TPO application

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

If you are employed by the Client to carry out a BS survey with a view to developing the land, I think it would be highly unethical to go behind the Clients back to the LPA. Just thinking about it, in my opinion, is pretty unprofessional.

 

 

 

You are employed to carry out a survey not go running to the LPA. If the Client wishes to fell "amazing" trees and they are not protected, that is his choice and his ethical stance may be called into question.

 

 

 

If you don't like what he is doing, don't ask .

 

 

 

Just saying.....

[Adam M]

Oslac, that's probably the best answer.

 

To the op, if they had wanted to flatten the site, they wouldn't be looking to employ you. Draw them up a constraints plan and a tree survey. What's to say that the access couldn't be built using no-dig methods? Why can't strip foundations be sacked off and less invasive methods be used?

 

You can't save all the trees, you'll go insane if you try to. You can provide a developer with a comprehensive appraisal of the trees and demonstrate their value, and make suggestions as to how important trees could be retained.

 

As soon as the application, including your report is on the councils desk, your concerns should be addressed. If the council choose not to protect the trees you get paid. If they do, you get paid. No breaches of confidence. Everyone's happy.

Edited August 10, 2016 by Adam M
Added stuff

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Just to re-cap:

 

Post 1 - "amazing trees"

 

Post 7 - "some of the best trees I've ever seen"

 

"report will say build / access impossible"

 

So perhaps not a routine or run of the mill situation?

 

Perhaps a situation where chasing the $ might not be the right path?

[Adam M]

Just to re-cap:

 

Post 1 - "amazing trees"

 

Post 7 - "some of the best trees I've ever seen"

 

"report will say build / access impossible"

 

So perhaps not a routine or run of the mill situation?

 

Perhaps a situation where chasing the $ might not be the right path?[ATTACH]209722[/ATTACH][ATTACH]209723[/ATTACH]

 

I'm just not convinced that it isn't doable without having seen it myself. Either do a good job of what you were paid for, or walk away and not give it your beat shot and let someone else with less morals get paid.

[inthewoods]

If you are employed by the Client to carry out a BS survey with a view to developing the land, I think it would be highly unethical to go behind the Clients back to the LPA. Just thinking about it, in my opinion, is pretty unprofessional.

 

You are employed to carry out a survey not go running to the LPA. If the Client wishes to fell "amazing" trees and they are not protected, that is his choice and his ethical stance may be called into question.

 

If you don't like what he is doing, don't ask for payment and walk away and I would seriously question if you are in the right job. As a consultant, it is not your job to run around saving trees (unless that is what someone is paying you to do), it is your job to do what you have contractually agreed to do with your Employer, whilst following your various Codes of Conduct and the law.

 

That's the biggest load of bull faeces I've read in ages! & I'd question if you are on the right planet! Trees are an important part of our environment, trees matter, people & money don't. We are but caretakers of the land we live on, trouble with the world is people like you that only care about cash.

 

To the op - do what you feel is right & let your TO aware of your concerns, off the record that is.

[Adam M]

Does the site have neighbours who may accidently see you carrying out a tree survey and wonder what you're up to?

[daltontrees]

That's the biggest load of bull faeces I've read in ages! & I'd question if you are on the right planet! Trees are an important part of our environment, trees matter, people & money don't. We are but caretakers of the land we live on, trouble with the world is people like you that only care about cash.

 

To the op - do what you feel is right & let your TO aware of your concerns, off the record that is.

 

I don't agre with you, I think oslac's reasoning was correct. This is a website for people most of whom make their livelihood from cutting down trees. I don't see that oslac or anyone else should be singled out for seeming to acquiesce to the loss of trees. Arbtalkers do this day and daily. The question is not about whther trees are good, or money is important. It's whether a professional should act always in his client's best interests regardless of his own personal views. That to me is just about the definition of professionalism. The only way to avoid the conflict between professional and personal views is not to take the instruction. Or for most Arbtalkers, find another job that doesn't involve killing trees.

