Jump to content

Ben90

Member
  • Content Count

    522
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ben90

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 12/01/1990

Personal Information

  • Location:
    Southwest England
  1. Have you had a look through the TPO Guide to the Law and Good Practice? It lays it all out in simpler terms than the act itself, certainly worth a look. It's dated Pre-2012 regs but the matters for your case are pretty much unchanged. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/14956/tposguide.pdf Particular sections useful to you would be: 3.11 During the site visit the LPA officer should gather sufficient information to draw up the TPO with accuracy. The LPA officer should accurately record the number and species of the individual trees or groups of trees to be included in the TPO and their location (see also paragraph 3.14 below). In relation to areas of trees or woodlands it is not necessary for the purposes of the TPO to record the number of trees, and a general description of species should be sufficient. It is, however, important to gather enough information to be able to define accurately on the map the boundaries of the areas or woodlands in question (see also paragraphs 3.15-3.18 below). From this section I would conclude that even those pesky hollies and spruce are protected, so long as they fall within the outlined area on the order plan. Species information on woodland orders is merely supplementary, and does not infer that only the listed species are protected. The purpose of woodland TPOs is to protect the woodland unit as a whole. However; 3.16 A woodland TPO should not be used as a means of hindering beneficial management work, which may include regular felling and thinning. While LPAs may believe it expedient, as a last resort, to make TPOs in respect of woodlands they are advised (whether or not they make a TPO) to encourage landowners to bring their woodlands into proper management under the grant schemes run by the Forestry Commission. If, for one reason or another, a woodland subject to a TPO is not brought into such a scheme, applications to manage the trees in ways that would benefit the woodland without making a serious impact on local amenity should be encouraged (see paragraph 6.41 of this Guide). So you should apply, but as long as your intended works are seen as beneficial to the woodland you should have no issues with refusal. You can draw up a woodland management plan if you wish, which if sufficiently detailed in terms of work specification and timings can be supplied with one application to cover multiple operations or phases of work over multiple years; 6.41 Only one application is needed to carry out a number of different operations on the same tree (for example, to reduce some branches and lift the crown) or to carry out work on a number of trees (for example, to reduce the crowns of a line of trees). Similarly, a programme of work (such as specific operations which are to be repeated on an annual or regular basis, or a series of operations phased over a period of time) could be submitted as one application. Such applications are in fact encouraged as a means of promoting ongoing beneficial woodland management plans of, say, five years without the need for repeated applications over a relatively short period of time. Hope this helps
  2. Thanks for your reply. I'll be sure to read over the delegated report as soon as I can, it may be that the TO had visited site and believed it could be done, as you say I'm looking at the 2D problem. Also not wanting to be the whipping boy was the reason for this post! Thanks for the pointer towards Perrin v Northampton. From my brief review of it I can see how that may apply here, however it would also take a bolder man than me to apply it in this instance! Tree protection as an afterthought is all too common. I suspect one of the key causes that I see time and time again is applicants ticking the 'no' box regarding trees on/near the application area, with seemingly no checks at validation stage. Tree survey as a pre-commencement? That's like sketching the stable after the horse has bolted!
  3. We've had a client approach us requesting an AMS and TPP as a pre-commencement condition. No tree survey, so nothing out of the ordinary so far 🤦‍♂️ The approved proposal is for a new garage which looks to encroach on a number of TPO trees. Obviously the condition states how the TPO trees are to be retained and protected from damage and so on. I haven't visited site yet but the approved garage is 2 metres from a mature tree on top of a bank. This bank will be dug down 800mm first so the levels match up. My first thought is that we can only really go in as damage limitation - fence off the remaining ground and hope for the best. My main concern with this is what if it transpires that one or more of these trees will lose so much of their RPA to new excavations they can't reasonably or safely be retained. Would its now-expedited removal fall into the realm of T&CP Regs 2012 Section 14.1(a)(vii) "so far as such work is necessary to implement a planning permission"? As such should we simply prepare the AMS and TPP showing removal of those trees considered necessary and 'hope' the LPA approve it? There must be a better approach, even at this late stage. It'd be interesting to hear how other folks mediate between what looks like an unstoppable force and an immovable object. Cheers
  4. Timberwolf Manufacturers no is SBXTW22A 1HS220082. Cheers!
  5. No photos sadly! Distinctive features are in the first post. We've also put a post up on Facebook, I completely agree with you re: social media! Thanks for the advice.
  6. Thanks chaps. I've put it on Arborists Online. Any other good pages to share it on? Cheers
  7. Stolen around 7pm this evening (with a set of climbing gear and several Stihl saws) from the Bath/NW Wiltshire area, an almost new and very clean Timberwolf 160PH woodchipper. Distinguishing features are no Timberwolf stickers of any kind on it, and the regulator has been housed inside a small clear tupperware box to help against water ingress (just below the ignition key area) Also, the reflector brackets on the rear mudguards have been removed and replaced with a single reflector screwed directly into the mudguard. Wiltshire police crime number is 54190 013920 Any information please call Daniel on 07814076985, or reply/pm me here. Thanks!
  8. Alnus subcordata, Caucasian alder? The leaves are more oblong. What do the underside of the leaves look like? Orangey tufts under the vein joints would likely mean Italian, but if they are generally hairy underneath then it may be Caucasian.
  9. A remarkable Yew tree in a churchyard near sevenoaks
  10. I'm keen to make a start on the level 6 next year. I did the Tech Cert a few years back and as such I haven't done the plant portfolio. Would it be beneficial to make a start on this and do it in my own time while waiting for the next uptake? If so what's the general layout and what sort of things do they ask for in it?
  11. I use that rule of thumb as well. I have rubber mushroom shaped plugs on a cord tied to either side of my lid with the same SNR as the muffs (around 28) great for stop-start cutting work, especially in hot weather. I double up for things like logging. For all day chipper-thons or big saw logging I often switch to foam plugs with 38 SNR and the defenders on top. I read a few articles that said wearing both will not give you the sum of both the SNR ratings, more like 5-10 on top of the most effective one.
  12. You may well be right, if you look on their gallery they've got photos of the 'Stein bollard'
  13. Perhaps this will be of use Vibram.info
  14. High Hedges requires at least two evergreen or semi-evergreen trees next to eachother which are then blocking significant amounts of sunlight from key living areas, but there is no 'law' within it that requires they be taken down, just reduced and maintained to an 'action hedge height' The Prescriptions act 1832 (the closest you'll get to 'right to light') I believe was put together to stop businesses being affected by lack of sunlight in times where there was little in the way of artificial light. For example if someone had a loom by a window and a neighbour came along and built in front of said window, blocking out the light. Nonetheless I'm pretty sure it does not apply to trees, unless you put them in last week with a tree-spade Are the trees overhanging the neighbours property? Edit: didn't see 10 bears post
  15. All round very unpleasant Here's the Arbtalk relevant part:

About

Arbtalk.co.uk is a hub for the arboriculture industry in the UK.  
If you're just starting out and you need business, equipment, tech or training support you're in the right place.  If you've done it, made it, got a van load of oily t-shirts and have decided to give something back by sharing your knowledge or wisdom,  then you're welcome too.
If you would like to contribute to making this industry more effective and safe then welcome.
Just like a living tree, it'll always be a work in progress.
Please have a look around, sign up, share and contribute the best you have.

See you inside.

The Arbtalk Team

Follow us

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.