daltontrees

Only time I ever wore one was when surveying trees on a local golf course. My survey method statement says that a tree is not approached until it has been looked over from a safe distance for obvious hazards. Climbing inspections are another matter. And while on that subject, I recently was asked to provide £5M public liability insurance for climbing surveys (£800 p.a.). Since I don't have PLI for any ther reason I told the client that I would take the job on if he paid the premium on top of my fee. He gave in.

8 + 27 = 35 weeks. 8 months. Quite frankly ridiculous. Is there any reason why a Council can't determine an application after appeal and have the appeal withdrawn (assuming it's an approval)? Last time I threatened a non-determination appeal the TO went out to it the next day and approved it the day after that. Appeals in Scotland rarely take more than 3 months, usually only 2. I've never seen an appeal against non-determination. TPOs seems to be rarer up here though.

Yes we are mixing terminology for two related things (i) All confirmed TPOs must be kept available for inspection (but not necessarily inthe form of a 'register' (ii) All TPO applications must be available for inspection in a public register. So to clarify my ealrier comments, I mean that the non-availability of a TPO for inspection, free of charge, at all reasonable hours, at the offices of the planning authority by whom the tree preservation order was made, is a breach of Regulations, both sides of the border, and that Mynors alludes to this being a defence against prosecution.

The damage is already done. Best not to do anything else on site without the Council's agreement. Meantime, grovel.

I recently visited Highland Council's offices and insisted on seeing a TPO. There wqs no Register, but they jumped thrugh hoops to get me the info. Eventually. Ditto East Renfrewhsire. It doens't have a register. There's a related issue, and it's importance varies between Scotland and England. Knowing the existence or even extent of a TPO is not enouhg, as the contents of Orders is not stnadard. Just to makr absoultely certain that no-one can assume what a TPo contains, the Scvottish Parliament revoked the Regulations that contained the TPO pro-forma, and replaced them with a Model Order which is not mandatory. Worse still, up here the exemptions are in the Act, not in the new Regs. England does it the other way around.

If you read the article you may conclude that CAVAT makes little or no attempt to measure the environmental benefits from trees. It's an accounting exercise for trees as assets and an optimistic starting point for compensation for tree loss or damage. Helliwell makes no effort to value environmental benefits. itree eco makes an effort.

I've put the Council on notice to that effect, but mainly to incentivise it to get its act (or should that be Act) together. On the basis of Jo Heuch's pertinent observation that no copy of confirmed TPO means no enforcement, that could be right. On the other hand, the Council may have confirmend and recorded the TPOs but can't or won't get a copy form Sasines unless it is contemplating a prosecution. So what I have done instead is told the Council that if I or a client try to find out if there is a TPO on a tree only by visiting the Council office and asking to see the register, then no register entry means no enforceable TPO. I think there is some allusion to this defence in Mynors.

I'm going to stick my neck out and add that I don't think public access to TPOs comes under the Environmental Information Regulations because it is prescribed separately, predating the EIR by 14 years down there.

I've had a quick look at tthe decision. Looks like the Council refused a FoI request correctly on the basis that the info was available as 'environmental' info by another established process at its office. The decision arrived at a criticism of how much the Council charged for the information rather than that it wrongly refused FoI or wrongly made charges. The amount was just too much. I had this recently at a Council who wanted to charge a very large amount for a print-out of a planning permission or any part of it. I visited the office instead and got the whole file for free on my memory stick.

I have been on the receiving end of this. "Reasonably accessible" doesn't have to mean free, nor does it have to mean available from the Council. Anyone (but usually conveyancers) can obtain land charges information for a fee from the Land Registry. I would expect a Council to reject such a request. I amn't aware of that case, I'll have a look.

There's a FoI exemption for "Information which is reasonably accessible to the applicant otherwise than" under an FoI request. So if land charges can be obtained by a conventional public process (free or otherwise), an FoI could be refused.

My local Council (South lanarkshire Council) has admitted it has no copies of its TPOs before 1996. They're all delineated in the Local Plan but no paperwork. An area of 1,800km2.

