daltontrees

Based on scottish legislation, the key points here seem to be that CA protection "applies to any tree in a conservation area" and that the offence for transgression is "any act which might by virtue of section 160(3)(a) be prohibited by a tree preservation order". This extreme shorthand means that the question of whether the parts of a tree outwith the CA are protected is more or less the same as whether the parts of a tree outwith a TPO are protected. I think this is backed up by realising that the only thing that can be done to prevent the works is to make a TPO. The tree, once in a CA or TPO, is protected, and logically all of it. At this point the English/Welsh law and Scottish diverge procedurally so I can't say more than that for this situation. Except that the same principles apply to CA and TPO trees alike. My instinct is that the underlying purpose of TPOs and CAs is similar, as in protecting amenity of an area, and that the strict CA/TPO/legal boundary is a secondary consideration if pruning would damage that amenity. But of course that amenity is not sacrosanct as it can be daamged by the lawful 'prevention or abatement of a nuisance' by removing overhangign branches. Subject to that test. That test covers the grey area.

They can't extent it, it's the law!

That is an old old injury. The smooth bark around it is the tree putting on additional specialised wood that will be making that part of the tree very strong. No treatment is possible. It is possible but unlikely that the wound will eventually heal over. It's alos possible but unlikely that it will break. If there's nothing much beneath it, there's not much to worry about for a few years, but it might be possible to reduce the risk by moving whatever's beneath it, reducing slightly the weight and wind sail of the affected part or bracing the substem to the good adjacent one. A loop pf rope would do.

Not so. LA liability is for damage that is foreseeable. If risk is foreseeable and is serious and urgent then the exemption should be used. If it's less urgent an application should be made. Only on refusal is there any argument of LA liability, and even then an appeal should be considered. But if failure arises from instability due to unaothrised excavatiions, the LA could comple the developer to reisntate the ground to make the tree stable. In my experience tthe excavatiin of roots close to a tree will only create risk either immediately duel to lack of lateral support or slowly due to infection and decay. In your scenario I think it could be very hard to hold a LA responsible for short term failure which could be prevented. The LA might be in no rush to allow removal if the demise of the tree could take years and years to develop. Much lesser works than removal shoudl be considered first.

That's pretty much it.

The penalties are weak. The Council must first take enforcement action, and a breach of an enforcement action can result in theoretically unlimited fines. I am not aware of any statutory basis for retrospective fines. Therein lies a great weakness (to my mind) of the planning system in that it does not actually impose penalties for damage to trees unless they are TPO'd or in a CA. Trying to understand the various remedies for breaches of planning can make your head spin, but at the heart of it alll there are only two things the Council can achieve, namely stopping some activity continuing or undoing something injurious that thas been done. The penalties mainly involve prosecution and fines for not adhering to these. But when trees have been permanently damaged, there is no ongoing actiivity that can be stopped (except more damage) and the damage canot be undone i.e. the loss of amenity to the area cannot be replaced. So a TPO is probably the best thing for the Council to do. Further damage will be easy to prosecute and punish. But up to that point, I am unaware of any prosecution method for past damage. I'd be delighted to hear from anyone that knows otherwise. It just occurred to me that destruction of a tree on a development site in breach of conditions could constitute a felling permission offence. Messy, but theoretically possible and something that anecdotally I am aware is currently being talked about for a site in Scotland.

Revocation is not an appropriate response to breaches of conditions, it nearly never happens and it cannot be used as a punishment, although that would be a fabulous deterrent.

If it's just a small hole liek it's bene drilled, it'll be an insect that did it. Google 'hazelnut drill'.

the fluted bark looks like turkish. nut production is a whole different thing from native stock. Look up cob nut. Considered a pollutant of gene purity in the world of Corylus, I believe.

Please elaborate. You don't apply in a CA, you notify. Council can't refuse, because you're not asking, you're telling. It can 'reject' a notification if the notification is not in the appropriate form, but that is not the same as refusing.

Observations on previous post. There is no right to light unless blocked by a structure. Trees are a separate matter. The legislation quoted does not create or protect right to light, it creates a method of preventing rights being created. Don'te get me stared on CAVAT, it's a con and is not designed to deal with privately owned trees anyway.

The LABC course sounded ideal. Maybe contact them and put your name down for the next one. Tey might put on courses if they have a few names to give them confidence tha tit will fill up. I learnt a lot from being on construction sites but also the Mitchells Bulding Series of books were great, nice clear diagrams. NHBC has a lot of good technical stuff inlcuding on foundations, so important for shrinkable clay issues. Free to download the massive manual.

