TPO application advice..

[Amelanchier]

No. But if the tree was protected by planning conditions, then there are grounds for action.

 

Lets have a heavy standard replacement, (or three).

[Bundle 2]

I think greedy developers need taking to task here if it can be shown that they have simply neglected the conditions of planning consent.....3 heavy standards /....that told them!!

[Amelanchier]

Absolutely. No TPOs needed. They're in breach of their conditions.

 

Quite how you play that next step out as the LPA is the interesting bit...

[Bundle 2]

Not really mate as you have intimated previously.they havt got the....dosh to spend on educating dumb arse builders...ooopps

We got into this as a way of advising Brownie vis a vis working the trees. Be careful you arent a pawn in some power game bs**

[Amelanchier]

3 heavy standards /....that told them!!

 

Depends where they plant them and how long you enforce the maintenance for...

[Amelanchier]

Be careful you arent a pawn in some power game bs**

 

!?!?!

[Andy Collins]

I'm currently running the arb side of a developement site, the developers have been trying to cut corners to make their own lives easier. In a nutshell, I ended up having the TO come to site to inspect. On doing so, he slapped Emergency TPO's on 5 trees, as they had breached the AIA. The next step, if they fail to follo the AIA, is for them to re-apply for planning consent on the whole development, complete another AIA, which as the Enforcement Officer says, they would assume the developer would breach, so would be refused on these grounds. The developer is now playing ball 100%, installing Ground Guard where required, manually digging the RPA where required and so on. Its taken me many crisis meetings with the developer to make him realise the importance of adhereing to the AIA. Luckily, I am in the employ of the client to monitor the site, not in the pocket of the developer. The client wants to protect the trees,as they are his future, so I have more clout, than many arb advisors. The site foreman even commented that the boss would have rather had his own tree man on site, so things could be covered up! I cant wait to find out who that is!!

[Amelanchier]

Nice one mate:icon14:

 

Thats whats needed. It shouldn't end up as the LPA vs. Everyone else. It should be a galactic tag team cage match where arbos stand together to beat the enemy down

[Topcat]

Er, if a tree is protected by planning conditions why should any tree worker being asked to remove trees not be concerned?

 

I would suggest that the LPA is at liberty to make a TPO whenever they feel it is expedient to do so. Therefore if it is felt that trees would best be protected by planning conditions (maybe the only threat is from the excavation for example) then it would not be necessary to make a TPO.

 

It is a gross error to assume that because there are no TPOs present on a development site that the trees are not protected.

 

If an Arboricultural Implications Assessment has been agreed followed are you expecting the LPA to TPO everything on site just in case the developer decides not to follow it?

 

It should be no concern to the tree contractor.

I would have no problem in this case. The developer would be in breach of any condition. If it comes down to protecting trees during construction LPA's should use planning conditions or tpo's or both. It is the sec of states view that LPa's should not use conditions when TPO's are available for that purpose. So basically LPA's trust developers and don't use TPO's. Trees get damaged and removed,plant some standards. Some conditions are so stupid that they are unenforcable because it was not reasonable in the first place. IE...you can't put scaffolding there etc. In most cases the LPA make it up as they go along. In these cases the LPA don't have a leg to stand on and it's usually because they played into the hands of the developers and were led down the garden path with false promises at the start. They later realise they should have used TPO's in the first place. But I suppose thats why developers pay big bucks to arb consultants who know the system.

 

The only way forward is for TO's to come down off their box and start to work with the arb co's. Make it a condition that developers have arb co's that monitor sites and the arb co's should push/ shop their client if they don't tow the line. That way we all gain the respect the industry so badly needs.

[Amelanchier]

It is the sec of states view that LPa's should not use conditions when TPO's are available for that purpose.

 

Any chance you could reference that point. As I was under the impression that the guidance was to avoid the making of orders wherever possible.

 

The only way forward is for TO's to come down off their box and start to work with the arb co's. Make it a condition that developers have arb co's that monitor sites and the arb co's should push/ shop their client if they don't tow the line. That way we all gain the respect the industry so badly needs.

 

So, hang on. You don't like planning conditions that are unenforcable but you're happy to suggest that we condition a mandatory partnership with a consultancy company!!!??? And then expect that consutancy to blow the whistle on their developer??? To who??? I assume the high and mighty TO...

 

Any worthwile arb consultancy should include re-inspection intervals and protection evaluations in their AIA.