TPO application

[daltontrees]

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

 

It's all fair comment, and I am not put out at all.

 

The discourse on moral obligation is well put together, but of the 3 sources of moral obligation put forward, none include the type of moral obligation that would drive a conbsultant to seek a TPO on trees that would prevent a client carrying out otherwise lawful development. The moral obligation implied is to society by the consultant. No such obligation is owed in any way that arises from the relationship between consultant and client.

 

I agree totally this type of debate if it was hypothetical would be useful for everyone. Instead I feel really uncomfortable for the involved parties that the debate is public and about a real case.

 

Once a consultant is appointed, I am adamant that te professionalism debate is as binary as you suggest it might be. For me my reputation is important and I exercise this sort of professional discretion by declining appointments that I find morally unacceptable. Someone else then gets them, there's always a hired gun to be found.

 

We do live in a world that doesn't care that much. Things happen that I don't like, but I'm not in charge and if they are lawful I can't do anything about it. Developers ultimately care about one thing only. They might have a personal fondness for trees but let them be felled anyway for their own site. In an open market, a site will eventually pass through the hands of someone that doesn't care about trees. Statistically speaking, that will be the overall effect felt by society.

 

A consultant who gets to (i) see trees that in the absence of his appointment he would not get to see and (ii) becomes aware of a threat to trees that he otherwise would not know about, is in a priveleged and confidential position. To try to turn that into giving the Council grounds to deem it expedient to protect the trees, well I can't pin it down to any specific wrongfulness. But it seems intuitively wrong. And someone putting himself forward (I think this was much of Jon Heuch's thrust) that he is a professional who will selflessly provide services in return for payment, would in my mind be professionally bankrupt if he grassed up a client.

 

And what would the repercussions be? Let's assume the value of the site would be greatly increased by a planning consent. Let's say also that such a consent or the form of develpment that would give rise to the additional value would not be possible with the trees in place and protected. Let's also say that with no TPO in place the developer could lawfully remove the trees before applying for consent. And finally let's assume the Council would have no way of knowing that this might be about to happen except by being tipped off with the consultant with insider knowledge.

 

OK, put that into a civil court with the developer looking to recover the loss of development value from the consultant. The loss was foreseeable, was directly attributable to the 'tipping off', was avoidable, the connection between the parties was direct, a duty of care existed by the consultant to the developer. It is taken as read that the duty included doing what the consultant was commissined to do. But does it preclude not doing what he was not commissioned to do?

 

I think a higher court would run a mile before setting a precedent that meant that parties in a business relationship could stab each other in the front, on a whim, just because they had not expressly stated that they wouldn't. And if the consultant did somehow against overwhelming odds make it out of court without a decree aganst him, he might as well buy a chainsaw and get directly involved in the killing of trees for a livelihood, because he's never going to work as a consultant again as long as he lives.

[daltontrees]

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

 

I know my last post was lengthy but somewhere in it I suggest that it would be too late to grass up the developer using priveleged information, even if the surveyor turns down the survey.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

It's all fair comment, and I am not put out at all.

 

The discourse on moral obligation is well put together, but of the 3 sources of moral obligation put forward, none include the type of moral obligation that would drive a conbsultant to seek a TPO on trees that would prevent a client carrying out otherwise lawful development. The moral obligation implied is to society by the consultant. No such obligation is owed in any way that arises from the relationship between consultant and client.

 

I agree totally this type of debate if it was hypothetical would be useful for everyone. Instead I feel really uncomfortable for the involved parties that the debate is public and about a real case.

 

Once a consultant is appointed, I am adamant that te professionalism debate is as binary as you suggest it might be. For me my reputation is important and I exercise this sort of professional discretion by declining appointments that I find morally unacceptable. Someone else then gets them, there's always a hired gun to be found.

 

We do live in a world that doesn't care that much. Things happen that I don't like, but I'm not in charge and if they are lawful I can't do anything about it. Developers ultimately care about one thing only. They might have a personal fondness for trees but let them be felled anyway for their own site. In an open market, a site will eventually pass through the hands of someone that doesn't care about trees. Statistically speaking, that will be the overall effect felt by society.