 

It's absolutely bonkers to be discussing this case on a public forum anyway. Hope, for the sake of the livelihoods and professional reputations of everyone who suggested an unprofessional course of action here, you manage to stay anonymous. And if a change to make the felling of all trees illegal is the agenda, a career change into politics and then parliamentary lobbying is the inevitaably futile option.

 

Sorry, but we live in a world that doesn't care that much. Acting professionally is not the same as selling your soul to the devil. If I got that instruction, I might take it then informally try to le tthe client understand that trees are good for wellbeing, built environments and propery values if development is done the right way. Some change to design that could save trees may come about. Now, that would feel good.

[Jon Heuch]

If I go and survey a site for potential build and find a significant amount of amazing trees. Is there anyway to get them TPO'd without the landowner/architect, a) knowing it was me, b) without their permission ?

 

It's interesting to read the discussion that has followed and see the dilemmas arising from this situation.

 

As an amateur I am sure many of us would look at this situation, let our emotions run wild and think we should act in the public interest and help protect the trees......engage with the TO to stop any felling!

 

As a professional you will be governed by a code of ethics/practice depending to what body you are a member of; look at it! If you think it is just words and can be ignored you really aren't interested in being professional. If you have read it and digested it you may have to make some judgement calls....but the situation is pretty simple in the first instance. If you are not a professional member of any body but you think you can work "professionally" you probably haven't had the experience to understand the dilemmas arising from work and thus value the benefit of having some support and guidance on this type of situation.

 

The ISA Certified Arborist's reads "Maintain and respect the confidentiality of sensitive information" . The ICF's reads "Don’t divulge information to others unless it is appropriate to do so"......but also reads "Use your skills and experience to serve the needs of wider society".....so there may be a little doubt. The simple answer is, if you have any doubt, contact your professional body and ask them for their advice, in writing. That's one of the main reasons - rarely used - as to why we have professional bodies.

 

The TPO & planning system is inherently flawed in that it works on TO luck in that land owners can fell small numbers of trees without permission but with the presumption that woodland will remain as woodland i.e. you need a felling licence for larger numbers outside of gardens etc.

 

So your role as a professional is to point out the restrictions on felling and if you are told that illegal activity is to take place you will need to distance yourself from it. If this legal restriction on felling is not good enough then it is a matter for politicians to change the law.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

I don't agre with you, I think oslac's reasoning was correct. This is a website for people most of whom make their livelihood from cutting down trees. I don't see that oslac or anyone else should be singled out for seeming to acquiesce to the loss of trees. Arbtalkers do this day and daily. The question is not about whther trees are good, or money is important. It's whether a professional should act always in his client's best interests regardless of his own personal views. That to me is just about the definition of professionalism. The only way to avoid the conflict between professional and personal views is not to take the instruction. Or for most Arbtalkers, find another job that doesn't involve killing trees.

 

"...If a duty arising from a moral principle conflicts with duties imposed by law or undertaken by agreement, the duty based on principle should prevail. In other words, if abiding by a law or living up to a contract requires dishonest or disrespectful conduct that violates my core moral principles, as an ethical person I must honor the principles even if it means being prosecuted or sued. Such decisions, however, must be made cautiously and with due recognition of the ethical implications of breaking laws and breaching contracts. The moral principles of trustworthiness and citizenship establish a very strong presumption that laws should be obeyed and commitments should be kept..."

 

3 Sources of Moral Obligation | Exemplary Business Ethics & Leadership

It's absolutely bonkers to be discussing this case on a public forum anyway.

 

Perhaps, for the first person singular, but as a hypothetical discussion exercise and exchange of opinions / ideas so as to be better prepared should one be faced with a similar situation - of great benefit.

Hope, for the sake of the livelihoods and professional reputations of everyone who suggested an unprofessional course of action here, you manage to stay anonymous. And if a change to make the felling of all trees illegal is the agenda, a career change into politics and then parliamentary lobbying is the inevitaably futile option.

