daltontrees

Possibly Acer paxii?

Brilliant! Pretty much how it goes. I have a real friend (honest) who yesterday posted a picture of his breakfast. Another sent one of the shower in his B&B. My cousin posted one of her cat's new incontinence matress. Plus a toe-curling pseudo-buddhist morale booster from a friend in Australia, that made me want to smash the screen. And that's just one day of FB. The arbtalk FB page is disgusting, thank goodness it exists because it keeps the dickheads away from the Forum, and it is still possible to have a civilised conversation. Or an uncivilised one with civilised people.

A hedge is a row of trees and/or shrubs. The trees within it are therefore trees, even if they have been managed as part of a hedge. When they lapse, they become even more like trees in a row. The Council has the ability to TPO trees if they are in a Conservation Area. The hedgeness of them is an arbitrary additional description of the group. What will matter to the Council is whether they come under the heading of "important for the amenity of the area" or whatever the exact wording is of the Planning Acts. I'd say that cutting a tree in a hedge in a CA is potentially an offence, escapable only if the trees are not what one would ordinarily describe as trees. Following recent discussion on Arbtalk, if you advise the customer that they're not trees and that no CA notification is needed, and then you cut them, you may be guilty of the offence. Irritating as a LPA stance on this might be, I'd advise that you proceed with caution. Call it humouring the LPA, call it precautionary, call it professionalism, but you ought either to get a confirmation that you don't have to notify, failing which notify. If you're brave, you could skip this if you are satisfied the hedge comprises shrubs. But you described the 60' row as "a large row of tree's / hedge / screen (conifers)". Are they trees, albeit in a hedge format? If so or if in doubt, notify. You may be able to get an approval to manage them over a period of time, with the LPA's written approval.

The hunting and golfing ones are not very accurate or precise, you'd be lucky to get one that's sub-metre accurate. I use a Trupulse, can't remember the model, but it's not the 360 which is mega expensive and incorporates a very precise compass. I get + or - 0.3m. It can be tripod-mounted for really very accurate surveys, as I found recently in dense woods with no GPS signals, I just measured a traverse all the way through it, and closed the traverse at about 0.6m accuracy after 20 sightings. If it's just for crown spreads and height measurement, Leica do a really robust one that's not a sighting rangefinder, but it's got a little daylight-visible screen on top and is about the size of a TV remote. Point at the tree and fire. I used one for a whole winter in Wales in horrendous conditions and it never let me down. BUuilders use these types and they seem to be pretty tough devices. You have to get one ofr outdoor use though, teh wmpy ones that only work indoors will not hack it adn do not work in bright light. But 99% of the time I count paces, for distances up to 30m I can get it within 2%. No good on steep slopes though.

I'm always nice, if a bit firm. I'm genuinely interested to know if there is a source somewhere that Arbs are quoting from. You might have guessed I disagree with it, but I am curious nevertheless to find the motherlode of tree errata.

Inverted commas? What source is that from?

Here you are. The table at the end is especially useful in understanding the overlaps between ancient and veteran trees. DEFINING_AGE_AND_SURVEYING_VETERAN_AND_ANCIENT TREESa.pdf

Clearly you haven't understood. The same amount of rain falling on the car park will be absorbed by exactly the same area of land, just as with your block paviour solution. There can be no argument that it is increasing run-off. Or to put it another way, your block paviour solution is just as pointless as mine. Arguably more so, as you may require a pipe to the nearest ditch.

The ideal self-contained system is to collect the surface run-off into gullys and then feed the gully-outflows into a network of perforated pipes in filtration trenches immediately beneath the car park. That way there is no net increase in water anywhere, it is simply captured above ground and redistributed evenly below ground. The storage capacity if a large network of pipes is huge. But you need to capture all the water, and have gullys, which means kerbs and careful management of levels. I was involved in doing this for a town centre car park, and as I recall there was no feed into the surface water drainage system offsite.

Like this

An article by Dan Neely in 1991 showed that for several species the forst cut will result in more rapid callus an healing over, the second will cause less dicoloration and decay in teh remaining stem woid but the healing will be markedly slower. In both cases I'd try and get closer to the collar.

