daltontrees

Things don't get done as a matter of course... and FC can't approve felling without an application. As far as I can tell, the same situation happens in reverse. A FC does not trump CA notification requirements. TPO/CA stuff traditionally would be for different situations than FC, with little overlap, but these days Councils are TPOing more rural stuff and FC are into everything including urban areas.

Not much to add. There is no formal process or right to ask for a TPO to be considered and whereas many a TPO arises from a member of the public blowing a whistle, there's no form to fill in, no legislative right. Accordingly there's no right of appeal either. And I suspect that any complaint about the Council's behaviour would have to focus on its failure to consider the matter, rather than how it exercised its discretion as to whether to make a TPO. It has considered the matter and I think most would agree with the Council that it's not a situation for a TPO. As Chris has said, even if there was a TPO you could not protect the tree against cutting back of roots or branches to the boundary. Nor would a TPO protect you against a claim in negligence for damage to the neighbour's building by the tree. In short, TPOs are to benefit the public. The very last consideration is the benefit to the tree owner. The RHS says Thuja Brabant has ultimate height 4-8m. Maybe tell the neighbour that, and that it's not going to get much bigger.

If you have been diligent and exercised the right of abatement reasonably and without malice and given the tree owner fair notice of the likely resultant unstable condition, the law is on your side. Notice in writing! Offering to 'balance' the tree, however well intended, is asking for additional trouble. I'd advise not to get involved on both sides. Anyone that conmes out with stuff about Criminal Damage Act obviously hasn't read the Act.

Interesting question. A notification to the LPA under CA rules can result in consent from the LPA to remove the trees but this only implies that the LPA didn't consider the trees important enough for the amenity of the area to deserve the special protection of a TPO. Or to put it another way, that's the ONLY consideration that a LPA should apply. Conversely the Commission should have only secondary regard to amenity. These areas can cross over to each other a little, and where TPOs are concerned there are special rules which usually result in FL applications for TPOd trees being referred to the LPA to be considered under TPO rules. But for the life of me I cannot think of anything anywhere that actually says (or even suggests) that CA consent exempts you from the need for a FP.

I would suggest honey fungus.

Really really dull, but I watched to the end as it is an important matter potentially affecting the world supply of wines. I might try and reproduce the experiment tonight with a bottle of wine and a straw.

Genuinely interesting. A variation on watching paint dry, I could now listen to trees dry.

I have sent you a message with something I think is relevant.

I know it's a bit of a dull subject, but 'cavitation' in trees is where the continuous column of water and other fluids in xylem or phloem gets broken, basically an air bubble in the pipe. If serious enough it can prevent further capillary translocation.

No point in particular, it's just that you said ""the validiity... shall not be questioned in any legal proceedings whatsoever". So hard luck! ", so I was just tidying up the record that there is a right of challenge. The current form of Order in the Regulations does not mention the right of challenge. The Regulations don't oblige the Council to define the time window, but they do have to notify an interested party of the time it has to apply to the High Court. This is done by reference to the 1990 Act. I expect the average person would not be able to follow the trail of subclauses to realise that they have in fact a right of challenge. It's hard to find even when you know it's there.

Identification of poplars is a highly technical matter, in some cases ID can only been done after a visit to observe catkins then later in the year to observe leaves. Nae chance from just pictures of bark, but could narrow it down a bit.

Yes, 6 weeks from confirmation. The thing is, though, the validity of a TPO can be challenged, as it was in Wilkson.

Well, what definitions of ancient and veteran are you using? According to Ancient Tree Forum this size is just entering the 'ancient' age span. See attached. 'Veteran' is independent of age. Unfortunately there are many disparate definitions, which is really unhelpful. Lonsdale has a 'definition of 'notable' (i.e. it's not a definition, more of a concept). JM Age table JM version with DBHs.pdf

