daltontrees

It would be my pleasure, Mr Sloth. I believe the protocol is for you to 'PM' me your email address.

I genuinely don't know. I have a copy of the Guidelines that I made up by merging the 2006 Guidelines and the 2009 addendum. So I don't know which contained the Model. Oops I have just checked I still have the 2006 Guidelines unamended and the Model Notice is there at Appendix 7. Sorry for the wild goose chase. If you want a copy of the amalgamated Guidlelines let me know. They are now a bit out of date following the 2012 Regs but the explanatory not to the Regs says which aspects of the law has been changed, so if I look at the 2006/09 amalgam and then quickly check the Explanatory note I am quite confident of the current position. You would think somebody centrally would do this for us officially and update for the 2012, it only took me about 4 hours to do the last one.

D'oh! I just realised that your poll applies to people who have had TPO approvals (myself included) i.e. approvals that have conditions attached, which is always. The conditions might not be about replanting or the extent of pruning allowed, they can just be a time limit (usually 5 years). If approval is granted and conditions are attached then the right to claim compensation should be advised to the applicant. I should dig out a few approvals from Councils round here and then vote. Anyone else who has looked in and has had conditioned approvals could do the same. It could get the overall vote numbers up and make it a bit more of a representative poll? It's your shout though... the Model Refusal Notice in the 2009 Guidance clearly doesn't apply to conditioned approvals sxo I expect just about no Councils will advise of compensation rights along with approval. So it might skew the results.

I think he meant on behalf of clients. You can advise against applying and the client can decide to get you to apply anyway. You can have pre-app discussions and get an amber light and then apply only to get a refusal. And so on. It hasn't happened to me but I know people that it has happened to.

All good advice so far, in my opinion. The reality is that you don't know enough yet to decide on any particular course of action. You would need at least to know the soil type (preence or absence of shrinkable clays, possibly their plastic and elastic limits), depth of foundations, species of tree(s), distance(s) from trees to buildings, whether boundary wall will curtail roots, the part of the country you're in and probably a few more bits of info. If I was you I would steer clear of giving anything other than general information about the legal consequences, subsidence claims can run to tens of thousands and you don't want to be implicated or even to have your friends set off on the wrong tack in dealing with the neighbour. I would think it is worth putting the insurance company on notice if a formal complaint is made by the neighbour. Meantime I don't think you can say much without having lots more info and knowing what it means for the situation. The generality is that for subsidence you need all of the following - shrinkable clays, unduly shallow foundations, persistent soil moisture defecit, a thirsty tree species, closeness of building and tree, no barrier to root development in the direction of the building. I would slightly disagree with one of previous poster's comments insofar as I don't think 'negligence' comes into it, it is more to do with encroachment and nuisance. I spotted recently ina case somewhere that a neighbour doesn't need to notify the tree owner of subsidence and give him an opportunity to do something about it, he can go straight to making a claim, backed up if necessary by a civil court action if proof is needed of the cause and effect. Tread carefully is what I would suggest. The courts (if it ever gets that far) seem reluctant to acccept evidence without substantial engineering input, either by an engineer or a specialist tree guy.

I am way too late to contribute but will anyway. I was puzzling over a similar looking specimen in Scotland recently, it took quite a while to convince myself that it was in fact S. caprea. But it hybridises with Osiers and S. alba and produces some pretty odd shapes particuarly the leaf shape. And suckering or epicormic growth leaves can be enormous, 10cm x 6cm. And I have always harboured a suspicion tha the leaves of the male and the female are slightly different in shape.

Possibly Davidia involucrata 'Vilmoriana'. Leatherier leaves than standard D.i.

I wouldn't touch that job with a fibreglass bargepole. You're getting some good advice here, hope you follow it.

Thankyou. The 2009 Guidelines have a Model Refusal Notice which says among other things "COMPENSATION If you suffer any loss or damage as a result of this refusal of consent, you may be entitled to recover from the Council compensation. If you wish to make a claim you must do so within 12 months from the date of this decision (or, if you appeal to the Secretary of State, within 12 months from the date of his decision). Claims should be made in writing to [name and address of relevant officer of the Council]. "This paragraph should also be included (with appropriate amendment) where the LPA grant consent subject to conditions." There is absolutely no excuse for Councils not to use trhe Model Notices. I mean, the work has been done for them all tehy have to do is cut and paste. Why wouldn't they? Don't answer that!

