daltontrees

It ahs me beaten so far. Not Holm Oak, not Arbutus, not Eucryphia, not Osmanthus, not P. lusitanica ...

Good article thanks

I thnink you are worrying about heave, that is to say the increase in volume of shrinkable clays after thirsty trees have been removed. Charmouth mudstone is part of the Lias Group which BGS flags as having potential for shrinkable clays. But the Charmouth Formation lithologies aren't particularly pure clays. Highly variable though, extends for a couple of hundreed miles. In advance of buying, get a few building insurance quotes, these may show up any local issues.

What's your point?

This looks like nutrient deficiency.

No License needed. Exempt due to s.9.(4)(d) of the Forestry Act 1967 but the felling needs to be 'immediately required" i.e. can't just do it as soon as you get planning permission, in case the development doesn't go ahead for any reason. To be on the right side of the law it should be felling that is part of a commitment to carrying out some aspect of the development that can't happen until the trees are out of the way. Also note, has to be 'required', not just desirable or convenient. If it's ony TPO consent you have rather than a planning permission for development, it's not quite so clear, but I cna't see any public interst being served by one public body (FC) preventing something that has been legitimised in pari materia by another public body (Council).

Unfortunately there is case law that would support your neighbour's position. If the Council TPO'd it to prevent felling, it would become partly responsible for the damage too.

Ye she planned to make a TPO application. But why? It's only needed for works to a tree, or at apush for works that may damage or destroy a tree. Shouldn't need an application, I'd go as far as to say the LPA shouldn't accept an application for anything that is designed not to damage.

Not enough info. Is there a tree preservation order or conservaiton area. What size of tree (stem diameter, height crown speread)

It's important, if the guy is getting paid to give professional advice to a client then the standard is very much higher than if he's being asked to put a driveway in. It would definitely affect the way I would comment.

A client? Are you only being paid to advise the client?

No-one has asked what species they are! That's what I'd want to know. For example if they're Lawsons Cypress then phytophthora's probably the cause.

I am in Scotland, different laws. Hopefully someone down there will advise. Itsa a very vague question though, I don't think I would even tackle it if I was down there.

No special care. Trees are at their best when people leave them alone. But the sycamores will get big, then bigger and eventually will outstay their welcome. Neither sycamore nor cherry are good hedge species, so don't bother trimming, maybe just prune back every 2 or 3 years.

not clear photos. Looks liek sycamore with cherry to right. No such thing as 'classified as a hedge', depends on purpose. High hedge legislation might say one thing, title deeds might say another.

I believe the only part of the palnt that isn't poisonous is the arils (berries).

Can it really determine diameter to 1mm precision and height to 0.1m?

I see it being used in topograpic surveys for development sites (DTMs). A colleague fantasises about it being able to mark the posiitons and measure the heights. crown spreads and stem diameters of all the trees on a site, but I'm not sure it's realistic or cost effective (yet). I got someone to use it in my previous job to create a 3D model of a town centre I was working on.

No. There is a limited time for challenging the Order in a court (name of court depends on what country you are in, eg England it's the High Court) purely on a point of law. So if you think the Order is unnecessary, don't challenge it. If you think the Order or procedures did not follow the rules, an expensive challenge is possible. But bear in mind, if the Council slipped up and a challenge succeeded, the Council can simply start again and do it right second time around. The system is stacked in favour of Councils bcause courts won't interfere in Council discretion about what is merited, and a legal challenge would be really very expensive, probably well into 5 figures if it went to hearing.

You may as well object then. It shouldn't take long, just put your concerns in plain language and add a plan to make it clear which bits you are referring to. You need to be clear that you 'object to the Order in its current form because it would prevent .....' and idelaly suggest what the modification shoudl be, either by excluding certain areas (or trees) from the Order or by allowing certain maintenance works to be done without consent. Make sure the objection goes to the right place, on time, adn tha tit is clear what Order you are objecting to. 1/2 hour should do it. Might not make a difference, but it will have to be considered. Once the objections are in, the Council has up to 6 months to confirm the Order, either as it is or modified. It has to go to a committee. So you can contact the relevant councillors and seek their support.

You could argue that. She could also (politely or impolitely) tell you to mind your own business. She lives there, she paid for the property, the public authorities haven't decided the tree is special enough for a TPO. Not every tree (or oak) is sacred. I understand the 'custodian' thing but most people in modern life want to be able to customise their living arrangements. In the end, the legal/illegal test trumps the moral/immoral one.

The bunion analogy doesn't hold up. But I think we are agreed that it is always an option to decline to do the work. But it's the customer's decision to ask.

You can object to a TPO. It's not known as an appeal. In your case you would have to be objecting on the basis tha ttrees are blocking your access. If the Council agreed it would have to modify the Order to exclude those trees or allow works to them. But in reality if they are blocking a lawful use of the lane, they aren't even protected because there is a statutory exemption for tree works to prevent or abate a nuisance. Even if the TPO stands, and assuming you have a legal right of use of the lane, you wouldn't even need to apply, you could just do the crown lifting. Even if it's not that clear-cut, you could apply and a refusal is unlikely. Objecting to the Order won't change any of that.

What's the problem? It's her tree. If you don't believe it should be reduced, buy the house off her. Someone will do the work, There is no right or wrong answer, it's a matter of professional reputation and personal standards about whether any individual is willing to do it. Repeat, it's her tree. Thousands of trees in the UK get reduced or removed unnecessarily every week. Much worse things happen. Social media experts treat private property as if it's public. Want to control, criticise or influence what gets done by private individuals to their private property that they inhabit, but don't want to compensate owners for having the choice taken away from them. It's generally a good idea not to try and look fancy by calling customers 'clients', but in this case it definitely isn't.

The legislation exempts the 'local planning authority', as shown in the guidance too. But what McClellan v Lambeth showed was that the exemption was not free rein by a Council to do whatever it wants under different departments and legislation. I suppose the way to see it is that the planning authority is exempt on the presumption that internally the authority has had the opportunity to consider the effect of the removal on the amenity and special cahracter of the conservation area. But in McClellan the decision to remove CA trees was made by Cabinet and not planning committee and there was no record of the planning department having been asked if it was OK. Therefore it was an abuse of the presumption. The court decided that if the planning authority had been asked there might have been (not necessarily would have been) a different decision. I think it's best to assume that the requirement to consult with the public is definitely not trumped by the CA exemption and that the highways authority should at least internally notify the planning authority (if it is the same Council) and must notify it externally (s.211) if it is not the same Council.