kev7937

If you're thinking about the hb20 I'd recommend taking a Dan equip 25sp for a test drive, we find it's a much better machine and gets in a lot more tight gardens despite being an inch wider.

http://www.danequip.co.uk/our-products/25-27sp-grinder/

Looks like prunus to me then, not sure on species though.

Awful news to hear, he was the lad holding his business card up in his profile pic I think and only young.

Never know what to write in these situations but please pass on my sympathies.

And what's it doing fruiting at this time?

I'd always thought as they flower early the fruit would be early too.

Never kept a diary mind.

This does not look like Prunus, it looks like Malus. If you can, open one of the fruit. It will be plain even in the unripe state whether it has a stone (Prunus and other genera) or pips (Malus/Pyrus and a few other genera).

I'd say the opposite twig, bud and fruit look most prunus like to me leaf alone may cause confusion but all together says prunus.

Waiting for the fruit to be dissected now.

Prunus cerasifera maybe.

Apricot looks good. Ta all.

Pretty sure it's prunus

Quick glance at Phillips book didn't help

Prunus???

Yep. Prunus😊

Judas tree ?

Mid Surrey farm, Reigate rd, Epsom take green waste and supply topsoil

Home base is 2 mins down the road for turf or Royce turf are a bit more specialised but in the other direction towards cobham, they'll deliver though.

Would it not help to start at the end of the log rather than the middle?

No decent bud pics??

My uncle used to do an enormous amount of metal detecting and would often bring back live .50 calibre rounds.

He once put one in a vice and hit the pin with a hammer and nail.

He only did it once.

 

Sent from my SM-G900F using Arbtalk mobile app

One of my pals got hold of some blanks some how when we were kids, not sure what they were but they wouldn't have looked out of place slung round Rambo's shoulders.

Bored one evening we thought it would be a good idea to get a hacksaw on them to release the gunpowder, after a few minutes and only half way through due to a blunt saw we put a match to one.

Only did that once too.

I emailed your details to timberwolf just yesterday kev, I expect they will be in touch shortly

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

Ta. 🙂👍🏻👍🏽👍🏿

Timberwolf - £400 forestandarb voucher - 2664013 kev7937

How do I go about claiming my prize pls Steve?

Is it just a case of contacting forest and Arb or do I need a code?

Thanks again. 🙂

We've installed the spikes using cable ties and applied the gel to branches up a cedar as well, no idea how effective it was though. I was of the opinion they'd just move to the next branch but at least that moved the problem onto a flower bed rather than the patio

I think people would be less dismissive if it was there kids getting coated in bird poo and treading it all over the place

Timberwolf - £400 forestandarb voucher - 2664013 kev7937

Wow Big thanks to Steve and to Timberwolf, the best Sunday morning surprise in a long while.😀😀😁😁😁

I would take great pleasure in telling him he is an idiot. I've enforced old TPOs with misidentified trees. I've also had legal departments refuse to enforce TPOs which were spot on for other reasons.

 

 

 

When you present these issues to the council legal department they will look at what are called mitigating and aggravating factors. Its what John was referring to when he mentioned using it as a defence, i.e. wrong tree on the schedule, I didn't know, Its not my fault - mitigating factor. But what if the tree officer had sent you an email saying that the tree on the schedule marked as a Norway maple is actually a sycamore and that it was just a minor mistake. That he advised that the tree was still protected and made reference to a site meeting where he advised you of the same. These would be aggravating factors. It would be a good idea to vary but I doubt you would get far with the defence of its not got the correct name on the schedule.

 

 

 

Anyway, its not misidentified. Its down as a deciduous tree which it is, and I suspect they will modify on confirmation to include the species. I cant really see a problem with that.

 

 

 

Cheers

Yep it's not a great problem I just thought I'd try and clarify it for the client as I felt a bit sorry for him really.

We wouldn't have removed the tree ourselves on a technicality, not really a great believer on peeing on your own doorstep.

Thanks for the input though.

I was definitely taught at college that a misidentified tree made the Tpo unenforceable, this was from a visiting tree officer who as I recall took great pleasure in informing us little loopholes and ways to get round them.

Not saying he's correct but i thought it may have helped our client in this situation, who fwiw I have more sympathy for now I know he isn't a developer but was extending the property for himself.

As previously stated there is no requirement to describe the tree with absolute accuracy on the plan or schedule. As long as it can be identified from the documents it should be ok. Even if the plan and schedule conflict the guidance accounts for this saying that the plan takes precedence.

 

 

 

I suspect what they will do is modify the schedule on confirmation to state the species. As this doesn't have to be for 6 months they will be able to check the tree when in leaf and the confirm subject to a modified first schedule.

 

 

 

Its not uncommon for trees to be misidentified on a TPO. Everyone comes across trees they don't know from time to time.

 

 

 

Out of interest what is the tree?

 

 

 

Cheers

Thanks

It's a common walnut so pretty easy to Ident really, I suspect they haven't actually visited the site but have tpo'd it at the request of the neighbour who was a little bit over enthusiastic telling us how much he hated the tree and wanted it out.

I guess you could see it from street view to give a rough idea if it was worth protecting.

Only option is to formally object, if there's sufficient reason, and within 28 days. Otherwise an application to remove, again with suitable reasons...but then sure you were aware of that anyway.

 

Cheers

 

Paul

Yeah they're gonna object so will see what happens.

Thanks again.

As Paul says it's not essential in all cases. The current Government guidance does say that "Where a Tree Preservation Order may be justified, the officer should gather sufficient information to enable an accurate Order to be drawn up. The officer should record the number and species (or at least the genus) of the individual trees or groups of trees to be included in the Order and their location. A general description of genera should be sufficient for areas of trees or woodlands."

 

 

 

And for groups, the TPO has to be in the form set out in the 2012 Regs and therefore 'must' record the number of eachg tree species, so arguably a group Order is technically wrong if it doesn't.

 

 

 

It's a pretyyu poor effort not to know the species. How can the Council know what amenioty it provides if they don't know it's basic growth characteristics?

 

 

 

But if there's only one tree at the location on the plan, not getting the species may not be fatal to the Order's effect. If there are two trees, either of which could be the plotted one, the TPO's potentially unenforceable.

Thanks, it's pretty clear from the map which tree it's for and to be fair it's a nice tree but imo it's too close to the present property to reach its full potential and has certainly thrown a rather large spanner in the works for the developer.

Thanks Paul

It's an individual tree we were due to take down today but they chucked a Tpo on it Friday.

It's easily identifiable from the road so I was a bit surprised it was listed as "deciduous tree" and nothing else.

Thanks