I am not going to answer your emotive rhetorical questions. I was not trying to defend the Council I was just saying that the tree is not a risk. There is a risk, but it's not because of the condition of the tree. You are twisting language. The risk is the state of mental health of the patients and inadequate resourcing. My best friend hung himself when he was 9 years old. The rope wasn't a risk, nor was the door frame. I suspect you like a rant and an argument, but I don't and this is a forum about trees (for me, anyway), on which you asked specific questions. Here's my answers. 1. The possibility of TPOs on land not visible to the public has already been explained to you. If you ask nicely without using a string of capital letters I will send you a copy of the Wilkson case. It's not 'some tale', it is development of uncertain areas of the law by the judiciary, developing and making new law as required. And very helpful it is too. It answers your question, where the legislation was too vague to do so. 2. Do you just remove the TPO'd branch? Your call, after admitting your guilt in advance on a public forum. Ask yourself if you are a respectable, law abiding professional or not. Ask yourself how long the risk has been present without incident, to inform the true urgency or otherwise of the situation. Then decide. 3. I suggest you apply to the Council, anything else is illegal. It would be thoroughly irresponsible to implicate a client or customer in a prosecution. 4. Yes the Council can say no. I have already stated my view that the tree is not the risk. But the Council may see reason in the application and allow removal. You won't get if you don't ask. And if you get a refusal you can appeal. 5. If it all goes horribly wrong a coroner's inquiry will untangle it, and depending on the outcome there may or may not be a basis for a civil suit or criminal prosecution. Speculation as to the outcome of that is futile. But I continue to suspect that the focus woudl be on staff allowing someone in their care to harm themselves. 6. The safety of patients is not the Council's responsibility, but presumably it could be persuaded by a convincing argument to exercise its legitimate powers to allow tree works. 7. You now know what I think. Most others have perhaps wisely steered clear of expressing a view. Over and out.

The case you refer to challenges the generality of your suggestion that a TPO cannot be challenged. What the judge said in the case was "the validity of a TPO cannot be challenged in any legal proceedings except by way of an application to this court (section 284(1)(e) and (2)(c) TCPA 1990). A challenge to this court is available under section 288 TCPA 1990 on the grounds either that the order is not within the powers of the Act or that any of the relevant requirements have not been complied with." And in the case referred to the TPO was quashed by such a challenge. Although the public visibility of the tree was not one of the reasons for quashing, it took the judge 5 pages to reason why. In slightly different circumstances the public visibility argument could have succeeded.

Are you sure you looked at the right case? It mentions 'amenity' 39 times! The tree is not a risk to patients. The risk is giving unsupervised access to the tree. The risk can be reduced or eliminated by preventing unsupervised access. Therefore there is no risk related reason to remove part of the tree. It's all very sad I know but the Council would be within its rights to refuse an application and to prosecute for unauthorised works.

Possibly one of the variegated Sycamores like Leopoldii or Simon Louis Freres. The juvenile leaves of ornamental sycamores tend not to look much like sycamore.

An od thread but some new guidance, the revised EAC pruning guide. European Arboricultural Standards WWW.EUROPEANARBORICULTURALSTANDARDS.EU European technical standards on tree pruning, tree planting and tree cabling and bracing. It's a 6Mb download.

TPOs protect all bits of the tree, above and below ground. That's the law. Councils can request tree constraints plan and tree protection plan for any tree during the planning process. That's the law.

We do not have enough information to answer the questions. Where is this? Are there shrinkable clays and a peristent soil moisture deficit? Are the foundations designed appropriately according to NHBC guidelines? Would removal of the tree(s) cause heave in your own property? What species of tree, what distance, what lifestage? At some point you ought to pass this request to your own insurers.

I'm not up in the English Regs, they are different from ours. I mentioned them to show that although there are situations where a report is specificaly required it merely implies that in other situations a report isn't. Anyway, the question is still open, why force a TPO on people then force them to spend money justifying a (quite rightly) free application. The 'you should have thought of that before you bought the house' argument is fairly repulsive, and probably wrong at law. Permissions (consents) run with the land, what would the same reporter do about an appeal for the same tree works by a seller who was unable to sell because of the tree? It's a rhetorical question. 'You should have thought of that before you let your tree grow to bigger than a sapling'?

Not worth saving in the long run, and because of shading any replacement tree in the same position will struggle for light. Because there 's a TPO any work needs to be justified and approved but only a zealous official would be looking for it to be reduced to prolong its life. My reason for saying this is that if it was reduced it might not even be visible from any public place, and that is the acid test. I'd apply to remove and replace with a shade tolerant species, emphasising that the long term is best served by this option.

I reckon if you put a winch on that at midheight and pulled you'd uproot it before the stem buckled.

Playing devil's advcate, there a re 2 extreme views. One says that TPOs are a real burden on private owners already, that's one reason why applications are fee-free, so why shouldn't the onwer just state reasons for the application and let the planning authority assess and decide? The other says that the applicant should prove the need for the work, as it's depriving the neighbourhood of tree amenity. A fee free application suddenly costs £250 for a supprting report , but that's life! In a fair world the first argument should prevail but in the real world some councils are insisting that every TPO application should be accompanied by a supporting report, which seems rather unfair. The TPO Regulations (in England anyway) say that a report is needed to support applications based on subsidence, but no other circumstances specifically require a report. This would tend to support the first view, that if justification (rather than just reasons) are needed for applications under other rationale like daylighting, risk etc. it should be the panners that justify refusal. The Regulations are different in Scotland, and I would put that down to geology, ultimately.

Defo sycamore.