Paul Barton

Nice site. I note you are advertising thermal imaging - is this something you still offer?

Who bought it then? £44 wasn't too bad.

Beechwood are looking for staff; there is a thread about it on here.

Welcome Stompy - looking forward to hearing more about what you are doing in Croatia.

Who are you asking? This is an old thread and the original post was for university research.

Do you mean this one? It's about the industry but not specifically about TIT2. Johnston 2011 Future of the Arboricultural Industry.pdf

The size part of that equation never really made much sense to me. A 'small' dead limb that drops from 100ft has the potential to harm more than a larger branch that falls 10ft. With regards to the size of trees - it make sense to me to have a minimum tree size for annual inspections...soon enough young trees with high growth potential will need to be included as they reach the minimum criteria but small ornamental trees may never need inspecting. David - do you record all trees during the walkover - or just record those that need some work? If you don't have an inventory of all the trees in these areas, are you happy enough that if a tree failed that wasn't recorded you could say that it definitely was inspected and that at that time there were no significant defects etc? ...if this discussion runs, perhaps we should move it to a new thread so as not to hijack Gary's Trees in Towns II thread which is worthy of its own discussion...

Hoping these work!

I use FreeAgent. It's brilliant. They do a 30 day free trial. Let me know if you like it and I'll give you a referral for 10% off.

Oi Paul, don't send the interesting debates elsewhere! You are right though - there are plenty of clever types on the UKTC.

I agree Jules. If the approved plans and method statements submitted to the LPA do not include details of activity close to trees that are some way away from the main development then the LPA has to conclude that any damage can't have been necessary to implement the planning permission. It reminds me of the importance to either include ALL trees on the site or at least make a note of them on the plan even if some are far away from the development, for the avoidance of doubt. Often it's not the actual 'building' that is the problem for trees on the site, it's the associated construction traffic, groundworks, service installations..... I have found it's common for both tree officers and arboriculturists to only focus on the building(s) footprint and miss the wider site issues.

The scan image is different from the one you posted David. Perhaps a different scan from the same tree? Or perhaps they are totally unrelated?!

That's a great idea Jules. I guess an LPA plotting an anticipated RPA would need to consider the species and ultimate potential stem diameter in order to plot an RPA that would be future proof in some way. With regards to the land reg search to flag up TPOs, it would seem to make sense that a land reg search for a development site should include a buffer around its perimeter to pick up constraints close to the site. I don't know how easy that is in practice though.

Some interesting discussion has been generated from a thread on the homeowners advice forum, where a tree with a TPO outside of the site has been potentially damaged. Julian Morris posted a great question that is worth some further thought and debate: JM: The Regulations say that nothing shall prevent the cutting down, topping, lopping or uprooting of a tree so far as such work is necessary to implement a detailed planning permission. It does not exempt the wilful damage or wilful destruction of a tree. Presumably because severing roots, which might otherwise be 'damage' (and which may be different from uprooting) could be controlled by planning conditions. There is no way in my mind that the legislation has anticipated this scenario where damage is done to a TPO'd tree that is mainly situated outwith the planning application boundary. Was the developer meant to check for TPOs outside his land. No. On balance if it went to court would the onus have been on the Council that makes TPOs to notice and control the damage by conditions. I think so. But does the exemption due to planning permission apply? I'm not so sure it does. It might rest on whether severing of roots counts as uprooting a (whole) tree. Patently it's different. And so the exemption cannot be relied upon. Which shifts the question onto the word 'wilful'. Did the two eejits with the bulldozer wilfully damage the tree? Was the intention to damage the tree or was the intention to remove the roots. I know they have the same consequence for the tree, but the legislation is there to examine the motive. There has to be damage and will.

Can I please remind everyone that this is in the homeowners advice forum? Let's remember the OP and not put other potential enquirers off posting here. That means: - taking time to read the thread before replying - considering your posts before submitting them - leaving egos at the door. There has been some interesting discussion which is worth continuing so a separate thread will be started about the issue of trees adjacent to development sites.

Why not get some heating/a stove?

At the more expensive end of the market for fully rugged tablets there is this kind of thing, but I haven't used them. http://www.rugged-systems.com/products/rugged-windows-tablets/toughpad-fz-g1.html

E.g http://www.camtechsystems.co.uk/semi-rugged-tablet-pc/motion-j3500-detail

Take a look at the tablets that Camtech sell. The motion tablets are pretty good and will do what you need. Avoid the CL900 though, I found the battery powered stylus to be unreliable, particularly in the rain.

I've been furnished with some details of the site now, enough to have a search through the planning documents. It's a complicated planning history, with numerous applications, an appeal and then permission with relaxed conditions. In short, the latest planning decision notice that I can find is dated March 2012, and conditions 17 and 18 state: 17: A survey shall be undertaken of all trees, shrubs and hedges on the land, indicating which are to be retained as part of the development. The survey shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA before the development hereby permitted commences. (bold emphasis my own) I have highlighted in bold what I think are 2 relevant issues here - the condition makes no requirement to include adjacent trees (and does not references BS5837:2012 which recommends this as good practice). It also asks that the survey is submitted and approved before the development starts, but I can see no document on the planning pages that indicates that any tree survey was submitted. 18: The trees, shrubs or hedges indicated for retention shall be protected with chestnut pale fencing not less than 1.2m in height for the duration of the development and none of the trees shall be damaged, destroyed or uprooted without written permission of the LPA. Any trees removed without such consent, or dying or being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased before the end of that period shall be replaced with trees of such size, species and positions as may be agreed in writing by the LPA. This is an unfortunately weak condition...protection fencing (less robust that specified in the BS) is conditioned, but it does not state how the fencing should be positioned in order to actually protect the trees! I would agree with treequip above - it looks like the LPA have dropped the ball on this one. The tree owner should document all this as at the very least so that the LPA cannot accuse them of damaging their own TPO'd tree. I would also recommend a valuation and then try and pursue the LPA an/or developer for some costs to cover replacement planting.

I'm not assuming it's a low quality tree without having seen it. And even if it is a U category tree, it is privately owned so cannot be removed (or damaged) without the owner's consent!

If somebody suggests it needs to be removed because of the damage then you would certainly have grounds for compensation. I realise you'd prefer the tree than a payoff though!

Jeez, that's not looking too clever. Send me a PM with the details if you like. Just click on my username and then follow the link to send me a private message.

First off, it would be good to know if there are planning conditions attached to the planning permission that required a tree survey and protection plan. If there was a half decent tree protection plan then this shouldn't have happened and therefore the developer is in breach of a planning condition. How far from the stem is the trench? Can you get photos of the trench showing the number and size of roots that have been severed? If you really want to arm yourself with facts and a strong standpoint then a professional inspection is the way to go. It would be worth obtaining a valuation of the tree as well as part of that, so that if it dies or severely declines you have some basis for compensation. Can you provide the address of the site, or a planning application reference? I'd be interested to view the planning documents and see what arboricultural input was requested and provided.

I know someone who works at the Wellcome Trust; I'll ask for a visit next summer.