Implications of the new Tree Regs

[Mr Ed]

Humph. I read this in case there was a chipper in it. pshaw.

[Amelanchier]

Apologies. It would appear the S211 Conservation Area notifications are NOT affected by the new Regs.

 

So drunken scribblings on the back of a chinese takeaway for a CA tree are acceptable!

[Dean Lofthouse]

The discressionary rejections may be a way to prevent sub standard firms doing TPO work. I look foreward to lots of referrals.

 

Surely that's what the BS3998 is for.

 

I personally think that if an LA give permission for works to be carried out on a TPO'd Tree they should follow it up with an inspection of the works carried out on that tree and if the work is not up to scratch the Tree company should be banned from future work until they can prove their working standards have improved, either that or fined heavily

[Mesterh]

It has always been the duty of the applicant (or their agent) to prove the exemption under DDD. Now the regs simply ask for that proof.

 

When I speak of discretion, I mean exactly this issue. A clearly dead tree is often obvious, and only the most pedantic LPA would want report certifying its death.

 

Its more likely to come into play when Mrs Miggins wants a 30% reduction because the tree moves in the wind...

 

Cheers for the info. We allways took photos and kept proof of DDD trees just in case I thought they wanted something else.

 

I've had TO in the past want an application putting in for a completly dead tree We (more nicely phrased) basically said piss off and come and have a look before we remove it . Suffice to say they didnt even though we gave them 5 days.

 

I wish the LA around here would work WITH the local professional tree companyies instead of against them, they never get any grief from the local pikies or do they care for that matter.

[Tom D]

I know, I know...its boring and there's no chippers or cranes involved but if you're a working Arb there's every chance the new regs will affect you.

 

Following on from MonkeyD's post a week or so ago, new Regulations have been made that make the dreaded 1APP form compulsory from the 1st October 2008.

 

That is to say, no more S211 notifications on the back of a fag packet and no more TPO apps on takeaway menus. If it doesn't come in on a 1APP form the the LPA are legally required to deem it invalid. We're not just being awkward, it will be the law.

 

Now, you're probably all aware of that bit...

 

However, within the 1APP is the requirement for justification of proposed works that include health and safety concerns (e.g., the tree is diseased, or fears that parts may break or fall) to include a report by a tree professional explaining those grounds.

 

Similarly, in the case of alleged subsidence damage, a report by an engineer or surveyor, together with one from a tree professional (further details are contained within the application form) should be submitted.

 

Now, just as with a normal planning application, failure to include necessary information will result in the invalidation of applications or notification on the grounds of insufficient information.

 

Basically, if Mrs Miggins wants her TPO tree felled because its knackered and she engages you to make the application, if you don't include evidence supporting the claim that the tree is knackered... the LPA don't even have to go and look at it, you application can be invalidated from the desk!

 

On a more positive note, most councils, and I include the council I work for within that statement, will use these new powers with discretion and common sense. But that may not be all councils...

 

Can you define what a tree proffesional is? have they specified qualifications?