Council slapping tpo on tree's

[New Forest DEAN]

If you continually work to good standards and occasionally “tip off” the local arboricultural officer about a “good” tree that someone wants felling then you are much more likely to get work that you apply for granted.

 

That seems outrageous to me as an educational point - since when has 'you scratch my back...' been good education. I think they might want to be reconsidering whether that should be in a syllabus - the whole statement suggests that the Tree Officer doesn't make balanced decisions, which is what they are supposed to do. You CANNOT educate students to encourage unbalanced decisions in any form.

 

The Tree Officer is an OFFICER - he has authority bestowed on him by virtue of training, experience and position which must be exercised in a uniform manner.

 

Does this mean if I 'tip off' HMRC they might be a bit more flexible if I'm audited? How about the Police? Planning Officers?

 

'occassionally tip off...' - so now you are the arbitrator of who suffers additional cost or admin'.

 

You can build trust with an authority through good practice (both ways) - you cannot build trust by being duplicitous; Would you admit to the potential client that you had informed the Tree Officer? would you inform after you had lost the job? or just as good practice? hmmm....

 

I think the issue for the OP is to complain to the LA etc that their slow admin' has a negative affect on business - if the Tree Officer wants to TPO, OK, but not with significant delay.

 

I have to deal with LA's every day.

 

DEAN.

[Andy Collins]

What gives you the right to use confidential information (that a client has given you in order to allow you to quote for works) in a way thats actually detrimental to your client?

 

I personally find that appalling and highly unprofessional, by all means try to talk the client into keeping the trees or turn the work down, but going behind their backs, when they have trusted you is IMO despicable.

 

Huck, I like many others care about my area, and my community. I care about the trees within my community. If I felt it was not in the communities interest to remove a tree of particular interest, I would wish to protect it. The TPO system allows this. It sticks in my throat that a particular Oak cannot at this time be served with a TPO, as the LPA do not deem it as under threat. I do, as I know it will be felled before the application to put in an access, because that's how the system is used. I would endeavour to work with the TO to protect most trees under threat, and why not? TOs are only here in the short term, as are we, oaks etc are here for a lot longer, and the views can be here for even longer. We do have a responsiblity to protect it.

[MATTMOSS]

QUOTE=Andy Collins;720365]Huck, I like many others care about my area, and my community. I care about the trees within my community. If I felt it was not in the communities interest to remove a tree of particular interest, I would wish to protect it. The TPO system allows this. It sticks in my throat that a particular Oak cannot at this time be served with a TPO, as the LPA do not deem it as under threat. I do, as I know it will be felled before the application to put in an access, because that's how the system is used. I would endeavour to work with the TO to protect most trees under threat, and why not? TOs are only here in the short term, as are we, oaks etc are here for a lot longer, and the views can be here for even longer. We do have a responsiblity to protect it.

 

:congrats:[

[skyhuck]

Huck, I like many others care about my area, and my community. I care about the trees within my community. If I felt it was not in the communities interest to remove a tree of particular interest, I would wish to protect it. The TPO system allows this. It sticks in my throat that a particular Oak cannot at this time be served with a TPO, as the LPA do not deem it as under threat. I do, as I know it will be felled before the application to put in an access, because that's how the system is used. I would endeavour to work with the TO to protect most trees under threat, and why not? TOs are only here in the short term, as are we, oaks etc are here for a lot longer, and the views can be here for even longer. We do have a responsiblity to protect it.

 

I would suggest that you need to let your clients know that this is your stance.

 

IMO, you are taken into your client confidence when they ask you to quote.

 

Would they ask you to quote if they knew you would try prevent the felling?, I think not, so you should advertise the fact that you will possibly play a part in trying to prevent the felling of trees that you feel should be saved.

[Andy Collins]

I have no issue with any of your points Huck, and indeed I do, it's called communicating. I will also concede when it's not appropriate. It's not them and us, it's people working together for the best outcome for all concerned. TOs are our servants, they are there to serve the bigger community, not just you and me trying to earn a living. My clients employ me to give them the best service possible,Including the advice. many of them own trees that they believe need removal, but need educating as to why to keep them. Sometimes it may be about compromise, between the client the TO and myself, where it's conceded that the tree needs removal, but a suitable replacement will be put in. I've had no issues to date, nor fallen out with anyone, even developers who think they know best. in one case I have even threatened to get the council involved due to breaches in the planning consent, in order to protect the trees from builders. The threats worked. They towed the line.

I am honest with my clients, I will tell them if a tree shouldn't be removed and that's probably my downfall, it seems a strange concept that anyone would actually wish to protect a tree when working in the tree service industry, I mean what other ways are there of earning a living from it?

[MATTMOSS]

This thread is going a bit downhill now

 

Trouble is if someone suggest something it can be too easily blown out of proportion and taken to extreme in order for someone to say there bit.

 

Im not suggesting anyone go behind anyones back, grass anyone up and i dont say things to people that I would say to their face.

 

In this case I think the OP has been a little unlucky with the timing of the TPO notice and him asking for access through the LA's park is what has brought attention to his plans. Unfortunately the TO has deemed these trees an asset to the area and they have been protected before he did the job.

Unlucky, thats just they way it is.

 

If i go to a job and the client wants to fell a mature 200 year old tree thats perfectly healthy because its blocking his sky signal, i will politly refuse, tell him why I think it should be retained, offer other alternatives -prunning and if he still wants to have it felled he will have to get someone else to do it

And I may let the TO know to see if he MIGHT agree and deem it worthy of legal protection. I dont expect any preferential treatment back nor would I recieve any but over time and seeing My work he may trust my work ethics more than someone he didnt know. (and then not poilce my work and i could get away with murder:001_tt2:)

Right or wrong its just me and I veiw my job.

Im not looking for an arguement we are all different.

 

Does anyone agree? im sure most of you must be the same?

if fact dont answer lets move on.

[likeitorlumpit]

I don't think it's the contractors job to tell the TO about a specific tree. That reeks of getting in TO's good books. A client has asked you to fell a tree. You quote and suggest they check conservation area and TPO issues. You cover yourself by doing the same with their permission. Whatever comes next is whatever comes next.

If your client says there are no TPO's and your investigations are the same then why not fell immediately because the client will blame you for delaying the process allowing the TPO to be served. You won't look good.

[will.morris]

I don't think it's the contractors job to tell the TO about a specific tree. That reeks of getting in TO's good books. A client has asked you to fell a tree. You quote and suggest they check conservation area and TPO issues. You cover yourself by doing the same with their permission. Whatever comes next is whatever comes next.

If your client says there are no TPO's and your investigations are the same then why not fell immediately because the client will blame you for delaying the process allowing the TPO to be served. You won't look good.

 

You can quite easily get around that by saying your busy until a certain date. I think it would be arrogant of a customer not to be ok with you not being able to do the work immediately, self employed arbs have to book future work in obviously.

 

For some I'm sure they will "grass" just to keep their relationship with the TO sweet but I think for many it is down to their own general wish to see the tree kept... a bit of both in most cases I dare say. My parents had the planning department officers over for coffee when they wanted to put in for planning permission for an extension on the house, how's that for brown nosing

[Albedo]

Stop saying 'grass'.... You sound like a load of T..Leaves:001_smile:

[will.morris]

I said it in speach marks just to irritate