TPO specification?

[Gary Prentice]

Without checking I'm not 100%, but I think the reduction now should read as the finished height after pruning and/or minimum radial spread at specified cardinal compass points.

 

Reducing by 10% is difficult to prove after the event if the climbers been a bit vigorous or the clients putting pressure on.

[Gary Prentice]

W

Another bit to add to the mix:

 

•be accompanied by such information as is necessary to clearly specify the work for which consent is sought;

 

Making applications to carry out work on trees protected by a Tree Preservation Order | Planning Practice Guidance

 

Bottom line, if they consider the application to be vague such that they can't determine it, they don't have to register it.

 

In principle I agree with this, and as a former TPO TO, as too many vague and ambiguous applications are made. However, if the contractor is known and trusted perhaps there should be some lea-way.

 

Hope this helps.

Paul

 

I've seen a few 'crown lifts' being passed with no clearance measurements at all.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Without checking I'm not 100%, but I think the reduction now should read as the finished height after pruning and/or minimum radial spread at specified cardinal compass points.

 

Reducing by 10% is difficult to prove after the event if the climbers been a bit vigorous or the clients putting pressure on.

 

Hi Gary, thanks for the reminder here.

 

This guidance has actually been around since Sept. 2008 and, as you say, refers to CR in terms of what's left, i.e. finished dimensions, rather than what's removed (and certainly not as a %.)

 

Guess this makes planning enforcement / prosecution easier for exceeding the consent notice.

 

Cheers..

Paul

080930-Guidance for standard application form-protected.pdf

[ReubenHayes]

BS3998:2010 7.7.2 Specification for crown reduction and/or reshaping

 

The specification should be accurate and clear, so that the desired result is achieved. To avoid ambiguity, the specified end result can be stated either as the tree-height and branch-spread which are to remain, or the average equivalent in branch length (in metres). End results should be specified for individual branches if the growth pattern of the tree creates a need for this, or where clearance from a specific object is required.

 

The TO is correct in that it should have been giving details on the remained height of the tree.

 

As Paul said the TPO also requires applications to be clear and not vague, again a 1-2m crown reduction would be termed as vague.

 

With regards to previous posts:

 

I appreciate that many others have posted that they would only carry out what is necessary, however if you say that only 1m is necessary why ask for 2m? also if permission was given for 2m crown reduction, and you said to the client I'm only going to do a 1m crown reduction as 2m would 'butcher' the tree. well they have permission for 2m so could go to someone else!

 

I know that filling out the forms is a pain, but having lea-way in the process would lead to future problems. Tree surgeons asking why company A can do this and that, why do I have to fill out forms when they don't and more importantly the client then taking a vague permission and passing it to someone else to do the work, who may not work in the trees best interest.

[daltontrees]

I'm not taking sides at all, but I can see that the original spec posted on here should result in pretty much what the COuncil said here. If some Councils accept specs that are vague that's up to them but they really oughtn't to. And there are reasons for that. By not giving a reason for the tree works the application is invalid at law (Reg 13(1)©(iii) 2012). But the vague extent of the reduction together with the considerable crown lift means thatif it was a 2m reduction the total extent of pruning takes this way over the 30% guidance (Clause 7.5 BS3998) and the crown lift looks to exceed the 15% guidance (Clasue 7.6). Doesn't mean that such drastic measures aren't justified in some cases, but the Council has to have the info to decide on that.

 

Better specs make for quicker decisions and reduced likelihood of refusal, and build trust between Councils and contractors/consultants, which suits everyone. Writing a vague spec takes 2 minutes, writing a good one takes 3 minutes. Delays caused by vague ones can run to weeks or even months. Why take a chance unless you're gambling on getting a vague consent and then abusing the leeway?

 

Not you Mr. OP, I am talking in generalities to encourage a better standing for our industry.

Edited February 25, 2016 by daltontrees

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Everyone is being exceptionally tactful and reserved, maybe some people have met or have social connections which is tempering the replies....?

 

I thought it was an inadequate submission wholly justifiably rejected and I'm surprised it's been highlighted / publicised - it actually highlights entirely appropriate practice by the LA.

 

Home / tree owners can after all, submit their own applications - I've seen some that would make the example given look amateur.

 

Historic works, qualification level, company reputation, social connections all (should be) irrelevant since it is the public documentation and process that will be open to scrutiny, audit or appeal.

 

"...is this specification adequate/does it make sense..." No and no, but you already know that because you had it returned.

 

No offence intended, just surprised you had to ask......

[Thesnarlingbadger]

Everyone is being exceptionally tactful and reserved, maybe some people have met or have social connections which is tempering the replies....?

 

I thought it was an inadequate submission wholly justifiably rejected and I'm surprised it's been highlighted / publicised - it actually highlights entirely appropriate practice by the LA.

 

Home / tree owners can after all, submit their own applications - I've seen some that would make the example given look amateur.

 

Historic works, qualification level, company reputation, social connections all (should be) irrelevant since it is the public documentation and process that will be open to scrutiny, audit or appeal.

 

"...is this specification adequate/does it make sense..." No and no, but you already know that because you had it returned.

 

No offence intended, just surprised you had to ask......

 

 

I think it was mentioned that it was more of a venting thread. (not like the good olde days as they say)

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

I think it was mentioned that it was more of a venting thread. (not like the good olde days as they say)

 

Yes, I saw that....

 

I didn't really get it though since I can't see what there is to vent against??

[benedmonds]

Everyone is being exceptionally tactful and reserved, maybe some people have met or have social connections which is tempering the replies....?

 

I thought it was an inadequate submission wholly justifiably rejected and I'm surprised it's been highlighted / publicised - it actually highlights entirely appropriate practice by the LA.

 

No offence intended, just surprised you had to ask......

 

It doesn't have to get personal... It is a discussion, state your opinion, which others might agree with or not and you might not even be right..

 

I have been filling in TPO applications for 15 years, they have changed a little in that time, I no longer use percentages but to be honest the work has remained pretty much the same.

 

BS3998 states that the "Specifications which state what will remain are normally used to enable verification, but to assist implementation, may also be translated into what is to be removed(e.g. length of Branch)

 

IMO, height estimates are always that, an estimate.. and will vary wildly. (I once worked as a science officer on a rainforest project and compared estimates of the same trees by different people or at different times and found that there was NO statistical relationship, ie the estimates were worthless..)

 

Therefore stating the amount to be removed is easier for a contractor to understand. This can't however be a single number as we need to cut back to grown points. Hence the 1-2m..

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

 

Therefore stating the amount to be removed is easier for a contractor to understand. This can't however be a single number as we need to cut back to grown points. Hence the 1-2m..

 

Hence my proposal that "approx.", or 'circa' the current equiv. buzzy term, 1.5 m might be more acceptable

 

(I still consider 1-2m to be too imprecise as there's potentially a whole metre's difference around the entire circumference of the tree which could equate to a significant difference.)