tpo issues

[Chris at eden]

How's it borderline? If they have validated the application then they must have been satisfied that they could identify the trees ,and if they did not come back for further info within the statutory 8 weeks and it's now 19 weeks past that to me is sloppy ,too many councils do this to avoid decision making or as a stalling tactic in both tree and planning related matters.

I agree on submitting the 5 day notice but as said make sure they are as you say dead or dangerous and photograph to prove it.

I have emailed these notifications in the past.

 

Not really, they will validate as a desk exercise based on a plan being provided. They won't know if it any good until they visit the site. At that point they should seek clarification. In this instance they haven't responded for whatever reason. Its easy to blame the TO but if the consultant had done his job properly there wouldn't be an issue. You could go for none validation with confidence. That said if the report is ok you still could.

 

One of the biggest problems for TO's is the poor standard of reports produced by the industry from some people trying to make a quick buck. I've seen TPO evidence that says reduce beech by 50% as the tree is top heavy. Not even joking. You end up going to appeal on stuff like that which all adds to the workload.

 

AIA's are the biggest problem. Generic rubbish that in no way relates to the site is pretty common. You end up reading and consulting on the same thing 8 times and it still isn't right.

 

I had a tree surgeon insisting that his report was accurate in a meeting one day. The survey said the RPA was something like 10m but his plan plotted it at about 6m which by coincidence was just short of the footprint. When I aske which was accurate he said both. Even when I showed him with a scale rule he still wouldn't have it. At this point the architect was looking pretty annoyed but not at me. Its not always the TO's fault.

 

On the flip side I've had a TO suggest that I had under estimated a 15m RPA. That's not even possible. The industry is mad sometimes.

[Chris at eden]

Not really, they will validate as a desk exercise based on a plan being provided. They won't know if it any good until they visit the site. At that point they should seek clarification. In this instance they haven't responded for whatever reason. Its easy to blame the TO but if the consultant had done his job properly there wouldn't be an issue. You could go for none validation with confidence. That said if the report is ok you still could.

 

One of the biggest problems for TO's is the poor standard of reports produced by the industry from some people trying to make a quick buck. I've seen TPO evidence that says reduce beech by 50% as the tree is top heavy. Not even joking. You end up going to appeal on stuff like that which all adds to the workload.

 

AIA's are the biggest problem. Generic rubbish that in no way relates to the site is pretty common. You end up reading and consulting on the same thing 8 times and it still isn't right.

 

I had a tree surgeon insisting that his report was accurate in a meeting one day. The survey said the RPA was something like 10m but his plan plotted it at about 6m which by coincidence was just short of the footprint. When I aske which was accurate he said both. Even when I showed him with a scale rule he still wouldn't have it. At this point the architect was looking pretty annoyed but not at me. Its not always the TO's fault.

 

On the flip side I've had a TO suggest that I had under estimated a 15m RPA. That's not even possible. The industry is mad sometimes.

 

Sorry, meant to say non determination.