OOOOh, disagreement! 'ignorance of the law is no defense' is used by prosecutors to avoid an easy get-out. I don't see it having any relevance here, unless it is against the Council. The Government drafts legislation, Parliament approves it, it becomes law, Government then issues guidance as to how it should be properly applied, including letting citizens at least be aware of their rights. What is good for making sure citizens know that they have a right of appeal against refusals is good for letting them know they have a right to claim compensation. So, if Local Government (created by Statute generated by Government and approved by Parliament) chooses not to follow the advice of Government, knowing that the result could be to deprive a citizen of his/her right to compensation, Local Government's ignorance of the law is definitely no defence; the only other option it has is to claim wilful defiance of the guidance or to explain why it hasn't advised citizens of their right to appeal. Put that in front of a judge, turn the Council up to 180 fahrenheit for 3 days and wait. I don't know exactly what the law is on all this as it comes under nebulous concepts of natural justice and the like, but if it looks like a turkey, gets stuffed like a turkey and bleeds like a turkey it probably is a turkey.

Prince arbert?

Interesting! Most reported compensation cases have dealt with claims for 'damage', but case law seems to suggest that claims for 'loss' (as provided for in the Act) could cover commercial loss. However, I expect the link between advers trade and the tree would have to be proven and the loss quantified objectively. I'd love to see how this one goes.

I am not clear whether the TPO stands regardless of the mistakes made by the Council in the notifications. And whether there has been an application for consent for thinning which has been refused. But if so, 24(3) of the new 2012 Regulations seem to deal specifically with forestry/woodlands and provide for compensation based on the depreciation in the value of the trees due to deterioration of the quality of the wood because it can't be thinned. Not quite the same as loss of earnings but... I have no idea whether the Guidance that refusals should be accompanied by advice about compensation rights applies to such specialist cases.

It's not even in the Guidelines up here. The interesting thing then is that if the English guidelines suggest it and if a LPA don't bring it to applicant's attention bu and then the applicant is time-barred from claiming compensation when he later finds out he could have claimed, would the LPA be guilty of maladmisistration and liable to pay out the equivalent of what the compensation would have been? I think they would have nowhere to hide in such a case.

Just out of interest i checked the equevalent Scottish situation. There is no requirement anywhere for the LPA to advise a person whose TPO application has been refused, that they have rights to claim compensation.

I've never had a refusal either. And my input might be a bit useless anyway as the law and best practice north of the border is slightly different.

I'd say those are Limes. We have the same leaf drop happening up here on 20m high mature limes. Water can only help.

I burned a few lengths of one in April, I seriously thought the stove was going to explode or split in two it was so hot. I don't likme the idea of what thy might do to the chimey lining, so I aint going to use them any more. Best ever firewood I have had has been Hawthorn, Norway Maple and Slver Leaf Maple. Better than coal and absolutely nothing left in the grate.

True, Beech give so much shelter in the rain and so much shade in the sun that animals seem to spend a lot of time under them, trampling and churning up soil.

You have won me over to Acer distylum, the Lime Leaved maple, yay!

I have just checked with my sample today of supposedly A. cordata var genuina and it has definitely alternate buds. Your specimen look like opposite pairs, like you would expect on an Acer species. Can't think of any that don't have at least slightly lobed leaves. Except maybe Acer davidii var. Ernest Wilson, but even that is not convincing.

It might be worth considering Alnus cordata var. genuina, I was out on survey today and found two adjacent A.c one was var. rotundifolia which is dark green and glossy leaved and the other one I thought was var. genuina, markedly different, lighter less glossy leaved, slightly serrated leaves, just showing the heart shape at the base but going to a fairly abrupt point. I am finding Carpinus betulus and any of the Acers not terribly persuasive so far.

Ah but the usefulness of cases with legal precedent is not the outcome for the tree or the individual but for the way that the Judge(s) clarify, explain, interpret the generalities of the law. For example, as I recall the 1st Judge goes out of his way to make a very useful distinction between the application of the abatement exemption for neighbours and then for owners. As such I have found Perrin extremely illuminating for any situation involving owners and neigbours of trees contemplating abatement, nuisance and compensation. It literally doesn't matter what side of the fence you are on. Difficult to walk away from your neighbour and your tree! And of course if the enighbour cannot abate the nuisance or win compensation from the Council he would be entitled to claim any outstanding amount from the owner by Civil action. If I was the owner I would be very reluctant not to stay as proactively involved as I could.

That could have been a whole lot worse a foot higher!!!

Awww, I ws so interested in this subject but I fear the thread is going to fizzle out wthout conclusion. In the red corner, SBD is a recognised problem, with the potential to kill and a proven record of doing so. Theories focus on hot weather, still air, perhaops over-extended branches and a handful of species, mostly broadleaves. In the blue corner, no-one really knows what causes it, it doesn't happen very often or reliably and it might just be nature's way of getting rid of overlong limbs. It is probably the stuff of dedicated scientific analysis rather than Arbtalk.