Conservation Area Specifications

[Paddy1000111]

3 minutes ago, skyhuck said:

If its a conservation area it's a "notification" not an application.

Ahh sorry I read tree conservation area where there's a tpo automatically applied to a tree over X size 😂 are the application requirements are still the same though? As in having to specify reductions by meters? 

[skyhuck]

15 minutes ago, Paddy1000111 said:

Ahh sorry I read tree conservation area where there's a tpo automatically applied to a tree over X size 😂 are the application requirements are still the same though? As in having to specify reductions by meters? 

Trees within a CA are not automatically TPO'd if they are over a certain size. Trees can be in a CA and also TPO'd.

All trees within a CA, over a certain size, are protected, but not TPO'd. Before you carry out any work on a none TPO'd tree with the CA you must inform the council of the intended work, including felling. The council then has 6 weeks to TPO the tree, if they don't you can carry out the work. Often councils try to amend the intended work or put a replant condition on the work. They have no power to do this. The only thing they can do is prevent the work, by serving a TPO on the tree or trees.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

The CA size threshold is over 75mm dia. measured at 1.5m above ground level = 'stem diameter' (not 'DBH' which is a forestry mensuration term, measured at 1.3m)

 

Not strictly coatia, and not common practice to my knowledge, but certainly I did it on several occasions as a former LPA TO, was to get "notifiers"  to make a new notification I would not object to, provided they agreed too, and formally withdraw their original notification at the same time. Avoided additional work and burden for everyone.   

 

Not meaning to complicate the issue but just adding a different dimension which you may encounter...or even suggest where appropriate.  

 

Regards all,

Paul

 

[Chris at eden]

8 hours ago, Treerover said:

 

Can anyone shed any light on what is the acceptable and legal way to specify the specification of a crown reduction?

I have just had a 211 notice returned as ‘Invalid’ after 3 weeks (🤬) post submission as the planning officer has asked for it to be specified in ‘metres to be removed ‘ rather than my submitted spec which was a 25% reduction to strong lateral growth .

I’ve never had this before .

Surely unless it states on the form that all measurements must be in metres , then my original submission must stand as valid ?

What does the panel think 🧐

 

It’s from BS3998. It’s states that reduction should be specified in linear metres of the material removed and of that remaining.  They are supposed to refer them back to you if they are vague which to be honest percentages are.  If you take 40% off instead of 25% how will they prove that. If you reduce a 20m tree down to 12m instead of 15m then that can be measured and enforced. Plus is it percentage it the tree height or branch extension. Percentages fall into reasonable doubt when it comes to enforcement. I know, thinning is as a percentage but there is no other way.  I always take the whole refer back thing as meaning send you an email and ask you to spec in metres rather than send it back altogether. I’m not convinced that you validate 211 notices either. You acknowledge receipt.  That’s a grey area for me. It’s bonkers though anyway, if it’s a nice tree in a CA then you would think they would just TPO it. 25% is way outside of BS3998.  If it’s not worthy of a TPO then why bother making an issue out of it. 

[Chris at eden]

3 hours ago, skyhuck said:

Trees within a CA are not automatically TPO'd if they are over a certain size. Trees can be in a CA and also TPO'd.

All trees within a CA, over a certain size, are protected, but not TPO'd. Before you carry out any work on a none TPO'd tree with the CA you must inform the council of the intended work, including felling. The council then has 6 weeks to TPO the tree, if they don't you can carry out the work. Often councils try to amend the intended work or put a replant condition on the work. They have no power to do this. The only thing they can do is prevent the work, by serving a TPO on the tree or trees.

Unless the notice relates to a tree that is dead or imposes an immediate risk. In this case section 213 requires a replacement. Granted, this would probably be more of a five day or retrospective notice. 

[Chris at eden]

5 hours ago, Paddy1000111 said:

From my limited experience (I've only done 3 applications), crown thinings in percentage, crown reductions in meters. It's good to put a range, say 1-1.5 meters or whatever spec you want/need to give the climber a bit of leeway to do the work. If you specify 1m and he cuts off 1.4 then it's out of spec so go for a range

You always have a band anyway. If you apply for 2m you can reduce up to 2m but it may be less. The LPA will likely condition 3998 which means drop crotching and this may reduce the amount you can prune.  I personally think It’s better to say ‘by no more than 2m’ but I have seen loads of apps that do it your way. 

[Paddy1000111]

8 hours ago, Chris at eden said:

but I have seen loads of apps that do it your way. 

I got told to do bands when talking to one of the local utilities surveyors. They do all their specs in bands as a band of for example 1-1.5 means a minimum of 1m will be taken off. I guess they also pass their specs to the guys doing the work so saying up to 2m may mean the guys doing the job only take off 0.5 which matters more in utilities I suppose 

[daltontrees]

13 hours ago, Paddy1000111 said:

Ahh sorry I read tree conservation area where there's a tpo automatically applied to a tree over X size 😂 are the application requirements are still the same though? As in having to specify reductions by meters? 

A major difference between CA notification and TPO application is that the latter has to give a reason for the proposed works.

 

[daltontrees]

The legislation on CA notifications is almost unbelievably wide open tointerpretation (and abuse). The written notice needs merely to define 'the act' in some way. It needs to be an 'act' that could be prohibited by TPO. Not surprisingly, therefore, the CA exemptions are the same as TPO exemptions with a few additional ones.

 

If you notify and the Council can't possible know from your descrition of the 'act' what you plan to do and wha the effect on amenity and the tree's vitality they should reject the notice rather than try and stop the work by making a TPO. They might tolerate a sloppy definition if the tree isn't that important. But there can't be any complaint about a rejection if the description is wooly and can't be checked afterwards.

 

The best service to a  customer or client is to describe the works properly, including finished dimensions, so that the Council has no reason to reject.

 

It's all very well saying the Council can only TPO a notified tree but if the notice is invalid from uncertainty a prosecution could ensue. I had this situation during the week where an insufficiently described notification (by the client, not me) was not rejected until a few weeks after the 6 weeks. There comes a point where you have to say that if the Councl doesn't reject it within  6 weeks it probably hasn't looked at it and the prosecution is time-barred. After all, for it to be rejected all the TO or planner has to do is look at the description and decide if it is (a) unambiguous and (b) check-able afterwards. There's a lot more to be considered as to whether the tree should be TPO'd but that is not a rejection matter.

 

Read a notification as if you have never seen the tree. If it's not clear to you what it means, it could be rejected. Tighten up the definition, and state checkable finished dimensions.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

20 hours ago, Treerover said:

Can anyone shed any light on what is the acceptable and legal way to specify the specification of a crown reduction?

If you specify the intended works in the notice as per the 3998 "recommendations" (which are pretty well laid out, succinct and easy to understand) you'd have a notice that couldn't / shouldn't be rejected by the LA.

 

Can't help but think the LA is quite in order to reject if the notice is incomplete, inaccurate or ambiguous.

 

Quality in = quality out...