Would you ??

[benedmonds]

The TO (who may or may not be a muppet) did not say he would not give permision to fell, just that he needed an application. They are being a jobsworth for sure but it's not a great deal of effort to stick in an application and I don't mind doing them if I'm confident that I'll get work from it.

 

If the customer can't be bothered to apply (or have you apply), they're the muppet, as they will have to pay more for a MEWP to come take it down when it is dangerous.

[Amelanchier]

Sorry, I must have missed something. But hey I'm a muppet.

 

If you thought it was dangerous Dean, why didn't you fell it under the exemptions???

 

Its your call, but I am sure that tree will stand long enough for you to put in an application. Not wanting to is a different thing altogether.

 

Those of your who think they could do a TO job and then complain about paperwork in the same breath make me laugh.

[Patchwork]

budget budget budget. thats the problem we have at the moment, obviously screwed trees that were having to convince out TO to get taken down. Then when it comes to the end of the councils yearly budget we will be getting called out to do the most pointless tree work so they can get it just right and get the same amount of money next year. wonderfully crap system

[Dean Lofthouse]

If you thought it was dangerous Dean, why didn't you fell it under the exemptions???

 

Its your call, but I am sure that tree will stand long enough for you to put in an application. Not wanting to is a different thing altogether.

 

.

 

Just trying to save the customer money Tony, I now charge £120 for planning applications.

 

I also don't want to be seen as going behind the TO's back. I find it easier to get on with them than not

 

I remember once describing a previously topped ash with decay pockets at the topping site as dangerous. They came back saying it wasn't, I had to rephrase it as Hazardous.

 

Like I say, there is nothing either side of dangerous

[Mesterh]

Those of your who think they could do a TO job and then complain about paperwork in the same breath make me laugh.

 

The TO who refused that sycamore obviously loves it rather than just signing it off as DDD he wants a full report to look at. More money from the customer and more time and paper waste for the TO.

[benedmonds]

Just trying to save the customer money Tony, I now charge £120 for planning applications.

:

 

You don't have to charge them £120.. Sounds alot to me. It takes me 20 minutes max to fill in a simple application online, including maps etc..

[Amelanchier]

Just trying to save the customer money Tony, I now charge £120 for planning applications.

 

I also don't want to be seen as going behind the TO's back. I find it easier to get on with them than not

 

I remember once describing a previously topped ash with decay pockets at the topping site as dangerous. They came back saying it wasn't, I had to rephrase it as Hazardous.

 

Like I say, there is nothing either side of dangerous

 

Blimey. Get many takers at that price!?!

 

My interpretation of dangerous as mentioned in the exemptions involves a degree of urgency. If the tree was showing signs of imminent failure then I'd be happy to call it dangerous. Otherwise, pop an application in, tell me what you will replant (or why you wont) and you're in the queue...

 

Some TOs might let more slide on an exemption. Its a professional opinion kind of thing.

[Log-ologist]

since the new App forms came out the TO seems more pernickerty about treatment descriptions

 

or is it me.

[skyhuck]

TPO fines are based on the value of the tree, that tree ain't worth "jack ......"

 

Fell it and say "bill me"

[treequip]

Oooer

Admire the “cahonas” rating but I would be careful.

The fine is levied by the judge so the tree is worth whatever the judge decides it is worth. If they think you deliberately flouted the law the might get punitive with the fine. It also carries a criminal conviction.

 

As an afterthought, the bonfire rash looks pretty recent. Since that damage is cited as a reason to fell are you offering the TO a case to answer for actions likely to destroy?