TPO'd Sycamore.

[Amelanchier]

What you describe is unprofessional and unacceptable, regardless of the method used to produce it.

 

Well yeah. I agree with you there, it wouldn't have been much better typed!

 

"No concerts in the rot zone." I'll never forget that!

[Amelanchier]

I agree, but it also says this:

 

Arboricultural or other diagnostic evidence (eg

from an entomologist or pathologist) must be provided where the health of the

tree is affected, eg by the presence of pests, diseases or fungi. If the reasons for

the application relate to the structural condition of the tree (eg damaged roots or

structural defects within the tree or defects that may be of concern to the current

or future safe retention of the tree or parts of the tree) then arboricultural evidence

must be provided to support the proposed work.

 

All roads lead to some kind of report IMO, even if its written on the back of a fag packet.

 

Cheers Gmann

 

True. What do you usually get though Gmann?

 

I'd be happy with...

 

"The mature Beech (T1) leans to the east by approx. 15 degrees, towards the house and has a small Ganoderma spp. fruiting body on the tension side of the lean around a small cavity approx. 200mm diameter between the buttresses. When probed, it became apparent that the cavity extends to 50% of the width of the stem. It is considered that the remaining sound wood is sufficient to support the tree but that the risk of failure at this point could be mitigated by a reduction of the sail area by the removal of the no more than the outermost 2-3m of the canopy back to suitable secondary growth points. Resulting pruning cuts will not exceed 75mm in diameter."

 

Doesn't take very long and as you say, would probably fit on a fag packet.

Instead of the usual...

 

"Reduce Beech 25% - Ganoderma at base." (Which normally gets sent back!)

Edited September 28, 2009 by Amelanchier

[gmanntpo]

You have produced an excellent report in my opinion Tony!

 

Thats all I need to know!! Nevertheles that is clearly from someone who knows what they are talking about!

 

As a T.O I would be more than happy to consent for a 25% reduction with such evidence from someone who is clearly knows what they are talking about...!

 

If it was a TPO app, obviously I would check the findings with my own investigations, doing exactly what you did!

 

Just for the record I was a climbing arborist for 10 years before I got into LG.

 

A short report that is concise and sticks to the facts is all that is needed in some cases.

 

Cheers Gmann

[Bundle 2]

Its all very nice that you can discuss the various takes on the legal implications and interpretations of the legislation and indeed the guidance offered in the blue book but ultimately it is not pertinent. I refer you to the opening post in which it was claimed that when notification (211) was sent to the LA advising of works to the tree...it was at this point that the T.O. is reported to have placed a tpo on the tree. ( apparently with further restrictions allowing only a minimal reduction of 15%)

If the order is confirmed then the owner is almost certainly likely to be required to provide a report, at some cost to themselves, in addition to any contractual costs that may arise from maintenence and ownership.

It does seem as if it is something of a matter of opinion. I am asking myself why a tree in this condition has become the subject of an order atall under these circumstances and certainly feel that the TPO has not really been in the wider interests....Im glad I dont own it. Without knowing the situation more intimately I wont comment further but again, I would expect this situation to be resolved with minimum expense in time and money for all concerned.

[gmanntpo]

You are right Bundle2

 

getting back to the original post IMO the T.O was fundamentally wrong to TPO this tree..

 

Nevertheless as professionals we have called this into question and lets hope good sense prevails.. I don't doubt, that if this went to appeal then the LPA would lose...

 

Like I said in one of my earlier posts, specify a good replacement and fell the sycamore (if indeed its condition is as bad as the pics suggest)

 

Unfortunately, quite a few T.O's have a blinkered view and no concept of using the principles of silviculture in the urban forest...

 

Cheers Gmann

[Amelanchier]

Its all very nice that you can discuss the various takes on the legal implications and interpretations of the legislation and indeed the guidance offered in the blue book but ultimately it is not pertinent. I refer you to the opening post in which it was claimed that when notification (211) was sent to the LA advising of works to the tree...it was at this point that the T.O. is reported to have placed a tpo on the tree. ( apparently with further restrictions allowing only a minimal reduction of 15%)

If the order is confirmed then the owner is almost certainly likely to be required to provide a report, at some cost to themselves, in addition to any contractual costs that may arise from maintenence and ownership.

 

It is pertinent - we're agreeing on what constitutes a report in terms of the legal requirement of the 2008 regs. My point is that you don't need a formal report to satisfy the TPO application process, it can be done by a competent contractor. I don't see why a little explanation of the reasoning behind the specification can't be included as part of the contractors price for proposed work.

 

It does seem as if it is something of a matter of opinion. I am asking myself why a tree in this condition has become the subject of an order atall under these circumstances and certainly feel that the TPO has not really been in the wider interests....Im glad I dont own it. Without knowing the situation more intimately I wont comment further but again, I would expect this situation to be resolved with minimum expense in time and money for all concerned.

 

What condition? How have you objectively assessed it from a photo?

[gmanntpo]

Tony

 

I agree, but not everyone has your level of knowledge to produce a concise report such as the example you gave...

 

Neverthless, what is important in legal terms is that, however brief 'the report' i.e written advice on the back on the fag pack, it is admissable in court and one must be ready to defend that...

 

I have no doubts your findings would be defencsible (again as you have the required level of knowledge to answer questions of your findings in a court of law)

 

Although it happens rarely, such cases can end up in the courts! It does indeed happen though..

 

I guess this goes back to my point about the costs.. You may find yourself defending your findings against the best experts money can buy... so you need to be very sure of your conclusions and charge accordingly!

 

Cheers Gmann

[Bundle 2]

"I agree, but not everyone has your level of knowledge to produce a concise report such as the example you gave..."

All the more reason to ensure that the process is not abused.This would have to include not taking advantage of those affected by it without as clear understanding of it.

My point tony is that it may be not be pertinent because the order has already been inappropriately applied (imo) and clearly, what you regard as "agreement" is sadly not universal as illustrated by the orders existence in the first place

 

FTR..I believe I said "without knowing the situation more intimately...etc"

[Amelanchier]

And my point is that there is no way that you can judge the suitability of the Order from a handful of blurry photos.