Legal definition of a "Reduction"??

[skyhuck]

All the applications I make come back with 3998, wether CA or TPO. Sounds like the TO is being lazy, I suppose you can just bash on.

 

You don't "apply" for CA, you "notify", as I undress it they can't set conditions, they can simply decide if they are happy for you carry out the work you have "specified" or TPO the tree's.

 

You don't actually get "permission", they should either TPO or not, but if your not specific enough they can ask for more details.

[Paul Barton]

As you rightly say Dave, it's only a notification. The only decision the council can make is to place a TPO on the tree, or not to.

 

As they have not made a TPO the client is free to carry on with the tree works. I am not aware of any precedents set whereby the tree owner notifies intent to do one thing and then does another e.g. notifies an intention to reduce and then fells the tree. I think this would be sketchy ground as it could be proved by the council that the owner misled the council.

 

Ultimately though, if the TO regards the tree of some value he should probably make a TPO. I think in reality it more often comes down to trust and a working relationship - if the TO gets a notification from a trusted contractor then he may not bother with a TPO as he trusts that the work notified will be done and not more.

[Mark Bolam]

Would this not leave the door open, legally, to a 99% reduction?

[likeitorlumpit]

There you go Huck- depends on whether you want a good relationship with the TO.

[Gary Prentice]

I don't know if this is countrywide, but in my experience its the planning officer who writes the consent, acknowledgement or whatever. The TO advises the planning officer, but he then uses whatever wording he sees fit. Often resulting in some tragic misunderstandings.

 

Without reference to BS3998 its very open to do what you choose. I've seen many consents for crown lifting with no criteria as to height. If the original application or notification is not specific, as to heights or percentages, the department has failed in their duty by accepting it.

[Dean Lofthouse]

There you go Huck- depends on whether you want a good relationship with the TO.

 

That's how I see it too Huck

 

The TO,s idea of a reduction would be 1-2 metres, you start getting into 4-6 " diameter wood and I would call that a pollard.

 

I would want to keep my good relationship with the TO rather than with one customer

[skyhuck]

The thing is its not MY notification, the client has already done the notification.

 

I had been asked to quote (along with others)

 

I had to quote for the clients requirement, he told me the hight he wanted.

 

I do have a good relationship with the TO, but he does not deal directly with us or the public, we all go through the planing department, who I also get on well with.

 

I think I'm going to do as the client requires, if there's any come back I'll point out that they should have refused the notification as not specific enough or TPO'd.

[Dean Lofthouse]

I,d just get on with it in that case

[Mark Bolam]

Get that 660 sharpened Huck!

[Amelanchier]

While they haven't referred to 3998, it's definition of crown reduction (and therefore the definition that would be likely to be hurled around by the shiny shoes legal bods) is;

 

"[An] operation that results in an overall reduction in the height and/or spread of the crown of a tree by means of a general shortening of twigs and/or branches, whilst retaining the main framework of the crown."

 

So shorten away Huck, but retain the main framework of the crown. Whatever you decide that is!