss]

16 minutes ago, EdwardC said:

Indeed. But my idea of the shape a holly tree should be was clearly different to the landscape architects. I thought, obviously wrongly, that a holly tree should look like a holly tree.

... He's an architect- lolly pops are only tree shape they know ? K

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

On 22/01/2020 at 19:21, mitchel said:

Hello,

 

I am about to put an application in to remove a lime tree that has been refused in the past around 3 years ago.

 

Is it worth getting a tree report done by a specialist?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Have you considered a call to request a pre application site visit / discussion with TO?

 

Granted, levels of approachability / pro activity / engagement vary according to area but, esp if it’s not ‘urgent’, having an on site discussion might save wasted admin time / effort for both parties later....

 

[Gary Prentice]

On 24/01/2020 at 20:20, Shaunpaul said:

Is it not possible to rebuild the small section of wall that's damaged rather than remove the tree? We removed a TPOd tree that was pushing a wall over, however it had a gas pipe running through the wall so maybe that's why it was given the go ahead. We always prefer to retain the tree when possible, but saying that, it's not my wall or driveway ?

Just shows the disparity in TPO application decisions. 

I had a larch pushing a wall a bit taller than that, no argument that the tree was to blame but the TO even proposed re-building further onto the public footpath to allow for future root expansion - he said he would arrange for highways to permit it.