I'd love to be defence counsel on a case like this. Jules QC: "So, Mr Defendant, at the time you embarked on cutting down the tree, were you aware of the existence of a Tree Preservation Order" Defendant: "No" Jules QC: "Would it be fair to say that you believed there was no TPO?" Defendant :"Yes". Jules QC: "Did you check?" Defendant: "I didn't need to, the customer checked and showed me copies of correspondence with the Council showing that a search had drawn a blank. Plus I had a meeting on site with the Council's Tree Officer, and he told me there was no TPO". Jules QC: "Your Honour, the copies of the correspondence are in the evidence folder as 'Exhibit A'" "Now, Mr Defendant, did you believe him?" Defendant :"He's the Council Tree Officer, I had no reason not to. He should know, shouldn't he?". Jules QC: "Well, that would be for him to say. We may come to that when we examine his evidence. But for now, do you think that you searching the Council's records at the time the customer did so would have turned up any different answer from the one your customer told you and showed you that he got" Defendant: "Eh? No, that's not possible" Jules QC: "Again, we'll come to that in other evidence. And after that and before you cut the tree, did you receive any notification that a TPO had just been made?" Defendant: "No". Jules QC: "And did your customer tell you that he had received any notification fo a new TPO" Defendant: "No". Jules QC: "Thank you. And in conclusion, is there any way that you could have known that there was a TPO?" Defendant: "No... not unless I had got a solicitor to check ...." Jules QC : "And is that something that you or anyone in the industry routinely does?" Defendant: "I've never done it and I don't know anyone who has" Jules QC: "If that's not a requirement, is there any way you could have known there was a TPO?". Defendant: "I did try, but, no" Jules QC: "Thank you for your candid answers. I have no further qestions"

More options than that, like telling the Council you plan to plead innocent, and ask them what public interest they think the Corwm Prosecution will see being served by pursuing a prosecution. It all depends on the truth.

It seems a prima facie case of inabulity to know of the existence of a TPO. You ask the LPA if the is one and they say no. I can't see that the Vale of Glamorgan defence should not apply to you. Strict liabiity offence + no possibility of knowing it would be an offence = no offence.

I agree and have agreed that (subject to the Vale of Glamorgan get-out) somebody has to get it. And yes it's a matter of apportionment of blame. The 'any person' can be several persons. We're only differning on whether a cotractor can take a client's word for it if the client presents writtee evidence to him of a negative disclosure.

I know, but like Kevin I am holding back 1.95% just in case.

Does anyone on Arbtalk have a practical or theoretical knowledge of the CTLA tree valuation system that I could discuss with or ask a couple of clarification points?

Last bit first. We don't know what happened. It seems likely there is a TPO. I didn't say the contractor has a duty to alert, I said that 'one might argue that...', I was more interested in whether taking a customer's written records of the same searches that a contractor would have made are sufficient to absolve the contractor. I think they are, but you say 'That doesn't mean taking the customers/clients word for it.' We'll just have to agree to disagree, since think that such due diligence as is required of a contractor is just to know that someone checked and that there is a record of the results. I believe the word 'Any' is to make it immaterial whether it is an owner, tenant or occupier, and to include a contractor if the contractor was the guiding force behind the removal. But it doesn't mean the groundie and the climber and the brash rat and the guy who sharpened the saw are guilty. That was what was so edifying about R v Davey, the court was clear that the intention in the Act is to fingd guilty the person that caused or knowingly permitted the felling. An extension of that interpretation would I believe find a contractor wholly or largely responsible if he led a customer to believe that there were no restrictions or that the contractor had checked on their behalf and pretended there were none. Or just as bad, said he would check, hadn't and pretended he had. The courts don't apply laws literally where the outcome would be to punish the innocent. Punishment is a deterrent to others, a public 'flogging', an atonement for conscious wrongdoing, an encouragement of improved behaviour. I do not see that soiciuety's needs would be better served by punishing someone for taking a customer's word and evidence of a negative TPO search. Me, I'd defend my reputation in court until my life savings were gone and I was living in a tent outside the court. But we don't know the facts, so all we can do is rehearse arguments about the generalities. No offence intended. We're allowed to disagree, and God forbid that it is ever tested in court for either of us. I don't even like camping.

I'm slightly relieved that that link didn't work. Sorbus are dirty stop-outs, there's that many freaky hybrids it's like a whole series of the Jeremy Kyle show.

