Council tree officer ignoring trees in TPO

[Dan Maynard]

See, Chris knows his onions. He just needs to see the trees now.

[Squaredy]

It looks as if the diameter of the tree could be rather important.  The easy and accurate way to measure this is with a cloth tape (tailor's type) and measure the circumference and then divide by 3.14.  Then you will KNOW if any of the trees are over 150mm diameter. 

 

I don't know but imagine it would be "breast height" which would be about 1.3 metres above ground.

[Khriss]

23 hours ago, ArthurJob said:

Hi Khriss, unfortunately not. It's adjacent to my land.

Then entice some Badgers in, dig a pond n throw some GC Newts in and yr done 😉 K

[Khriss]

( some tearful small children pointing, pics,  - on Facebook will work wonders) 

[Chris at eden]

1 hour ago, Dan Maynard said:

See, Chris knows his onions. He just needs to see the trees now.

🤣 I’m going to screen shot that onto my website. 

[Chris at eden]

43 minutes ago, Squaredy said:

It looks as if the diameter of the tree could be rather important.  The easy and accurate way to measure this is with a cloth tape (tailor's type) and measure the circumference and then divide by 3.14.  Then you will KNOW if any of the trees are over 150mm diameter. 

 

I don't know but imagine it would be "breast height" which would be about 1.3 metres above ground.

Dia is very important with regard to the 150mm rule. You can buy diameter tapes that have the Pi conversion on them. That is what I use.  For the purpose of BS5837 dia is measured at 1.5m.  DBH (1.3) is a forestry measurement. For the full set nurseries measure at 1m.  
 

[Chris at eden]

27 minutes ago, Khriss said:

( some tearful small children pointing, pics,  - on Facebook will work wonders) 

The badgers and newts isn’t a bad idea but I doubt this one is a planning consideration. 😂

 

You’d be surprised what isn’t a planning consideration. I did a consultation for an LPA years ago and raised the point that the footprint of the building crossed the boundary into the neighbouring property. The planning manager said, not a planning consideration, it’s a civil matter.  I said but you can’t build it.  He said not relevant. It’s a civil matter. He works for the planning inspectorate now. Bonkers.  

[Khriss]

@Chris at eden  after the Sheffield STAG and HS2 activists, i think 

i am being conservative in my comments here. K

[ArthurJob]

Thanks all, the application has already had over 100 objections including all the local councillors and the wildlife trust.

The thing that I thought today was that it is within that woodland TPO area where all the trees in that compartment were planted at the same time as an urban forestry scheme. I doubt any of those trees are going to be over 15cm in diameter in the whole compartment for the TPO. I believe the TPO was put in place on the basis of visual amenity and to protect the planted urban forest. Otherwise it would seem pointless having it if all the trees in it were disregarded as low value surely?

The annoyance is that the tree officer for some reason acknowledged the trees at the side of the area subject to planning permission which were of the same age and just completely discounted the ones in the area affected which is all the ones in the photos below. They should all be of equal value I think for visual amenity and part of the urban forest. Badgers are there as well as bats but no sets unfortunately. GC newts are nearby.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

11 hours ago, Chris at eden said:

footprint of the building crossed the boundary into the neighbouring property. The planning manager said, not a planning consideration, it’s a civil matter.

Mad but entirely accurate. 
 

You don’t necessarily have to own the land to submit (and potentially gain) a planning consent. 

You could get a consent on land not in your ownership. 
 

Planning and ownership are separate issues.