 

A consultant who gets to (i) see trees that in the absence of his appointment he would not get to see and (ii) becomes aware of a threat to trees that he otherwise would not know about, is in a priveleged and confidential position. To try to turn that into giving the Council grounds to deem it expedient to protect the trees, well I can't pin it down to any specific wrongfulness. But it seems intuitively wrong. And someone putting himself forward (I think this was much of Jon Heuch's thrust) that he is a professional who will selflessly provide services in return for payment, would in my mind be professionally bankrupt if he grassed up a client.

 

And what would the repercussions be? Let's assume the value of the site would be greatly increased by a planning consent. Let's say also that such a consent or the form of develpment that would give rise to the additional value would not be possible with the trees in place and protected. Let's also say that with no TPO in place the developer could lawfully remove the trees before applying for consent. And finally let's assume the Council would have no way of knowing that this might be about to happen except by being tipped off with the consultant with insider knowledge.

 

OK, put that into a civil court with the developer looking to recover the loss of development value from the consultant. The loss was foreseeable, was directly attributable to the 'tipping off', was avoidable, the connection between the parties was direct, a duty of care existed by the consultant to the developer. It is taken as read that the duty included doing what the consultant was commissined to do. But does it preclude not doing what he was not commissioned to do?

 

I think a higher court would run a mile before setting a precedent that meant that parties in a business relationship could stab each other in the front, on a whim, just because they had not expressly stated that they wouldn't. And if the consultant did somehow against overwhelming odds make it out of court without a decree aganst him, he might as well buy a chainsaw and get directly involved in the killing of trees for a livelihood, because he's never going to work as a consultant again as long as he lives.

 

Great post! Appreciate that!!

[Goaty]

I see the professional point of view that is being made about personal reputation & career. Also the framework of the law.

If however it was an ancient monument or relic of significance though dead and past being of any use the archaeologists would be all over it.

Yet these trees living monuments that could last centuries don't have the same protection potentially.

I'm by no means a tree hugger, I often incline to removals, just interested in this thread and its viewpoints presented.

In a perfect fair world the post about doing a true consult, it going to the councils desk and being appraised correctly would be the best outcome.

But we live in the real world.

[Andymacp]

Thankyou for all the post, really interesting reading.

A Xmas miracle happened today, explained the amenity value and the idea that retaining the trees would add value to any plot to the folk and they agreed to move the build.

Survey will go ahead with recommendation to retain all trees, also they agreed on applying for TPO status.

Shocked !

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Thankyou for all the post, really interesting reading.

A Xmas miracle happened today, explained the amenity value and the idea that retaining the trees would add value to any plot to the folk and they agreed to move the build.

Survey will go ahead with recommendation to retain all trees, also they agreed on applying for TPO status.

Shocked !

 

His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama will be smiling tonight!

[Adam M]

Thankyou for all the post, really interesting reading.

A Xmas miracle happened today, explained the amenity value and the idea that retaining the trees would add value to any plot to the folk and they agreed to move the build.

Survey will go ahead with recommendation to retain all trees, also they agreed on applying for TPO status.

Shocked !

 

Winner.

[Jon Heuch]

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?

 

If you have any doubt on whether information is "sensitive", treat it as sensitive; once engaged contractually you may be in the possession of sensitive information. As a professional you will have in your terms and conditions mechanisms to break the contract but breaking the contract doesn't give you any right to break that confidence.

 

Medical doctors and solicitors may be given confidential information that they may feel is best shared - your teenage daughter is pregnant, a driver has narcolepsy and of course my client admits to committing a crime; the solicitor's and doctor's role is to assist their client. A solicitor would be of no use to a criminal seeking a defence if the solicitor thought it in the public interest to tell the judge, jury or press that his client had admitted to the offence......and if your client tells you that he wants to fell trees (legally) and you don't like it you can advise them and argue against the proposed works but your (professional) role is not one of a public advocate.

 

If your client tells you that they intend to break the law, the situation changes....a little.....you're unlikely to be in a position to stop the law being broken if they are determined. You clearly need to cover your backside and make sure you play no role in breaking the law.

 

As for preemptive felling, it's the right of any tree owner to fell their trees within the constraints of TPO/CA and felling licences. It's their property!

[Goaty]

Result 👍

[Goaty]

Saw this today on a new house building site. Reminded me of this thread