No-one really knows now what they did or did not do... I am thoroughly confused as to who checked what . I will until otherwise persuaded take it that the law intends to punish the person who caused the unlawful work to be done. It is not necessarily the contractor who is to be prosecuted, just because he is the person who felled the tree. If he was instructed to do it, his is merely the tool, not the intent. So we have s210 of rthe 1990 Act - 210 Penalties for non-compliance with tree preservation order. (1) If any person, in contravention of a tree preservation order— (a) cuts down, uproots or wilfully destroys a tree, or (b) wilfully damages, tops or lops a tree in such a manner as to be likely to destroy it, he shall be guilty of an offence." And you might say the 'person' is he who wields the saw. Or is it the groundy that pulled it over, or the trainee who put in the sink cut before the boss did the back cut? Or the climber who stripped it before the groundies felled the pole. Or the boss who gave them the job sheet? No, it's the person who decided it should be done. We saw in the appeal R v Davey (Poole), the judge says "the appellant was convicted of causing or permitting the wilful destruction of the tree, contrary to section 21O(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990". [My emphasis] The appellant was the customer. The eejit with the saw was indicted too because he knowingly aided and abetted, and lied to the court too and was busted for it. Point is (again) it's the person who causes it who is in the wrong. There then comes the question of whose duty it was to check if there was a TPO. In Poole there was no doubt, the appellant knew and got his man to do the deed while the tree's owners were away on holiday (yes, it wasn't even the appellant's tree). One might argue that it's for a professional tree person to alert a customer to the need to check, but I would personally stop short of saying that he is not allowed to take his customer's word for it that the customer has checked. The contractor may have a duty to alert, but he has no duty to police. Just as he doesn't have to order a copy of a customer's title deeds if the customer says he owns a tree. I've never been caught out myself, but then I have laminated copies of every CA and TPO for 50 miles around. I have had people never call me back when I have alaerted them to the likely existence of restrictions, and in the circumstances I was glad not to be drawn in to wilful disregard of restrictions.

Looks like Sorbus intermedia to me.

If there is a TPO you have either been set up (and you have acted in good faith and have been wifully mislead bya customer) or the Council has failed to disclose it after diligent search (and a prosecution would fail, see my earlier reference to Vale of Glamorgan BC v Palmer and Bowles). If there isn't a TPO there's no case to answer. Let's be absolutely clear. Although felling a TPO'd tree is an outright offence and you might only hope to get a way with an admonishment (or a caution if you don't go to court) there is a valid legal defence that it's not an offence if you couldn't have known there was a TPO. Tell your brief to have a look at the case. My favourite quote about the law is that "The law is best applied when it is subservient to the honesty of the case". If you have done nothing wrong and have done what any reasonable person would have done in the circumstances you have nothing to fear. I am reminded of when I sold a house 2 years ago, and due to a completely innocent oversight I stood to lose £7k on a badly documented Green Deal contract for solar panels that we had. Technically I was in the wrong but the other party was trying to take advantage of my mistake even though they had not actually suffered any loss and only stood to gain something tehy had not intended to get. My solicitor, who has been in business for 30 years and knows his stuff told me I had no choice but to pay up. But I told him to tell the other side that I would take it to the Court of Session on one basis alone, that the outcome would be unfair. He said I was on a hiding to nothing. I stood my ground. The other side backed down. The circumstances are nothing to do with trees or TPOs but they are to do with solicitors not always being right, for whatever reasons. The other side I believe to this day knew that they would not win a case against an honest person who had not intentionally done anything wrong. Obviously I am in total gung-ho mode, so what I would do is not for all to follow. I wouldn't even go go court, I'd tell the Council that it's for them to prove that the TPO was available for inspection and to explain why they answered in the negative when enquiries were made. Assuming Kevin's entirely plausible conspiracy theory isn't instead true.

Ahh, further to my rant a few moments ago, I see you said 'client' rather than 'customer'. That's a different relationship, and a different duty to check may arise, depending on terms of appointment.

Yeah definitely doesn't add up. I suppose it's possible that a TPO was made shortly before or after purchase but not conformed, and therefore didn't turn up in conveyancing searches or enquiries. But the new owner should have been notified. I woud accept a caution in this case over my own dead body. IF all we hav ebeen told is accurate, it's ridiculous to expect a tree contractor to take the blame. I don't agree with Edward C, there are situations where it is not necessary to check independently. My standard discussion with customers is 'it is an offence to work on trees in a CA or a TPO, I or you should check.' customer says 'But I have checked, and I've just bought, so a TPO or CA should have turned up in searches, but it didn't so I checked with the Council and they said no CA or TPO.' Me, ' do you have evidence of that?' Customer, 'Yes'. 'Can you send me it?' 'Yes'. Sends it. It's true, LPA says no TPO. End of story, the Planning Acts do not delegate policing of trees to contractors, they say what's an offence and they say that LPAs have to make TPOs known and available for checking. Everyone acted in good faith. It is a valid defence to show tha the Order was not disclosable. This is covered in Vale of Glamorgan v Palmer and Bowles 1983 if anyone wants to check. You'd better do, because you daren't take Dr Charles Mynors MRTPI FRICS IHBC word for it, pop off then and get a law degree before chopping any more trees anywhere. And while I have Mynors' book open, I see he covers who is liable, the contractor or the customer. Well, if nothing else the Aiders and Abettors Act 1980 would leave the customer holding the baby in the circumstances that have been related here, because the contractor would have to have been 'reckless' as to whether a TPO existed. If indeed an offence has been committed in the absence of a discoverable TPO. Caution, my a#%$. I'd take my reputation to hell and back first.

Another interesting option is Gingko biloba 'Autumn Gold'