TPO decision timescale

[janey]

Just to be clear, DDD = dead diseased or dying?

 

I thought proceeding with a fell without notification was only really appropriate when the tree is immediately dangerous? Photos and keeping bits of the tree as evidence is also a good idea in that situation.

 

With regard to getting friendly with the TO/planners, that is a good idea but some LA's seem to take pride in being as awkward as possible to deal with, no matter how helpful you try to be as a contractor.

 

DDD - dead, dying or dangerous. If it's not imminently dangerous, then you will still need to go through the usual submission process. Whether you immediately go ahead with the tree work or are curteous and give a 5 day notification, photos are an extremely good idea because if there are any queries about the tree's removal, the onus will be on you to prove your case.

 

TO's are no different from any other clique: you get your good'ns and you get you t*ssers. You have to take pot luck and hope you are dealing with one of the professionals

[arb culture]

 

In fact, a judge has actually said that it should not be possible to apply for permission to fell a tree on the grounds that it is dangerous, ie if it is dangerous then it is dangerous now, and needs to be felled immediately, if it isnt dangerous now then it isnt dangerous at all and therefore you shouldnt be given consent to fell.........

 

That's really interesting. Do you know which case that was?

[Peter]

No, but i'm sure its on here somewhere.

[Bundle 2]

That's really interesting. Do you know which case that was?

 

Mmmm..Good question imo. Don't ask me to cite the case, but I m fairly certain the courts have had to make a determination as to the nature of "dangerous" . Infact, it was decided in a ruling that the tree must have to be "imminently dangerous".

An entirely plausible recommendation you might think. There must have to have been some confusion then as to the status of the tree/s in question. IE. Not just dangerous, but "imminently dangerous":001_rolleyes:

Not entirely helpful, imo. There are so many systems that can be used to ascertain the safety/risk value of a tree that no two answers are likely to be the same. If we started cutting down on the basis of "personal, professional opinion", we would be in a right mess..,again, IMO! This is what the judge is reported to have ruled Peter, by suggesting we never need consent to fell.

if indeed, it is exempt under DDD, then its already covered. It is entirely plausible the tree could be considered for removal under a much wider remit however.

I guess that's what you get when "unqualified opinion" ( in the strictly arboreal context ) is the last word on an issue?

[Peter]

I think one has to put one's legal mindset on and see it from the judges point of view, he had been asked to make a pronouncement based on the evidence presented, the letter of the law, and existing case law. He makes a statement based on all of this, which is not intended to alter the way in which contractors approach gaining TPO consent, but is intended to highlight shortcomings with the system and to influence future court decisions.

 

The bottom line is, dont get too excited, and make your tpo applications as per usual. Unless of course you want to be at the cutting edge of lawmaking and star in your very own test case.........

[Bundle 2]

Well, I dont know about "should not be possible..." but as Ive already said, it isnt necessary (under DDD )

I was mostly just postulating that the judge is quite likely to not be well acquainted with the position L.A/s and T.O.'s on the ground.

If "not possible" means "saving wasted time considering applications" then I would suggest the T.O's concerned acquainted themselves with the legislation and simply refuse to consider such apps...as I believe they do with BS5837 when they pass across their desks...However, there may be an issue of liability here(?)

I personally think that the LA is there to provide a service and has a duty to respond to unnecessary apps by informing those contractors/individuals involved of the situation as it stands....Another aspect that the judges comments fail to adequately consider (imo ) As to the wisdom in making an app for removal and citing dangerous tree rather than removing it forthwith as a matter of public safety..I couldn't comment. But then, arbs are fearful of legislation in others ways I can think of also....!

 

Edit: I meant to make another point with regards tpo apps.....You shouldnt have to ring up your T'O by getting friendly with him first as a way of seeing eye to eye.....and getting consent. It really isnt cricket and if nowt is written down and recorded...you could be letting yo'self in for a world of pain....!?

Edited September 3, 2010 by Bundle 2

[skyhuck]

DDD - dead, dying or dangerous. If it's not imminently dangerous, then you will still need to go through the usual submission process. Whether you immediately go ahead with the tree work or are courteous and give a 5 day notification, photos are an extremely good idea because if there are any queries about the tree's removal, the onus will be on you to prove your case.

 

:

 

If its dead, but not dangerous, you can just notify (as a courtesy) and fell, as a TPO does not cover dead trees, BUT a replacement is required.

[skyhuck]

Is it "dead, dying and dangerous", or "dead, dying or dangerous"???

 

Because if it is the latter, clearly it does not need to be dangerous to be notifiable.

[Bundle 2]

I think you are maybe over thinking it...The only term used in DDD that is in anyway quantative is "dead". And even then, I can think of beech that have been condemned to monolith treatment as they were considered dead, only to then put out new growth!

This is why it is important to cover yourself by documenting the situation adequately.

[common lime]

I throught that the legal authority for application of the statutory exemption is to be found in the case Smith v Oliver [1989] 2 P.L.R?

 

This found that a prudent citizen looking at the tree in question and deciding in his own mind weather he can properly say the trees are dangerous.

 

I was not aware the above authority had been superseded with a new legal test has anyone got the fully details?