Amelanchier

This is basically your tree officer bible. Its a guide on how the government/courts expect Chapter 8 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to be interpreted. Read it. It will serve you well. Tree Preservation Orders - A Guide to the Law and Good Practice (Blue Book) 2005.pdf

I agree. I think it would be benficial if I posted a copy of the blue book, it would open the discussion up.

Any chance you could reference that point. As I was under the impression that the guidance was to avoid the making of orders wherever possible. So, hang on. You don't like planning conditions that are unenforcable but you're happy to suggest that we condition a mandatory partnership with a consultancy company!!!??? And then expect that consutancy to blow the whistle on their developer??? To who??? I assume the high and mighty TO... Any worthwile arb consultancy should include re-inspection intervals and protection evaluations in their AIA.

For the record I am an assistant conservation officer. Maybe they share my views for a reason? Maybe that's our job? That must have been a pretty tough case. Good job they got an expert in. You are entitled to your interpretation of the legislation. Presenting that interpretation as fact is misleading and risky for others to follow.

Is that heironymous bosch?

Fell what you like mate. See you in court. I would suggest to you that your advice is extremely risky and not accurate.

Aaaah that's real love.

Nice one mate:icon14: Thats whats needed. It shouldn't end up as the LPA vs. Everyone else. It should be a galactic tag team cage match where arbos stand together to beat the enemy down

Depends on what you mean by "qualified" mate! I agree. Realistically, no TO worth their salt will happily let a hazardous tree (regardless of importance) stand If they consider it to be dangerous. We're talking about the grey area though aren't we. For example:- I summise in a report that TPO Tree A is a hazard (meaning that you consider it should be removed in the next month or so). You, as the TO, go and have a look and consider that the hazard is not significant (ie the tree can be retained for longer than, say 5 years). You refuse my consent to fell it. I then send you a letter saying that I consider you to have liability should the tree fail. A week later, the tree duly fails. Who's liable??? Not me surely as I said it was dangerous. But how dangerous? Fail within a month? Maybe I should have just had the tree down? Negligent? Perhaps... You? Ah yes, you must be because you said the hazard was not significant and the tree has now crushed my pagini zonda. But hang on, that was your professional opinon. You might be wrong but you're probably not liable. You may be negligent, but it ain't your tree (as skyhuck notes) its your TPO, so can you actually be liable? Perhaps not... The Owner. Well it was his tree after all. The buck stops here. Its his liabilty under the Occupiers liability acts so maybe he should have just had the tree down? As you say, a minefield!! watch your step! I'm definatley trying to watch mine!!!

!?!?!

Depends where they plant them and how long you enforce the maintenance for...

Ha. I was joking about the stumps... Honest.

Yep fair point and while I agree with you that phrasology is what I hear on a daily basis. I agree. That sounds lame. Not sure how that would play out in court though. What I am sure is though that a judge and/or jury would decide on the significance of the hazard based on expert witnesses, and then decide if the LPA had obstructed the owner in his attempts to mitigate that hazard. I, nor Mynors (2002) is aware of any case law pertaining to the attributation of liability to a LPA as a result of the failure of a TPO tree. NB - Pre 1999 there was the option for the LPA to issue article 5 certificates which indemnify them from all compensation relating to a TPO. So, falling branches, total windthrow through your conservatory, subsidence - your problem. Post 1999 article 5 certs deemed disproportionate (quite correctly IMO). So claims can be made against LPA for damage caused by TPO trees.

Absolutely. No TPOs needed. They're in breach of their conditions. Quite how you play that next step out as the LPA is the interesting bit...

No. But if the tree was protected by planning conditions, then there are grounds for action. Lets have a heavy standard replacement, (or three).

Nope. Tpo does not mean that the council has a duty of care to inspect. We ain't got the budget, and you wouldn't pay for the increase in council tax. Tree owner retains all duty of care regardless of tpo/ca status.

Er, if a tree is protected by planning conditions why should any tree worker being asked to remove trees not be concerned? I would suggest that the LPA is at liberty to make a TPO whenever they feel it is expedient to do so. Therefore if it is felt that trees would best be protected by planning conditions (maybe the only threat is from the excavation for example) then it would not be necessary to make a TPO. It is a gross error to assume that because there are no TPOs present on a development site that the trees are not protected. If an Arboricultural Implications Assessment has been agreed followed are you expecting the LPA to TPO everything on site just in case the developer decides not to follow it?

Burden of proof is on you though. You might say its dangerous. LPA might not agree. As you indicate, the law is on their side. If you fell a tpo tree because you think it dangerous, fine, but your proof better be 'beyond reasonable doubt' as its an issue of strict liability. If you fell an entire tree because you consider it to be the quickest and safest way of mitigating a hazard you should be very sure that it was a proportional decision. Felling a tree because you can't be arsed to dismantle it is a bad move and might well see you prosecuted. Again you would be expected to prove that the tree was too dangerous to climb/dismantle. Its worth noting that the five day notification period is an obligation under the town and country planning act 1990 (as amended). So I would consider it at least a professional courtesy to notify the LPA even if it is to say "I'm just about to fell your tpo tree at such&such because I consider it to be hazardous and therefore exempt."

You might be better off using the new england instructions for a new england rope http://www.neropes.com Do you have the brion toss splicing wand? (great name!)

Bats?

Ok climbing wise. A good honest breakdown of SRT would be nice. Just realised thats quite gizmo....

Ha. You ain't got the budget mate! Only kidding. Gimme a minute...

I suppose there will be a bias towards climbing though? I think you should stay away from the kit fetish aspects, i.e., "look at what you could do with this shiny gizmo..."

Email is fine. Save those trees!

Ha ha. I was thinking along those lines... what'd you have to type into google to find that!