Amelanchier

Its level 2 on the NQF just like the RFS Cert.

Stop blowing the leaves away.

Who broke it?

Are TPOs meant to be used to promote tree cover? The wording of the TCPA (S198 (1)) is [my emphasis in bold]; "If it appears to a local planning authority that it is expedient in the interests of amenity to make provision for the preservation of trees or woodlands in their area, they may for that purpose make an order with respect to such trees..." blah blah blah. Is amenity the same as tree cover? Related, but not the same IMO. If you want to increase canopy cover I think TPOs are probably the wrong tool for the job. Do the public resent TPOs? Not the Orders as much as their use - I'd suggest the way in which they are used has more of an effect on the perception. I suspect the public resent bad planning decisions more.

There is no standard progression. The terms assistant and senior don't actually relate to an individuals qualifications or experience - they tend to relate to the structure of the department within the LPA. Therefore, unless there is a reason for changing that structure (funding/resignation/dismissal/retirement/secondment) there may not be any pregression at all.

I think thats contract law though - the primary legislation for TPO conditions would be the TCPA - specifically section 198(3)(a); "A tree preservation order may, in particular, make provision... ...for enabling that authority [the LPA] to give their consent subject to conditions. To interpret that we'd have to look to guidance like the Blue book [my empahisis in bold]; "6.52 The legislation does not place restrictions on the LPA's power to impose conditions on a consent. But this does not mean the power is unlimited. In the Secretary of State's view conditions should always relate to the authorised work and be fair and reasonable in the circumstances of each case. In deciding whether or not a condition would be fair and reasonable in the circumstances the LPA should consider whether there is a definite need for it. Would the condition help tackle a specific problem? The argument that it would do no harm would not itself be sufficient justification for imposing it." "6.59 The LPA may wish to use their powers to ensure that tree work or planting is carried out in accordance with good arboricultural practice. This may be done, where appropriate, by imposing a condition requiring compliance with the relevant current British Standard. The LPA should not, however, use such conditions without first considering whether they are relevant and reasonable in the particular circumstances of each case." Whilst I was digging those refs out I found this (as predicted by Paul) which I kinda think is the last word!! "6.54 LPAs should bear in mind that they are liable to pay compensation to any person who suffers loss or damage as a result of a grant of consent subject to conditions. In Deane v Bromley Borough Council for example, consent was granted to prune 26 trees subject to a condition that the work was carried out by an approved contractor. The Lands Tribunal accepted that the applicant could have carried out the work himself and awarded compensation based on the difference between the total cost of the contracted work and the costs he would have incurred by hiring equipment."

Some great images there - very interesting projects. Arb can be so boring sometimes...

Well aside from contractors, what about the homeowner who wants to do his own work? While it may not always be desirable, its certainly perfectly reasonable.

I'm inclined to agree with you. As you say - unenforcable. Might not stop a misguided LPA attempting to do so though! Stranger things have happened.

Because the LPA cannot attach any conditions to "consent" within conservation areas (their only option is to serve a TPO) - they can with a TPO decision. As you say though, those conditions must meet the tests applied to planning conditions, that is they must be; necessary; relevant to planning; relevant to the development [treework] to be permitted; enforceable; precise; and reasonable in all other respects. Specifying an approved contractor might violate the neccessity (other contractors can meet the standard) and the reasonableness tests. Remember though, it might seem unfair but until it gets appealed, we can't say whether its "legal"! As far as I know though, no-one has appealed a TPO condition with regard to approved contractors - it would be a nice precedent to have either way.

Seems like there's a new report out every half hour these days - by the time to actually read them properly, they'll probably be superseded by another. Anyhoo - this got a lot of press recently. Well, as much as environmental valuation ever gets... Home of TEEB Environmentalists (and Arbs?) have been bangin on about "costing externalities" for years - perhaps some ground is being gained... TEEB_Mainstreaming the economics of nature.pdf

Bit milder than 2009/2010. La nina will mess some stuff up but we're well out of the way.

Boom boom. I've never seen any in Norfolk at all.

S'funny - some contractors can be a bit like that. Charge too much, do bad work, wrongly ID trees, give duff advice etc. Unprofessionalism is unprofessionalism regardless of job description. Site visits can be for all kinds of reasons. I've been called out for safety inspections, design consultancy, application discussions, negligence claims, neighbour disputes, work specifications and for no reason at all. Was using me as a free consultancy service a good use of my time? Was one vocal resident using the resources of the district proportionatley? Was my presence undercutting the business of local consultants/contractors? Funding will be cut and TOs will be expected to do more with less. The end of free services is here - we should expect to see more charges like these. £60 seems fair enough to me - though I would expect that the LPA should waive that charge in unfair circumstances.

You wouldn't be suggesting that your opinion is representative of the majority of the industry would you? Because if you were, I'd expect you to fall on your own ridiculous sword... What you mean (or all that you can mean) is that these organisations don't speak for you. Of course that doesn't sound quite as dramatic does it?

Well, if you have then the Norfolk Biodiversity Information Service would like to know please Also Fly Agaric sightings and some antipodean interloper know as Red-lead Roundhead. BBC News - 'Comeback' of rare ancient fungus in Norfolk

Did he hell! All my own work.

Teleportation (its very full)

Mine complete with green roof (well often brown in the summer ) and coal bunker (we run a multifuel burner which does all our heating). The intention is to weatherboard the rest of the extension to match and to put a proper concrete pad in - eventually.

Forest Research have just published a report to Defra and CLG (i.e the Govt.) on the benefits of green infrastructure. I've attached the summary and the full report. I've only had a brief scan and there isn't a lot of new information (might be wrong though) but it does bring all the existing tree benefit research together quite nicely. Might it be wishful thinking to imagine tree/GI benefits finding a place in faciliatating budget cuts whilst improving services such as health? Perhaps... FR have also set up a new search site to allow better access to GI research. Forestry Commission Research Agency urgp_benefits_of_green_infrastructure_main_report.pdf urgp_benefits_of_green_infrastructure.pdf

I can't recall (so help me out) - what is the format of the booklet? Is it mainly text? I think that would be something that would have to be planned at the start, as there is quite a lot of variability in the visual content of the speakers presentations. I.e., some have a lot of text present and some simply have explanatory images.

Hold up. As I see it - he's made a different point to yours. He's suggesting (amongst other good ideas) that older information is made available. You were referring to the 2010 conference material. Perhaps you've changed your mind? Or perhaps this bandwagon looks better? Well there is an excuse - it takes time and effort and therefore money to do it. Money which comes from the membership. Essentially you want me to pay for your benefit? Paul can obviously speak for himself, but I think we can all see that isn't anywhere close to what he said. So presumably as we're not exactly drowning in swathes of your own revolutionary, progressive 'solutions' - that would position you firmly within the 'problem' sector?

Some very good ideas there!

I would suggest that the AA does make the most important aspects of current research available. I don't think you can reasonably expect them to provide a detailed service without cost. Incidentally, are you guys members?

IMO this is the only acceptable reason for wearing sunglasses at night. Cue global warm fuzzy feelings