Amelanchier

Actually its starting to sound like an unfounded accusation of corruption...

It could also be that he/she is offering his services to LPAs as a locum TO (i.e., a temp tree officer to determine applications, recommend TPOs, give planning guidance etc.). A couple of consultancies do it round here - the contract normally precludes them from taking up work in that area but the fees normally make up for that! Sent using the Arbtalk app.

Ex colleague of mine rolled a TW150 pulling out of a petrol station on the way to a job buckling the chassis. I was watching from a different area of the car park, it was the slowest roll ever, not a kerb or drain cover in sight just a perfect combination of acceleration, angle and timing. Beautiful work that I'll probably never see done again. Sniff.

Take your tinfoil hat off. You couldn't post because the thread was started in the employment subforum which has been changed recently to restrict unhelpful banter about jobs. I have now moved it to general chat. A PM to any or all of the mods would suffice next time rather than a new thread - cheers.

Indeed he has. All too often a simple job advert would turn into an argument over whether the pay was any good, whether the employer was a nice guy, if the advert was spelt right or whether even replying to adverts was the right thing to do. So now an advert is just that - an advert. It will include a way of contacting the poster off fourm or via PM.

I would suspect humidity rather than temperature. Sent from the Arbtalk app...

Fair enough.

I must be as narrow minded and sceptical as you are as I completely agree. Dean - I too am a fan of the 'staycation' and having lived next door in Lancs for several years I can also agree that Yorkshire is (mostly) very picturesque and has a wealth of natural assets (see what I did there?). However when someone disagrees with your position you tend to very quick to question their life experiences. You go for the person and not their argument. There's nothing about the quoted text above that warrants that IMO.

Point made Felix. Civility or deletion chaps.

Well he's one of four MPs at DEFRA - I don't think he's technically called a forestry minister but it has a nice ring to it doesn't it...? https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers/minister-of-state-agriculture-and-food

Sorry - my use of the term excess was misleading!

I broadly concur. In my view, having refused consent to remove the tree (and by association the offending root) the council are liable for the resulting damage to the driveway as it was not only foreseeable but demonstrable! Jules notes this liability extends only from the point in time that the decision was made (and a decision has to be made hence my previous advice to apply rather than to act through exemptions) and there is a £500 'excess'. However there is no limit to the number of times a claim can be made if the damage re-occurs. I am faintly aware of a situation whereby Poole borough council was so exhausted of claims against it for cosmetic damage to cars under a particular Pine that it made a substantial single payout to settle and abate all future actions from the affected residents. I never found out whether it intends to make the same offer to subsequent residents.

Nothing that wasn't included in the application I'm afraid. If you think the initial application was less than it could have been then the only option you have is to re-apply and wait for the inevitable refusal.

Oh well case closed then I guess. Why bother investigating any of the other possibilities or looking for supporting evidence for your diagnosis...

Nope. Just that it be of "...appropriate size and species..." and planted "...at the same place as soon as he [or indeed she] reasonably can. IME best to discuss the replacement with the LPA as they could serve a tree replacement notice if they don't agree with your definition of appropriate. On the plus side, if you fell they are being unreasonable in their expectations then you can appeal any notice that comes your way.

Ah beat me to it!

I would suggest appealing the refusal with an application for costs. Also taking up a point from Andy's post above - the client should be made aware that this is a long game. Hasty action will be counter productive should proceedings be brought by the LPA. Perhaps a short term fix to prevent the trip hazard and if PINS uphold the refusal then another application in a couple of years with some estimates for the resurfacing vs the current and future amenity values (as suggested by Jules earlier) and some evidence of the rate of distortion of the surface. Some commentary by a competent builder / engineer about the tolerance/costs of driveway surfaces would 'outrank' any lay comments by the TO about driveways and as a final touch it never hurts to invite the local member or the head of planning into a discussion about the possible legal costs of pursuing refusal/prosecution. Even if they dismiss you out of hand it demonstrates reasonableness.

Nah don't bother. It was only the single most widespread change in TPO legislation in the past 50 years that altered every single existing order. There were actually two errors were in the model Order (pages 16-19) but you wouldn't have got to the second if you gave up at the first! In any case (and just for the record), both were inconsequential to the validity of the regulations as the phrasing of reg 3(1) requires that "An order shall be in the form set out in the schedule to these regulations or in a form substantially to the same effect..." IIRC DCLG published a revised model order on their website within days.

I thought it was a perfectly made sweeping statement Tim. You did everything right - focused on the critical point, twisted it just enough to generate a response without going quite to breaking point and stuck with it for a post or two to make sure the argument drifted from the OP. All round good job sir.

Article 5 certificates were terminated by regulation 24 of the Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation)(England) Regulations 2012. All TPOs are now (rightly IMHO) subject to the compensation scheme contained in the 1999 regs.

Well done Rob.

Not at all Paul - I apologise for their apparent need to bring it up.

C'mon I can't be the only one here to have read it...

I once did a survey at a large agrochemical works in Norwich. Company policy was glasses on all the time, indoors or out - anywhere on the site. Quite frustrating as a temporary visitor but apparently it eventually feels like second nature for the employees to the extent that they would feel distinctly unprotected without the glasses.

Yep. It does seem a bit daft but then of course the only purpose of that part of the legislation is to allow the LPA a chance to TPO something - they can't do that if the tree is exempt so the law obliges the replacement thereby letting them get their chance in the future...!