 

Is "professionalism" defined by the binary choice:

 

(a) do the report, take the money, move on, or don't take the commission,

or

(b) despite taking the commission, do something that might not be exclusively in the clients best interest?

 

Reputation - is it better to strive towards a reputation as somebody that can 'get things done' regardless of the impact, even if that means knowingly, or by passive ignorance, bending or stretching the established regulations?

 

Sorry, but we live in a world that doesn't care that much.

 

Not sure I totally agree, but even so, does that mean those that do, shouldn't?

 

Acting professionally is not the same as selling your soul to the devil. If I got that instruction, I might take it then informally try to le tthe client understand that trees are good for wellbeing, built environments and propery values if development is done the right way. Some change to design that could save trees may come about. Now, that would feel good.

 

It's interesting to read the discussion that has followed and see the dilemmas arising from this situation.

 

As an amateur I am sure many of us would look at this situation, let our emotions run wild and think we should act in the public interest and help protect the trees......engage with the TO to stop any felling!

 

My interest was sparked by the "amazing" / "best I've ever seen" comments. Guessing the OP will have seen plenty, I'm assuming we're not discussing a self seeded stand of Sycamore but rather something quite exceptional.

 

As a professional you will be governed by a code of ethics/practice depending to what body you are a member of; look at it! If you think it is just words and can be ignored you really aren't interested in being professional. If you have read it and digested it you may have to make some judgement calls....but the situation is pretty simple in the first instance. If you are not a professional member of any body but you think you can work "professionally" you probably haven't had the experience to understand the dilemmas arising from work and thus value the benefit of having some support and guidance on this type of situation.

 

The ISA Certified Arborist's reads "Maintain and respect the confidentiality of sensitive information" .

 

Sensitive information - what is / is not sensitive? Name / address, commercial endeavours etc... sensitive for sure. If a planning app is submitted it becomes public so no longer sensitive perhaps. What happens in the time between if there's a possibility of preemptive felling prior to submission of a planning app (assuming it falls within FL limits or other restrictions if applicable?) Is it better (more or less professional) to allow (or not prevent) the felling and rely upon the available recourse in law if regulations are broken?

 

The ICF's reads "Don’t divulge information to others unless it is appropriate to do so"......but also reads "Use your skills and experience to serve the needs of wider society".....so there may be a little doubt. The simple answer is, if you have any doubt, contact your professional body and ask them for their advice, in writing. That's one of the main reasons - rarely used - as to why we have professional bodies.

 

The TPO & planning system is inherently flawed in that it works on TO luck in that land owners can fell small numbers of trees without permission but with the presumption that woodland will remain as woodland i.e. you need a felling licence for larger numbers outside of gardens etc.

 

So your role as a professional is to point out the restrictions on felling and if you are told that illegal activity is to take place you will need to distance yourself from it.

 

Distance yourself from it? Is that enough? After the event, when the trees are gone and the Parish council are outraged, the report you wrote is open access on the planning portal and everyone in the village knows you were the arb for that developer from London to build a holiday home in the woods.

 

The professional reputation will be intact with all the potential developers but nobody wants to talk to you in the pub?

 

If this legal restriction on felling is not good enough then it is a matter for politicians to change the law.

 

Please don't take my questions as disrespectful, I have a more direct style of typing than conversation which can be misinterpreted as confrontational or argumentative, it's not my intention but I'm typing as I'm thinking and it may come across as more direct than I'd like. I take immense personal value from your comments (without attaching any liability Jules!) and find this a really useful exchange.

 

I fully appreciate, as treequip points out in post 24, that there is a risk of developers just getting the digger in if they don't like what the arb does / says, and if it was just a run-of-the-mill site (rather than exceptional / amazing) there'd be no need for this discussion.... But since we're here

[fagus]

If the trees are that good I would notify the LA and not do the survey. Don't think you should do both.