Amelanchier

Broscus cephalotes?

Full scores and results attached below... Will write a bit more when I've waded through the email mountain that awaited my return to work. C&C_2013.xls

Full scores and results attached below... Will write a bit more when I've waded through the email mountain that awaited my return to work. C&C_2013.xls

Rob, I do, but it's unlikely that you'd be refused consent for regular maintenance; it sounds far worse than it is. I know it's frustrating to have to suddenly have do the merry dance of bureaucracy for something you've been doing for years - problem is, rightly or wrongly, the system doesn't rate that very highly when considering the protection of trees. Just to clarify - I didn't say you shouldn't point out the errors to the committee. Just that pointing out mistakes won't often achieve much - committees often have very short memories. Even those of us who have pointed out re-occurring problems tend to get short shrift. By all means have your say and make your objection - but most important of all get into a dialogue. Preferably in writing.

Just a quick response from me unfortunately as I'm well under the cosh this week. Your main problem is that there is an unwritten bias in the system toward the LPA. The threshold for what quality of tree qualifies for a TPO or what threat is percieved is often pretty low and cannot be challenged beyond the objection procedure (which is ultimately determined by the LPA themselves). Also, (as has already been said) pointing out serving errors at objection normally means that you'll just get another TPO but properly served. Even with a catalogue of errors you might just end up embarrassing the officer in front of the committee only to have them consider the TPO appropriate anyway on a thin precautionary basis (not to say that that doesn't have it's own reward). Pointing out serving errors may get a TPO quashed at the High Court but it's a rare occurrence and you'll need to show that you were disadvantaged to some degree by the errors. The HC seems to very lenient on LPAs despite the most unbelievable maladministration if no prejudice amounts from it. I note the you state in the OP that your parent don't intend to cut any more trees down - as a result I have to ask, what difference does it make that the trees are protected? Try and distance the anger you feel at the indifference and alleged incompetence and take the long view.

IME Goat Willow (Salix caprea) roots normally have darker brown bark on the outside of the woody roots which is more reddish when grazed. Interior will be pale cream.

Beautifully done sir. Capital job.

Yeah you can climb on the day - only registered competitors get free entry though.

Clearly, your commemorative trees are probably well cared for David! I've always thought it sad that people plant a tree to remember someone or to celebrate something and they unwittingly pick a malformed specimen and plant it poorly.

No room / too expensive / too much effort for a tree this knackered. Excluding the target is always considered, but just not applicable in this context.

Bump - not long now...

A good example of how specific arboricultural advice gets lost in translation whenever the media are involved! I know both the Arbs referred to in the story and I know the tree. Lets call them Arb A and Arb B. I work with Arb A. Arb A is asked to undertake a site wide risk assessment of the trees, except the original area contained in the brief didn't include this tree. He only comes across it as he goes to introduce himself to the site team; it's outside their office. In addition to the large cankers present at the main unions, the main branch structure is congested with substantial included bark. One main limb with a particularly bad cankered union is over the entrance to the office, in prime loitering territory. Arb A mentions this to the client and is told the historical reason for its retention - despite this he considers the tree a hazard and that pollarding would not remove the cankering issue. So he recommends it's removal within a schedule of works that includes the rest of the site (so no particular prejudice to this tree and not 'immediately'). For reasons known to themselves the Trust consult (informally I might add) Arb B on the condition of the tree. He is of the opinion that the tree can be retained and the trust proceed with his recommendations despite Arb A's concerns. I've seen pictures of the cankers ( I may try to post them if I have time) - I wouldn't have hesitated to recommend it for felling. It is like most commemorative trees IMO; they are generally poor quality but are privileged into maturity on the back of who planted them or what they signify.

Well there's nothing to lose - doesn't cost anything bar a bit of your time. The inspector will re-determine the application afresh.

So appeal it then.

I think you're right insofar as they either don't care or have made a mistake. If I were going to be awkward (unlikely I know ) I'd say that you can't lift or thin a tree that has been reduced to a stump so there seems to be a presumption that some sort of branch structure is to be left...

While they haven't referred to 3998, it's definition of crown reduction (and therefore the definition that would be likely to be hurled around by the shiny shoes legal bods) is; "[An] operation that results in an overall reduction in the height and/or spread of the crown of a tree by means of a general shortening of twigs and/or branches, whilst retaining the main framework of the crown." So shorten away Huck, but retain the main framework of the crown. Whatever you decide that is!

Exactly - A TPO is just a legal towel on a deckchair for trees.

