daltontrees

Petrol Retail | Safety Pass Alliance

There is no requirement for replanting in a CA if you have given notification under s.211. The legislation for TPOs and CAs is similar enough that it i common for Councils to use the same form for both, but the legislation is fundamentally different in a couple of respects. You are not asking for permission, you are telling the Council that you propose to remove trees. You need only wait, either for 6 weeks to pass or for a TPO to be served. So your notification is valid and the Council cannot deem it invalid because of the replanting intentions not being stated. If I were you I'd let the Council know that you consider that in a CA you are not required to say anything about replanting and that you consider the notiication has been given with effect at the original date. And leave it at that.

Fair enough, the head is long enough.

The third one I think is the soldier beetle Cantharis rustica.

No. 2 is the click beetle Agriotes lineatus.

Possibly, but if she had come a cropper while driving because of cyanide poisoning it wold make for a very interesting court case. Would the duty holder be expected to have foreseen the circumstances and therefore guarded against it? It would be right up there with the famous 'Wagon Mound' case.

I did say 'could have led to ...'. I have no sympathy for her unless she was told it was safe to take the stuff and drive with the windows shut for an hour. With or without poly bags.

Sorry to disagree but a n hour in a car with P. laurocerasus chip with a lot of leaf in it and no ventilation could have led to the breathing in of enough hydrogen cyanide to cause dizziness or even unconsciousness for the driver. But note, I said leaf. Being evergreen, P. l. wood will usually get chipped with leaf. Should you have foreseen its theft and the consequences? That's a different matter. Or did you give someone permission to take it?

I suppose that has to be strictly correct, but it's a poor situation that would allow a notifier to wait 6 weeks then believe he had the right to remove a tree, and then have that right removed by the making of 'late' a TPO by a Council that didn'tt get its act together quickly enough. Put another way, the TPO has to be based on expediency including a real or pereived threat that the tree's amenity may be lost, but the Councils (inactions) suggest no such urgency. Mynors in the 1st edition refers to R. v North Hertfordshire District Council ex parte Hyde confirms that the tree is unprotected in the intervening period. If it were my tree and I had lined up a squad of guys to remove trees after the 6 weeks was up and then got a TPO I'd be fizzing. There may be a basis for compensation. Oh, and as usual don't rely on any of this stuff for Scotland. And if there's a lesson for the determined notifier, get the notification to stick with a reliably recorded dte a tthe Council's correct address and have the saws idling just before midnight 6 weeks later. it's a sad state of affairs that encourages this sort of attitude but 6 weeks should be long enough for any Council to make a TPO.

Well, who knows? Looking up pests that affect Cedar on the FC site throws up Bursaphelenchus xylophilus (Pine Wilt Disease) too, and americaln sites confirm this will kill a tree within weeks. Such rapid deaths are like nthe good old bad old DED, complete dysfunction of the vascular system. In PWD it is caused by nematodes rupturing the resin ducts, seemingly causing tracheid cavitation and as the American Phytopathological Society puts it 'just as a person cannot drink through a straw with holes in it, the tree cannot move water upward and consequently wilts and dies'. The US site does not list Cedar as a host, but the FC certainly suggests it. HF is a rank amateur compared to these instant killer diseases.

Hope rather than expectation by me, thought I'd ask anyway. I'm on the Sirococcus scent anyway.

I think Kveldssanger referred to it a while ago in his arb facts thread. I'd get it if I could pick up a used copy. It's a bit of a luxury at £40 new.

Which species of Phytopthora?

This appears more likely than Phytopthora. It's called Sirococcus tsugae. The best evidence that can be gathered is the distinctive pink dead needles, I read these then turn brown so it'll be important to observe them while still pink. I'd say Forestry research would be interested in following up a report of a suspected case.

More than opinion, that is the position in law. The history of analogous situations is that 6 weeks means 6 weeks and tim is 'of the essence'. A late TPO might be valid, but so would a notification that got no response within 6 weeks. Daughter thinks these emoticons are appropriate here.:fight:

A. I don't think there is a statutory answer to this. If the Act calls for written notification (s.211) to the LPA, it's not to the Plannign Dept. it's to the Council. Let its mail dept. redicrect it to the right dept. I always put mine in to the Council's registered address (HQ) unless the Council has published (usually on its website) where notifications are to be sent. If, however, the Council takes it a little further and individual TOs state that they accept emails directly to the TO, then the Council cannot subsequently say that a notification was late or wrongly submitted. The picture is a little blurry recently because of the use of emails. There is statute providing for what constitutes 'writing' and the like and whether emails count. But if an email is accepted, that's the end of it. Always ask for an acknowledgement. In my case I follow emails up with a letter. B. It doesn't state this anywhere, it doesn't have to. The legislation ust requires sufficient info to identify the tree(s). C. No. A safe bet is to assume a letter will take say 2 working days to get to the Council, and its response will take the same to come back. So if you allow 6 weeks and 2 working days and get no written response, you are immune from prosecution if you do the notified tree work. Even, dare i say it, if the Council subsequently TPOs the trees.

No picture

I have come across this sort of NR money-printing madness. And recently I tried to get to the bottom of it to see on what basis NR can insist on supervising. Indeed, on what basis canit insist on tree removal or pruning. I was unable to find anything but the most ancient and vague of legislation. The bottom line from NR's side seems to be a zero tolerance of risk. The rest of us mere mortals are bound by law only to avoid foreseeable risk that would cause significant harm or injury. NR seems to have a culture of insisting on H&S measures whether it is right to or not. Although I don't envy your situation, if I were in it I would be insisting on a definite statement of NR's legal basis for requiring all these measures. If I didn't get one, then it's a common law issue, involving the usual (mortals) level of duty of care. For the sake of this forum, can you say if it is an eletrified line with overhead wires?

Your splendid fungi directory lists this as saprophytic, but do you know if it is capable of killing wood at the margins? I have been assuming this to be the case but based on fery few occasions where I have had a chance to observe its progression over a couple of years.

It'd be interesting to see how that would go on big jobs. Any moisture at all causes cyanoacrylate to forma skin and harden, so I' wondering if nail varnish remover would act as a suitable thinner and allow deeper penetration before evaporating and letting atmospheric moisture cause the CA to harden. I have a sneaking suspicion that that's how the commercially available wood hardeners work. They are horrendously expensive and a rotted wood sill will drink a whole tin in no time, but it they could be mixed in bulk it would be well useful. Or they might explode, try at your own peril folks and if you survive maybe let us know how it went. I think CA mixed with sawdust can be used as a bulk void filler.

I did half of the Glasgow iTree survey, it put monetary value on hundreds of individual trees. Conversely, I have used Helliwell fo about 20 trees. I will never use CAVAT. I have played with CTLA but have resorted to first principles of DRC in preference to using it fully. So for me iTrees is the commonest.

See my reply to Paul. There is one main flaw, and as such Helliwell valuiations cannot be considered valuations in any conventional sense. CAVAT carries an equally fundamental flaw.

That's what I meant by Helliwell being a comparative system rahter than an absolute one. It originated as you say to quanmtify amenity, then it was later monetised. And that's the flaw with it, the points are multiplied bya published £ per point All trees valued by the Helliwell system are valued by a committee of the AA that comes up with that £ per poiint figure. There is no objective basis for it.

I think by sheer volume the mostly used is CTLA, which is at the core of iTrees.

Did you mean 'flawed'?