Amelanchier

How many times do we have threads on this forum about people thinking our work is easy and that anyone could do it? How many criticisms of the rates of pay because the effort of the job isn't recognised? How many posts complaining about 'red tape' and the unrealistic health and safety culture? Epic double standards.

Additionally (esp. for those overseas) as the tree is protected you will be obliged to make a formal application to the LPA for its removal - I'm assuming the tree isn't exempt or it would be gone by now! Either you or your appointed consultant will need to make a sufficient case for the trees removal based on the evidence. One thing you might consider is whether felling/dismantling is the only option; another is the current/future amenity value of the tree. It would not be unusual for an application for felling to be refused where the tree could be reduced to mitigate failure especially in high profile cases. If you want it felled then you must justify that spec above others. Remember, you no longer get the oppourtunity to add material to your application for an appeal - your application must contain sufficient detail to determine a decision. Always plan for appeal, it saves you and your client time.

Sorry guys but I had to pull the attachment. As the information involved is a product of a third party we can't allow its free distribution on the site (especially when it appears in the first google search page alongside the authors web shop listings!). Of course what you all do in your own time by email is up to you and is outside the remit of the site rules.

Cheers guys. Didn't see this thread til today as I've been neglecting the 'talk (cardinal sin indeed). It was a bit of a surprise to win anything TBH, I was just glad to have finished the thing. It's guaranteed way to learn to hate trees - I have everything felled now just to get my own back for my lost evenings. Especially veterans, they get it the worst; I try to include them in the middle of high rise social housing schemes haha. I also realise that I've been unsociable and definately intend to make it to the next boozetalk event.

Why not just put that price to the owner. Sometimes something is only worth what someone will pay for it.

I agree that more probably depends on the person than the disability (as Tim notes - perfect vision does not prevent you from being an idiot) but it does bring some difficulty into proceedings. All that guidance that Janey quoted is framed around visual amenity - it even explicitly says that one of the key criteria is visibility! Whilst with regard to the non-visual amenity functions it specifically states that (as highlighted above) other factors can be involved that would not be sufficient to warrant a TPO on their own; i.e., in the secretary of states view, they are not important enough. Now that may be wrong, unfair or both - but it is the current situation. How would such an individual asked to consider an objection made on the grounds of visual amenity (maybe that there is none?) make an informed decision? If you were objecting on those grounds would you consider it fair and proper that your objection be heard by someone who was markedly less able to appreciate your arguement? Tricky. This particular LPA runs a parallel appeals system outside of the wider planning committee and typically has a panel of only three councillors meaning that an individuals decision can swing the result easily.

I have been reliably informed that an LPA near me have appointed a considerably visually impaired Councillor to sit (on rotation) within their TPO appeals panel (that adjudicate on TPO objections). Given the bias towards the visual aspects of amenity contribution this seems a little 'maverick' of the LPA; although I doubt that was the intention. So... can a visually impaired (or even blind) person truly appreciate the 'value' of trees in the legislative context? If they can't then do we inevitably 'devalue' their opinions?

Your posts don't read well - responding in quote text is a bad plan.

You might also be interested to know that the BC raised no objection to the reduction of three sycamores as recently as the 27 July. 11/02610/TCON | Crown reducing of 3 Sycamore trees within Harrogate Conservation Area. | 2 Cavendish Avenue Harrogate North Yorkshire HG2 8HX Although the planning website quaintly refers to approving s211 notifications... bless. Have at them Jon Lad.

Well here is the Harrogate BC Tree and Woodland Management strategy. http://www.harrogate.gov.uk/Documents/CS_20100803_Treesandwoodland_STRATEGY.pdf Nothing in there about a reduction refusal policy. Perfectly normal strategy with acknowledgements that reduction is often appropriate (e.g., section 5.3). I suspect someone is 'off message' - appeal (assuming the original application is robust enough!)

So would I. If they can't make a sensible decision then take it out of their hands. Which LPA is it? If it really is their policy there should be no problem in naming them.

Wow. I don't think I've seen someone undermine their credibility so well with one post. Good luck.

Even if there is a logical and contigent causal chain of events that led to this disorder, it doesn't subsequently follow that the disorder is morally justified. There is a clear line between explanation and justification. You can explain why you think something is happening (socio-economic factors / the disenfrachisement of youth) without justifying it. I think the majority of opinions presented here are reacting to the ethic of the situation which is quite separate.

On that note and in view of the direction we are headed I sentence this thread to be taken from this court and hanged by the neck until it is closed. Dismissed.

I took it to mean that he thinks its wishful thinking and that is unlikey to happen. I'm interested in point 3 - as i regularly see fruiting bodies appearing in the years after infected stumps have been ground out.

Thanks Gerrit, I'll ask for a close up. There was no current bleeds associated with any of the lesions and most (at least the lower visible ones) were callused over underneath the split periderm.

Depends how much you value your time. Each tooth typically has three faces... Considering the price of the correct file I've never thought it worth it.

Dear Mr Keizer, Please could you adjuciate on a 'difference' of opinion between me and a colleague - is there a likely mycological agent for the lesions and splits presenting on this Beech? It is adjacent to an arable field, has no visible fruiting bodies at the base but has very limited leaf formation this year. Many thanks in advance!

I have norfolking idea...

Indeed but that may be a minor point considering the ruling describes Felbrigg as being in Suffolk!

Courtesy of TreeLife: Post card from Barbados (home of the Kensington Oval Cricket ground) and its fantastic news! | Tree Life AC

Have you ever caught a flat when thats full of chip?

Strange prize... Stranger game! A quid down the back of the sofa?

Top trick and if you need real violence then clip a couple of steel krabs into the loop...