I just re-read the OP. The brick wall is on an old sandstone footing. That explains the lack orf resistanc eto movement of the wall and the legth of wall affected by the movement. I withdraw my suggestion fo a concrete beam. It's too late for that. It probably needs a lot of wall and footings removed, mini-piles inserted wherever possible between roots and a ground beam cast on top then rebuild wall. The LPA may well be in the compensation zone and the approval may partly be a refelction of that.

We could bring down the government by getting Trump to project manage the building of the wall...

I expect there are privacy and conservation area reasons for not doing the fence or railing solution which is in all other respects really the obvious choice. And perceived value of tree to its owners versus costs of solution. Removing the tree won't fix the wall, either, so there's possibly goung to be building work anyyway, and it's the extra cost of work due to retaining the tree that needs to go into the equation.

Interesting and useful experience, thanks

I am assuming he means a 'challenge' under s.288 of the validity of an Order on point of law.

Judicial Review?

I think the key is in detaching the defective foundation from the good foundation so that the former can move below ground and not affect the latter. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the foundation had failed there partly because it was thinner than normal, and was built like that because of existing roots and buttresses.

It looks like the crack starts below ground i.e. the foundation has failed. Expansion joints will only allow more movement, OK if it's seasonal movement that opens and closes, but no good if it's progressive. A solution in the short term is theoretically possible. However, it would involve cutting the broken section of foundation adrift from the good sections on either side. Remove section of wall racked down on either side, back a couple of feet on either side, cut down to the underside of the foundation but leave in place. Lay G8 or K9 lintel at just above ground level, but bedded only on section of wall that has remained in place, not on the cut-adrift section. Rebuild wall above it. Reduce to 1/2 brick thick for last couple of courses to buy a few years against contact by the stem. Even better, omit a course. Use a 50:50 portland:lime mortar, well plasticised, and it will give some flexibility. That's if the foundation has failed. it's basically a bridge across the closest section of tree. K9s are breathtakingly heavy. No tree will lift it purely by growth increments.

A few carvings I saw at the weekend for those who like that sort of thing

Strictly speaking, the purple-leaved variety of Myrobalan Plum is called Pissard's Plum Prunus cerasifera var Pissardi also known as Prunus cerasifera "Atropurpurea". The green-leaved Myrobalan seems to be less popular.

That's the best guess so far. The flowers are still emerging and look like they will be in clumps like Mulberry. Hop hornbeam flowers are of the dangly catkin kind and Davidia flowersa re the 'handkerchiefs' that give it it's common name. Right shape of juvenile leaf for Morus alba. Rosales anyway.

Aniother long and complicate Arbtalk speculation thread. Nothing wrong with that per se but what I'd do is wait until the application is determined and then decide either to give up or to appeal. A rubbed soffit is a long way below the £500 de minimis compensation threshold and a long time before the situation is serious. The compensation rights will expire long before then.

Well if it's n fault of their own, they shouldn't be having to replace it at all. Did they wilfully destroy or damage it? If not, no offence, no replacement requirement. Seeing it from LA side, doing a CAVAT or Helliwell valuation might give £300 for a 14-16 and £3,000 for a 45-60. That's value, not cost. Which is meant to be a measure of amenity contribution. Maybe LA isn't thinking about cost at all. I don't sense any punishment motive. But as I say, no offence, no replacement. Initially you said trees 'were removed' but now it's tha they were vandalised. And replacement is being asked for. You could say no and offer a 14-16, explaining that no liability is accepted for the loss (vandalism) and that a semi mature is prohibitively expensive. Put teh offer in writing 'without prejudice' and see if the LA has the temerity to prosecute instead. Smaller trees estabilsh better anyway. Personally I have had very few scrapes with LAs (in Scotland the Councils don't give enough of a damn about trees to prosecute anyway) but 14-16 is as much as I've been asked for. I'm involved in a negotiated removal of 7 or 8 publicly visible early mature Sycamores and the Council is happy with heavy standards.