Yep in the case of an Order affecting a single tree, the LPA would need to endorse the original Order as revoked under section 11 of the 2012 Regulations and let all affected parties know. Otherwise the Order would need to varied as per section 10. Strictly speaking, the LPA that actively declines to add a replanting condition should be aware that they will need to vary or revoke the relevant Order to omit the relevant tree/s. In that case the new tree is not protected by the Order. What often happens though is that replanting conditions are missed out by error - so while technically there is no longer the expectation that the tree exists and whatever new tree is planted is not protected by the original TPO the Order still exists and still identifies a Beech at that location as protected. It could be very confusing a few years down the line should the owner decide to do some work to the tree as there would be little proof that the new tree is not the original... You'd have to prove the consent had been implemented! Best thing to avoid the above would be to notify the LPA of the felling and request in writing that the vary / revoke the Order.

In both instances it may be possible to argue that the work had not been completed as per the consent and therefore it had not been undertaken in accordance with the written consent of the authority. The other possibility I have heard mooted in such a situation is that the LPA could use a Tree Replacement Notice (TRN) under section 207 of the TCPA to specify that the replacement is planted in exactly the same position, thereby forcing the removal of the original tree. Whether this has ever been done or not I don't know. Of course in your first example of the pollard, a TRN could be used to ensure that the replacement gets in the ground while the original tree still stands, and if the un-consented pollard does succeed in surviving past the two year consent then a new application may need to be made to remove it. Although how that would work with the replacement having been enforced by TRN (normally with the TPO being transferred to the new tree) I haven't a clue. The LPA would probably be hard pressed to refuse it though stranger things happen in LPA land.

Ah I did - apologies for the passive aggression.

Fortunately, the world is not limited by your comprehension or your approval.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to define the parameters of your survey where the BS is vague - provided you explain yourself thoroughly. This could involve reduced data collection, averaging (with an idea of deviation) or omitting trees altogether. What is essential though is that you discuss this with the client; explain the risks and the benefits (i.e., if the design changes to the extent that previously distant trees are now involved there may need to be a second visit / survey but you can reduce the immediate costs / time). Eventually you will run into an LPA who will demand that everything on site is surveyed regardless of relevance - be prepared to fight your corner. That's another reason for having the client on side; it's their application and their money that is at risk should you need to get stuck into the finer points of what constitutes a reasonable amount information to determine an application...

The TPO is a land charge and the responsibility to replant lies with the owner / occupier of the land not his or her agents. It is they who will be served with a tree replacement notice if the replanting isn't done. Incidentally, the TPO isn't lifted to allow you to fell - it still exists despite there being no tree...

No. I don't think you will. No place here for thieves or trolls (or both).

Interesting one certainly. Having re-read the legislation it would seem that the Order is in effect from the moment it is made. That is to say once it has received whatever delegated authority it needs to become a legal document (i.e., it is signed and sealed by the right bod at the LPA). See section 4 of the catchily titled Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation)(England) Regulations 2012 [my emphasis in bold]: "4.—(1) An order shall not take effect (other than provisionally in accordance with paragraph (2)) unless and until confirmed by the authority, and must be confirmed no later than the expiration of the period of six months beginning with the date on which it was made. (2) Until confirmation an order shall take effect provisionally on the date on which it is made until— (a)the expiration of a period of six months beginning with the date on which the order was made; (b)the date on which the order is confirmed; or ©the date on which the authority decide not to confirm the order, whichever first occurs." Then note the following provision of the same [again with my emphasis in bold]: "5.—(1) As soon as practicable after making an order, and before confirming it, the authority which made it shall— (a)serve on the persons interested in the land affected by the order— (i)a copy of the order; and (ii)a notice containing the particulars specified in paragraph (2); (b)make a copy of the order available for public inspection, in accordance with paragraph (3); and ©in the case of an order made following service of a notice under section 211(3) (preservation of trees in conservation areas), serve on the person who served that notice the information specified in sub-paragraph (a)." That says to me that serving is a secondary thing; it is irrelevant to the pure legal existence of the Order. The Order comes into effect as soon as it is made (provisionally of course) and the LPA must serve it as soon as they can. It can't come into effect on serving because it would exist in a strange half reality after the postman had started delivering at one property and until the last party had been delivered to. That said, not being served or not being told that an Order exists (either over the phone or via a website would certainly be decent defence. Nailing someone to the cross for an offence committed in the hinterland between the lid going back on the pen at the council office and the copy arriving in the hands of the interested parties would probably be contrary to natural justice.