To answer your question. Leave the leaves alone. Interfere as little as you have to. If the tree wants to shed leaves it will. Pulling them off and letting in infection or eliminating the possibility of them recovering or setting new buds is not a good idea. The pelaching set-up you have is basically perfect for maximising moisture loss from leaves, it is a big whirligig. So you can expect the trees to be a little thirstier than a non pleaced tree of the same stem diameter and scorch. Mulching will do more for them than additional watering will.

Would make more sense then to state the offered pay and let applicants decide?

Fair point. But why are they cheaper? Less useful? No hungry mouths and mortgages to feed that are setting the earnings requirement?

I could cope with that, but then, I'm one of those fools who thinks an arborist forum should be about... emmm ... arboristing, arborising... emm... I can't be doing with people who's only raison d'etre seems to be starting arguments. Anyway, back to the facts. The Equality Act says that "(1) A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others. (2) If the protected characteristic is age, A does not discriminate against B if A can show A's treatment of B to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim." In tree work, the legitimate aim is surely to get the tree down and away quickly and safely. Actually not a lot of scope in there for taking on someone marginally faster. Experience and attitude trump youthfulness most of the time. I don't see how it is OK to discriminate in favour of a young employee if there are candidates out there who can work as hard and smart as youngsters. Which in my experience is not very hard at all. Nor can I see anyone in this business applying for a job, losing out to a younger person and then actually reporting alleged discrimination to the police. Personally I might have a slight bias towards not employing young people. I will turn myself in the next time I am passing the cop shop.

As an alternative to an alpine butterfly as a midline knot this has a lot going for it, but mainly the ability to untie it afterwards if it has been heavily loaded; that can be nearly impossible on an alpine butterfly that has been loaded.

Nicely put.

Here's my office in the garden. Reinforced concerete slab, Western Red Cedar cladding, Coroline roof, 2nd-hand double-glazed door, triple glazed ex demonstration windows. Super insulated, mains electrics, surround sound system, cabin bed. Took 3 weeks to do 95% of it, taken another 2 years not to finish the window trims. Love it, though, happy efficient place to work. Came in just under the £3k budget. Permitted development limit is 8 sq.m. this is 7.96m2!

And the samurai sword is for...? Not use a Silky like everyone else?😃

I'm not sure I understand the question. But generally you can't rely on an exemption unless it's justified, and don't ask the Council if you can use the exemption, it's not their job to decide that. The exemptions can only be used to remove the issue, not the tree, and can't be used as an excuse for excessive works. But if there's no exemption available, an application is required, then refusal of removal of the whole tree is justifiable if there are lesser alternatives, including pruning, bracing, root pruning, engineering solutions or repair of driveways.

Quite so. The Council is only liable if an application has been submitted and damage was foreseeable (at the time of application) and then the Council refused permission. If there is risk, there is statutory exemption. It is not the Council's job to decide if the exemption can or can't be legitimately used, although it is it's job to decide afterwards if the exemption as been abused. There is nearly always a tree work remedy less than complete removal. All these possibilities have to be explored.

As others have said, damage to driveway does not mean damage to foundations. If the Council is not minded to lose the tree, you must demonstrate that no alternative engineering solutions are reasonably possible to keep the driveway useable (e.g. raising the level a bit then resurfacing). Also removal of a tree may not be necessary if removal of a root or two would solve the problem and not kill the trees. My suggestion is to pay for some focused advice from someone who knows what they are talking about. It might be an engineeer that knows about trees, it mught be an arb that knows about engineering. Few and far between. Too many tree reports are expensive shelf-fillers that don't get to the (pun definitely intended) root of the problem. You can't claim retrospectively for damage caused by TPO'd tree.

Awkward... the safest place to work on it might be form above, climb the sycamore and take off as much of teh ends as you can then on the ground put a sink on top of the butt and then cut directly up to it, it may be possible to get the sharp end off it that way. Then winch (not plough) from the highest position you can find?

Puffingbilly, coments weren't directed at you in particular. Just generally I see a lot of 5837 reports and the standard is pretty poor. A (now new) client came to me in the middle of the week saying he had got a 5837 report but it didn't seem to do what he needed it to. So I looked it over. It was done by an ecologist (no qualifications or experience or training stated) using the 2005 version but said it was to the 2012 version. The stated methodology was VTA, nothing else. Root Protection areas included areas under buildings and into the middle of a river. There was no constraints plan. There was no AIA. Trees to be removed weren't marked on the protection plan. Whole sections of disparate trees were grouped as a 'woodland' despite a proposed path being marked as going right through it, the path goes right through some trees not indicated anywhere as being removed. Just a CEZ barrier that staggered around the site in unrealistically short sections. Shocking. The planning authority wil never get to see it. I will be re-doing it from scratch. The client checked twice that my fee was correct, he couldn't believe it was so low relative to the previous report fee. Sickening that we have all these standards and systems and legislation in place and too often it achieves nothing.