Jesse

Here lies the correct answer / reply. Otherwise Act of God.

Meristematic imbalance of cells.

Sorry mine are simple,Tree survey £70 first or only tree, £30 each and every tree after. Arboriculturist Reports start at £270 , one tree. My prices are what they are, its not hard to look and inspect a tree , it only becomes challenging when you have to send a recruit out to do the job for you. I do all my own work. Mileage on top.

£220 Plus £1.00 mileage one way from Taunton. Not a detailed report, Survey with detailed specification. Is that any help. Reports and Surveys are a little different.

Worth money to some flower shops for displays.

5837: 2012 trees no longer matter, you should know that. The proposal comes first along with the financial constraints of the developer.

After all can he really loose this one ??? I don't think so, Think of the Precedent it would set for future TPO'd trees and the Law regarding trees as we know it.

I do try to simplify things, shame hes not go a good local tree man as a friend, But saying that, small claims court is for money owed / and losses , the £1000 could be argued as a loss and he could be invoiced in advance of the tree being removed and often I will ask for fees in advance of Consultancy work as the outcome can not be predetermined. It may not be what the Client want's to be told. The first step is to write to the L.PA telling them you intend to claim compensation, no need to say at this point how, but tell them for how much and give them a timescale to respond, I still think the £80 small claims would/ could work or at least really upset the L.P.A especially if your local news paper got wind of whats happened, and after all the L.P.A would only then try and recover there costs from the developer. For the sake of loosing £80 its worth a crack. Its not about the wining its about the taking part

Sorry, should have said reasons for the claim. The L.P.A failed in there duty to enforce adequate tree protection during the construction phase of the development or advised the need accordingly and as a result a L.A protected tree, tree Tree Preservation Order Number .... was illegally damaged .

If you choose this route send a letter in to you L.A first detailing everything you intend to do and include photographs and explain what you intend to do , and give them 14 days to respond, send it recorded delivery.

This would be my take, if I owned the tree, small claims court, it will cost you £80 , and that's it, lodge it against your L.P.A for negligence , you will need to put together a value of what price you value you tree/ losses , top of my head, what cost would an effective summer screen be ??? high summer fence? something that's enjoyable to look at in the summer that will be lost early as a result of what the contractor has done after seeking advice from your L.P.A. it was old, get some prices for its removal, add say £1000.00 for loss, and unless you L.P.A are complete morons I am sure they will pay out of court, at worst you loose £80 fee for bringing the case, for me I would only Google earth the site and use your photographic evidence. The tree is shot but you have good grounds for recompense from your L.P.A. . I don't think its worth you throwing lots of money at this, Cost £80 plus say £1000 plus what ever to remove the tree , say £1500 and plus the cost of a lets say Standard tree with support and installation lets say for argument sake , Standard, containerized H staked , same sp £250 so your total claim £ 2580.00 a contingency fee of say £500 could be put on top , professional fees, (what I would charge none site visit distance appraisal) total then being £3080 . Submit that as a claim and I think you L.P.A. WOULD AT LEAST SIT UP, it would only cost you £80 and you should have a good result. But no guarantees. Hope that helps.

I agree, or does it only become an offence if you remove off site the branches or roots ? and isn't the act of such an offence called' Conversion ' the digger driver should have given the roots back . and I know TPO law puts a different slant on this, my point has been lost a bit, it was probably not the digger drivers fault, nor the developers fault, to find out who should be blamed the author of this post, owner of the tree needs to go online with the Planing Application number and search through all the documents relating to the application , look closely at the 5837 Survey and at what T number the original Surveyor has given your tree, make a note of it and what recommendations were made , then see if the Tree Officer picks up on it in his document (Comments from the Landscape officer ) , he should have and then at this point its original TPO number should have been documented within the Application ( This was the first opportunity for negligence to occur) Note what was said about the tree and what action was to be taken, retention ? protection ? notification ? to the owner, of the intention to carry out work on the tree ? Conditional Approval , ( This was the second opportunity for negligence to occur ) It should have been referenced again clearly stating what action was to be taken. Notification again, ( Third opportunity for negligence to occur ) you living next to this development , with your TPO'd tree should have been written to by your L.P.A and at the very least asked if you had any objections to the development proposal ?, If everything so far along this chain is as it should be then any blame can now be directed to the Developer and his team. Its sometimes easier to go back to the start to find who is accountable than to stat at the end and work backwards .

