Amelanchier

I love the bright side! You're quite right about the variables - Its a slog, and for those who do more commercial/private sector work with families, it must be even harder.

Hang on, why do you think running a company means you shouldn't have to take half the course? I'm glad people can't just waltz into further education on the back of their age. Its pure meritocracy (for those with the cash). And if you think that you'll be treated better by PD examiners in terms of patronising comments - think again!

Speaking as a current Prof Dip student (right term?) with 4/6 exams under my belt, good luck trying to do it in one year! Exams are held in June and December with a management day in September. You must pass all exams before the management day so that means if you start the one year course in January (with Tree Life for example) you'll need to sit and pass all six exams in June before you've even tackled the subjects on the course!!! Having started the PD last Jan (2008), I'm looking at completeing the management day in sep 2010. So two years either way!

The AA don't decide these levels Tim, they're designated by the National Qualification Framework, an independent body/quango.

Is it a fastigiate Hornbeam?

Remember the planning depts aren't specifically targeting tree-loving-arbs-who-want-to-build-a-log-cabin-because-they-like-the-lifestyle when they refuse these sorts of applications. They're applying a general rule of thumb laid down in district/county level plans against people building stuff in woodlands as a change of use!

I'd add that ideally your record of the notification should include some information proving reciept by the LPA if possible as the burden of proof in such instances lies with the notifier. In reality - sending S211 notifications in be recorded delivery could be a little pricey, emails have read reciepts though. The way the legislation is phrased is that it simply lists defences against prosecution i.e., if you can't prove one of the defences (having notified the LPA / Tree under 75mm diameter / dead / dangerous) then you have committed an offence. Guilty 'til proven innnocent if you like.

You've got to do a Top-up BSc before the MSc Andy! Add another 2 years on the ol' 5 year plan! (I only know 'cos thats not far off what I'm going for!)

I think the problem is that College is an artificial environment. I think theres a lot to be said for apprenticeships. Not that I had any of that. I started out working for free at the NT during the day whilst working in a supermarket through the night! How I didn't crash in the mornings I'll never know. Graft will out IMO.

Josh, does that remind you of anyone...

Sure (laughed - then banged my head against my desk for an hour). I think we're all agreed that somethings gone a bit wrong here! The clarification wasn't aimed at anyone in particular, just a bolt on to the discussion for anyone not so clued up on the intricacies of the legislation! I've got my own red tape knots to sort out at the moment and hadn't got round to getting past my summary before various people including yourself hit the nail on the head a number of times.

Additionally, the way the legislation works is to make certain works exempt from the need to apply for consent but that the Order remains. A dead TPO tree is still subject to the Order and is not exempt - it is the works that are. "...No such order shall apply - a) to the cutting down, uprooting..." etc. So you can fell a dead TPO tree but there is a duty to replant and that "...the relevant tree preservation order shall apply as it applied to the original tree." Just wanted to clarify that!

Further to your excellent post Andy (you must have had a bit more time than me!) I would add that TPOs don't need to be lifted (or revoked to use the jargon) for trees to be felled - as a land charge the TPO still stands whether there is a tree present or not. In fact, in my limited experience, its fairly uncommon to revoke an Order to allow a tree to be felled as you loose the opportunity for a replacement.

Going back to beginning, I'd summarise the following points as I see it: The application was to reduce the tree for appropriate reasons. An invalid decision was given to fell it - invalid because it was not in the scope of the determining powers of the LPA. The tree was considered exempt because the TO had issued a decision to fell - this seems to have been agreed with another LPA officer (within his/her remit?) Works to the silver birch should have been minimal - i.e., removing damaged branch but perhaps not 'rebalancing' (I have a dislike of that term/practice but thats not really relevant). The damage and pruning are offences. It seems unlikely that the LPA will take action - it would be more appropriate to issue a warning. The TO sent a letter to the owner informing them that the tree must be felled as it was more dangerous than before - presumably this did not invoke the Misc Prov and inform the owner of the LPAs powers in this respect. Of dubious validity. As for the liability, I would suggest that that remains with the owner. The LPA would only be liable for compensation if their actions have impeded the owner in preventing damage occuring. The owner might, if found liable for future failure, seek to retrieve costs from the contractor that advised him/her. All in all, a right mess! Seems like a bit overreaction to a bit of bleeding canker!!

IIRC notice under Misc Prov would supersede any notice under the ANLA 1992. There just simply wouldn't be a need to duplicate the notice of intention to enter the land. Ultimately, as you say - notice would have to be given of intent. This is quite different from a letter telling an occupant to fell a tree!

But it also removes the oppourtunity to enforce a replacement...

Hell yeah. Knock away bud, I know our failings and I'm not about to make excuses and I can easily imagine others! Well normally we'd be looking at anything under 1 in 10,000 for QTRA as presenting an unacceptable risk but the level is set by the (well informed) client. I tend to try to prune out my problems rather than brace them but I suppose pruning is just as much an admission of a defect as bracing?

I agree to a point. When I was on the tools, I never really gave consideration to landscape value or the wider amenity. I looked at trees on a site by site basis, mainly because thats how I was asked to look at them. I'd spec up work that met the brief I was given. Now, things have changed. My job is to look at landscapes, street views, the spacing of trees and buildings, etc. Its a wider approach, and that's not a better or worse thing. It's just a different brief. If the wider landscape requires that I refuse the reduction of Mrs Miggens tree (even though its quite near her house) then that what I have to do.

Problem is if someone hadn't climbed it we wouldn't know about the extent of the defect. IMO its appropriate to TPO it giving it the benefit of the doubt. I wouldn't consider it exempt unless we could quantify the damage to some rough degree. Ameity isn't all about visibilty - but even so 10 properties is sufficient to justify it. The reality is that without the Order, planning conditions give less leverage to prevent damage.

Just playing the advocate of the first of the fallen - but how can you be sure about 3 & 5 if you don't know 1 & 2. You must have a 'feel' for the defect at least... (i.e., I guess you think its fubar to the extent it should come down)!

Safety first! Old habits die hard! Amenity is important but if its knackered, its knackered! Yep. Its all basic VTA - but rough estimates would do me fine. the damage looks bad but is it extensive? Beyond 50% of the limb? Less than 10% Does the dead / necrotic area comprimise the structure? A little bit or a lot?

Sorry. Missed the bracing bit - I blame the Chateauxneuf.

As a TO I'd be asking; What is the the strength loss resulting from the defect? What is the strength of the remaining parts? What's the minimum pruning that would mitigate the risk of failure? What is the current amenity value of the tree? What would the amenity value of the tree be after the necessary minimum pruning works? What are the replacement options in this position?

Thank you Mr H! Its a weird life cycle don'tcha think Juniper & Pear? Perhaps arising from cultivation for Gin and Perry?

Got any Juniper nearby?? Gymnosporangium sabinae