Wording an application

[AHPP]

Haha, 'Twiglet'.

 ‘Entering into a retrospective monolith pollard management cycle presents several key advantages, primarily the avoidance of excessive reactionary novel growth at primary and secondary scaffold locations that would present inherent morphological challenges to a species whose mechanical characteristics do not meet the specification that would be required to effectively mitigate foreseen failure risk under such circumstances.’  

 

Et cetera et cetera ad infinitum ad nauseam.

 

I just wrote it for humans before.

 

[Mark J]

42 minutes ago, AHPP said:

 ‘Entering into a retrospective monolith pollard management cycle presents several key advantages, primarily the avoidance of excessive reactionary novel growth at primary and secondary scaffold locations that would present inherent morphological challenges to a species whose mechanical characteristics do not meet the specification that would be required to effectively mitigate foreseen failure risk under such circumstances.’  

 

Et cetera et cetera ad infinitum ad nauseam.

 

I just wrote it for humans before.

 

I prefer 'Twiglet'.

Edited September 30, 2021 by Mark J

[AHPP]

I prefer 'Twiglet'.

Likewise.

[Chris at eden]

22 hours ago, Mick Dempsey said:

So what Mark? 
If it was an oak that Bonnie Prince Charlie fingered his first girlfriend in I’d understand.

 

 

I’d love to write that into an amenity assessment under the heading of cultural value and the read it out at committee. 
 

you have a point though. The coexistence of the tree and building should be considered at the application stage. Problem is, planners don’t see it that way. If it can be built without killing the tree then they tend to be in favour and the TO would have a fight on their hands getting them to move the building.  They then wash their hands of it when the new owners are banging on the TOs door. 
 

[Chris at eden]

On 27/09/2021 at 18:29, openspaceman said:

Bound to be TPO if they specified a 2.5m reduction.

 

Ridiculous to even TPO such a tree adjacent to a building

The fact that is an app and they have to give a reason would suggest TPO. 
 

[Chris at eden]

22 hours ago, donnk said:

cut down, pay the fine.

I’d give that a miss, it’s unlimited now. 

[Chris at eden]

If they dislike it that much you could try to make a case to fell and replace it with something more suitable. Birch maybe. I personally think that makes more sense than topping the thing over and over again.  This was pretty much always my approach when working as a TO. 
 

There is no such thing as a heavy pollard and heavy topping will destroy the amenity and introduce decay.  There is no benefit to it and the tree would be worthless. Once topped the owner could argue that it has no amenity value and the TO will know this so they may be reluctant to allow it. 
 

If you replace it with something that better suits the site and is in a better position then that will convey future amenity so meet the criteria for TPOs. You can try to sell this idea to the TO, they are not all bad. I know a few that are a nightmare but then I can say the same about consultants. A lot will depend on the individual TO but only up to the point of appeal. And, don’t be afraid to appeal if you think you have a case.  Remember, the TO and planning inspector should address all concerns in your statement of reasons so make sure you set out the case well. You need to try to demonstrate that the benefit of removing the tree outweighs the loss of amenity. If you look at it now objectively and think that it doesn’t, then you don’t have a case.  If it does outweigh the loss then show why on the app.  Don’t just think risk, think public visibility (can you see it from the street and does it look nice or not), longevity, impact on living standards, etc.  Think about the same issues for the replacement.  If the current tree has low visibility then can the replacement be planted in a more visible spot. If so it will convey better amenity.  
 

Cheers 

 

Chris 

[NickinMids]

Thanks again to all who replied

 

I have to apply for something. That’s the procedure. 
 

What I’d really like is a meet with the TO and discuss what we could do

 

Looks  like I’m asking for a reduction 

 

cheers

 

[Treeacer]

Not to side track but due to location and potential failure to target area, most arb officers would have to under a risk assessment allow full weight reduction (as we all know willows are great at top out breaks) and pollard it's a willow!