Would be cat U or R in old money, also the planning approval would in affect override any TPO's in simple terms if its retention was a constraint , its a low quality tree, in poor condition , possibly a Hazard, Occupiers Liability Act, if its situation is to change and in respect of any increase in risk which it mite present to the general public, ie in respect of any new foot paths or roads you should consider taking it down. No Tom, stick with your thinking, Planning Approval will override a TPO. But it does or can become complicated when trees are located on boundary's but less complicated when those trees are defective , Cat U or R depending on how old the Survey is , and for the record I prefer old 5837 2005, now I have just opened a can of worms but stand by my interpretation of the Law and what I have said , and my own interpretation of it. Don't anyone ignore 'The Occupiers Liability Act'. Cat U or R in old money, lets please not spend too much time on this one or advocate that the owner of this tree commissions to many experts at great cost to them selves , if the tree was sound and above the cat of U or R then it could be a different story. Yep, in a sort of round about way what you have said is the nuts and balls of it, as long as the developer has complied with the TCP. thats it. The low down growth is possibly associated with stress as a result of its condition, great old tree, and a great shame it could not have been left to grow old and die in dignity. Developers are money grabbing , low life forms , found mostly when walking in the park on the underside of your shoe . The fine of an infringement of a Tpo or any other constraint is often absorbed into the cost of the 'desire' the build, the dream, often at great cost to wild life and the environment , the developer absorbs this like a mutant spung , only to pass it on when reaping his reward. I really would like to say some massive FFFFFFFFFFFFFF WORDS and CCCCCCCCCCCC words but I have recently been receiving help. In short, Paul you should know this, if the developer has complied with 5837 in FULL. Then he's done nothing wrong. BUT THE L.P.A MAY BE AT FAULT . And they will never admit to that. Unless this was a 'Retrospective ' Application , there are so many twists and turns, most L.P.A's deliver a poor service and assume that we all know very little , more fools them. This is the simple chain of events. 1 . 5837 survey submitted with the Planning Application. As requested by the L.P.A. 2 . Key point. All trees within and within Influencing distance of the development proposal would be assessed as part of BS 5837 Recommendations. 3 . This is the developers get out card, at this point the L.P.A were in effect notified of the tree,and any intentions to carry out tree management works, if this was U or R it could mean as an out side owned tree that it just gets left with its roots removed, end of, even if it was TPO'd , the L.P.A. SHOULD know whats T.P.O'd . 4 . The T.C.P would also be included , again giving the L.P.A the opportunity to impose restraints or conditions. ????? 5 . Look up the application on line and it will confirm all details and conditions imposed by the L.P.A in respect of retained trees and conditions and what tree replacement details are in place.

I wanted to keep the build project small or at least as close to the dimensions of the original Hi Cap body as possible, the km2's are great, very little wear , the truck once its spat off all the mud runs just as smooth as an L200 or Shogun, if you are smooth on the gear change, I know because my last 2 new trucks were them. I did run the L200 and Shogun on aggressive mud tiers. Really like my truck. and thanks it gets noticed everywhere.

I like ,but in reality its a really smooth drive, at least once its spat off all the mud down the road puma is a lot different from older landys, REFINED , I got the idea of a porn mobile as we once rocked up to do a small TD and it was outside a brothel , in the black puma you see, a few working girls walked past as they left and commented on how cool my truck looked, I very cool y said, 'yer, thats my pimp mobile' then we all fell about laughing, you had to be there, it was a quality moment. we all have to earn a living at the end of a day.

OK David, does Eisenhower qualify anywhere in you list. at the time they tried to blame its demise on me, totally out of order, short answer it just stud in the way of progress.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.somersetcountygazette.co.uk%2Fnews%2F9528184.Eisenhower_Tree_at_Musgrove___latest%2F&ei=P36SUsjXHNCihgf4l4CoBQ&usg=AFQjCNHhiGJ8w_Iypwqox-sDXvlMLj4QSA Sorry this was the bit, the hospital tried to say I condemned the tree, this was not the case and I wrote to the local paper explaining the reasons why.

I killed the Eisenhower tree, https://www.google.co.uk/#q=eisenhower Hope this works.

The fuel filler support was the hardest thing to fabricate but Bart and Pete between them did a fantastic job.I also played a big part

Should also of said, it gets me work everywhere it goes people always ring and say ' I've just seen your number on a truck ' well worth the investment .

Its a porn mobile, electric windows, air con, leather sports steering wheel, and other mods, rear windows are now tinted, winch standard Wolf suspension 1.5 ton, vibrating seat cushion , vibrating gear nob,

As above , few more photos showing the new light set up, original lights were used, see if this works.

I converted mine, will see if I can post a photo

There you go , Yorkshire hospitality You just got to give Arbtalk a bit of time.

OK I know your all fed up with me tonight, my advice just uproot and burn the lot, replant with mixed natives , Is there such a thing as NICE LAUREL ??????????