permission standard Conditions

[Cheesy pete]

Hi all first post

 

I have question to do with permission standard conditions

the trees in question have TPO's on them and permission has been granted for 25% crown lifts.

 

The request was submitted by previous owners but work was never carried out.(i know you have 2 years from the approved date )

so to the condition in question

1.The tree works hereby approved shall be carried out by a contractor the identity of whom shall be agreed in advance by the Council’s Arboricultural Services.

My name was not on the original application do i need to do anything about this ?

or do i just price it and get on with the work ?

[Cheesy pete]

First Schedule

 

Removal of the ivy from the trunk of Sycamore tree and the removal of the epicormic growth and lower branches from Lime tree, located within Group 2 of Tree Preservation Order 071, and crown lift both trees by 25%.

 

Second Schedule

 

Standard Conditions:

 

1.The consent hereby granted is valid for a period of two years from the date of this decision.

 

2.Any trees not within the ownership of the applicant require consultation with the tree owner prior to the commencement of any on site work.

 

3.All tree works must comply with British Standard 3998 (2010 – British Standard for Tree Work) and the relevant industry codes for safe practice produced by the Forestry & Arboriculture Safety & Training Council (FASTCo).

 

4.The tree works hereby approved shall be carried out by a contractor the identity of whom shall be agreed in advance by the Council’s Arboricultural Services.

 

this was in the letter of consent so i'm just going off this i don't actuaaly deal with this sort of stuff in my normal work i do highway work and the spec is clear the highways

[Gary Prentice]

Its all poorly written, BS3998:2010 isn't a standard, is recommendations for treework. The condition probably isn't enforcable. The case referred to was where a council forced an applicant to use an 'approved contractor'. A judge decreed that although the work should be carried out to an acceotable, recognised standard, the house-owner could do the work himself if he chose.

 

The 25% crown lift is odd, it could be a typo on plannings part, as crown lifts are normally to a given height. I would suggest checking with the planning department to clarify.

 

I have seen the naming condition before, which was on a dodgy consent that the tree officer had been forced to agree to (local councillor involvement) but the TO himself didn't think if was enforceable.

 

Sorry, not much help.

[Paul Cleaver]

a proper spec for a crown lift would be for example "crown lift to a height of 4 metres"

[Cheesy pete]

thanks guys that's great !

the thing is in the original application it asked for 30% crown thinning and came back as 25% crown lift for the sycamore so got permission for something different lol

i'm going to try to sort this out with planning as mentioned but any other comment or info you guys /girls have for me would be wonderful .

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Its all poorly written, BS3998:2010 isn't a standard, is recommendations for treework. The condition probably isn't enforcable. The case referred to was where a council forced an applicant to use an 'approved contractor'. A judge decreed that although the work should be carried out to an acceotable, recognised standard, the house-owner could do the work himself if he chose.

 

The 25% crown lift is odd, it could be a typo on plannings part, as crown lifts are normally to a given height. I would suggest checking with the planning department to clarify.

 

I have seen the naming condition before, which was on a dodgy consent that the tree officer had been forced to agree to (local councillor involvement) but the TO himself didn't think if was enforceable.

 

Sorry, not much help.

 

Gary, genuine question - how can a British Standard not be a standard? (possible answer - when it is a 'recommendation?'

 

So how can a standard be a recommendation?

[Gary Prentice]

Kevin, In explaining how poorly the conditions were written, I failed to explain properly (and was being a little pedantic), but my dinner was getting cold as I wrote.

I should have explained the wording a little better:

 

"Use of this document

This British Standard takes the form of guidance and recommendations.

It should not be quoted as if it were a specification and particular care

should be taken to ensure that claims of compliance are not misleading."

 

What I meant was that the authority should be better in their wording and at least use the correct titles. From the OP's later post it seems that that the 25% should refer to a thin, which correlates with my post about poor or incorrect wording.

 

I have seen some truly atrocious planning consents, so poorly worded and ambiguous that the arb would have free rein to do what they please with impunity. One I particular remember, was a homeowner who had applied and received consent to root prune. When shown the extent of what he planned to cut, I queried the consent which said " remove offending roots" -carte blanche to do as he pleased.

 

Rant over, its a bugbear of mine, it's not difficult to provide a specific, unambiguous consent letter, is it?

[daltontrees]

thanks guys that's great !

the thing is in the original application it asked for 30% crown thinning and came back as 25% crown lift for the sycamore so got permission for something different lol

i'm going to try to sort this out with planning as mentioned but any other comment or info you guys /girls have for me would be wonderful .

 

This is just awful practice by the Council. Their conditions are unenforceable. That doesn't mean that you can do just whathever you want, though.

 

A few selected points come to mind.

 

1. Your client or customer does nt have permission for a 30% thin, or any thin.

2. A 25% crown lift is, as others have said, meaningless.except you could argue that 25% of the crow could be removed from the bottom up. But I suspect that that is not what the Council meant. I suspect it meant to modify the 30% reduction of the application to 25%.

3. The condition about the identitiy of the contractor is nonsensical and probaby void.

4. The condition about compliance with BS3998 personally I think is enforceable desite KJMBE and btggaz bugbears and the like, since the Standard is industry best practice, and that's someting that a court could scrutinise.

and most of all -

5. TPO controls and enforcement action are against the person who caused permitted unconsented tree work to be done. If you are following orders and doing specified work, go ahead. But if you are being asked to interpret the conditions and carry out appropriate but unspecified works, you could end up being the subject of prosecution. The case might fall through, but that's not quite the point. As soon as tyou takr onan advisory ir interpretative role you are openign a can of worms. If you don't know wher this leaves you, don't go there. At least get a clear record of the customer telling you to follow a direct order. Get the customer, in other words, to figure out what is meant by a 25% crown lift. You won't get anyone in the industry telling you with any confidence what it means.

[Gary Prentice]

Jules, to clarify my first post;

 

The condition I was referring to was the use of a named and agreed contractor. It's already been through the courts that the planning authority can not force the applicant to use one on their 'approved' list, or even a contractor at all.

 

My reference to BS3998:2010 was simply the inexactitude of their wording. It isn't BS3998:2010 British standard for tree work, it's BS3998:2010 Tree work-Recommendations

 

I wonder if they actually have a copy? BS3998 actually says; "When specifying crown lifting, the points between which the clearance will be measured should be stated; for example, this may be from ground or roof level to the point of origin of the lowest

remaining branch or the lowest remaining foliage."

 

I probably return or query about 10% of all consents that I get, due to typographical errors, which means that the intent is unclear, even impossible to interpret. Maybe 30-40 annually, it's a lot.

 

This is almost certainly a typo which should read crown thin.

[Paul Barton]

 

Maybe the local authority don't have a Tree Officer.

 

Name and shame.

 

Ed

 

No, don't.

 

Not that I'm not intrigued myself but Arbtalk has a no naming and shaming rule