oslac

Why is the retention of the structural roots (other than anchorage) be more important than the loss of the fibrous root system and associated root hairs? If water and dissolved nutrients are unable to enter into the tree's system, then the tree will stress and possible die.

We have been creating methodology for some time to allow structures to be constructed over RPA's. It started with garages and now it mostly involves house. Generally, it is easy to deal with the RPA, the big problem though is the crowns and many developers haven't got the hang of crown growth and future crown growth. Micro-piles with an above ground ring beam. Concrete floor cast over a clay former which disintegrates. If required, channel the roof water under the building. There are other site-specific add-ons which is likely to be required such as de-compaction prior to starting works. I would say that it is easier to demonstrate that the RPA will not be affected by the construction of a house than say a parking bay or terrace. I have never recommended geocell of any sort within this methodology, perhaps someone could explain the point of it in this instance. Someone mentioned about the loss of RPA and how much a tree can withstand. I would ask the question which is, what is an RPA? Yes I know what the BS says but what is the RPA? How did the 12 times rule appear because from my knowledge, many tree roots extend well beyond this distance and so some bright spark has made a judgement call between how much root removal a tree can cope with balanced against the need to develop land in close proximity to trees. I also know the answer because I asked the BS author during his seminar travels how the 12 times rule occurred and he admitted that it was a judgement call based on no research . . and we all fall into line.

Didn't want to be harsh but you have to say it as it is. Good luck with your decision making

If you are employed by the Client to carry out a BS survey with a view to developing the land, I think it would be highly unethical to go behind the Clients back to the LPA. Just thinking about it, in my opinion, is pretty unprofessional. You are employed to carry out a survey not go running to the LPA. If the Client wishes to fell "amazing" trees and they are not protected, that is his choice and his ethical stance may be called into question. If you don't like what he is doing, don't ask for payment and walk away and I would seriously question if you are in the right job. As a consultant, it is not your job to run around saving trees (unless that is what someone is paying you to do), it is your job to do what you have contractually agreed to do with your Employer, whilst following your various Codes of Conduct and the law.

We do all make mistakes but this was a pretty fundamental mistake which should not have occurred. The first decision was not the mistake, the first mistake was making a second decision and the second mistake which is the reason that the TO needs to rethink his knowledge, is that he came up with a totally different opinion about the tree. And assuming that Stubby's comments are correct, there should not have been any reluctance with letting the original decision stand. Fortunately I do not have to take my cs39 but I do keep up to date with CPD as required by the Arb Assoc.

The TO has no option but to allow felling. You have permission to fell which lasts two years. The council or his Admin team should have flagged this up prior to making the second decision. Hopefully, they will get their procedures in place to stop this happening again. Stick to the approval notice and take no further notice of what the TO has to say. I would't meet him/her on site because there is no need for further discussion. As to the inconsistency of the TO. Perhaps the TO needs to go back to college if one day he says one thing and the next, he says the opposite. What hope do we have if the Council can be so wrong.

If you want to remove ivy from a TPO tree, go ahead. There is no requirement to seek approval from the council. If you cause harm to a protected species i.e. bats or bat roosts, you are likely to be in trouble and therefore I suggest, you make yourself certain that there is no likelihood that bats or their roosts are harmed.

I am surprised that Highways want this to happen as the crossover is close to a junction and that sight lines are obscured by two great big trees. An accident waiting to happen. However if the council is adamant, then just do it. I think everyone can over-think these issues and cost a lot of time and money in the process. Will the trees be affected . . probably yes. Will they be seriously affected . . probably not. Porous materials can be used or drain to a shrub bed or lawn which will get past any SUDS requirements. One solution would be to create two pathways for the vehicle's wheels whilst leaving the central part of the drive untouched. any major root can be sleeved and retained. If no roots then incorporate a root barrier to prevent any future conflict. Should the council remove on-street parking to allow everyone to drive around faster and therefore make the streets more dangerous . . . probably not.

I think this is a minefield. Most trees groups will have a remaining life expectancy of 40 years and as such, other than the U cat, life expectancy is a bit meaningless. Many groups could sit in B/C cat, or even A/B. I have met many a planner though who will refuse any planning application if an A cat tree is implicated and also many who see all B cat trees as sacred. We can no longer look at a tree or a group and make a judgement based on anything other than the cascade chart but the cascade chart along with an awful lot of the BS is cobblers as it sets tree officers, arb consultants, planners, developers and Contractors off against one another and may the strongest win. Often individual trees within a group are C cat but the group as a whole is B cat . . . So to answer your question . . . derrrrr!!!

And there we have a fully compliant member of society . . no trouble to no-one. . .

I see where you are coming from but I am having difficulty with the precision of what you are saying. To be destroyed to a point where it no longer provides the same visual amenity - Does this mean that destruction means the removal of a twig or two twigs or three twigs - how many twigs need to be removed to equate with destruction. Also, where in the law does it say that destruction equates to not providing the same visual amenity. Also also, what about removal of roots and what happens if a large chunk of the RPA was removed but there was no affect on the visual amenity.

Interesting this and good to see offences for carrying out unapproved works on a TPO tree taken to court. How fair it is, may be a different issue. The owner was a pensioner and hit with £3K of fines when I see contractors doing far worse and getting away with it. The charge seems to be carrying out unapproved works to a TPO tree which is likely to destroy it. Proving this seems to be something that could probably have been challenged in court. Does the law require the tree to die or just no longer look like a tree. If the tree was a lime, could the same charge be brought as the regenerative ability of lime trees are renowned. What if, the tree survives and regenerates, do you think the pensioner could get her money back and the criminal record removed?

Maybe but whilst the AA excludes promotion for their own Members at the expense of Registered Consultants, it is not acting like a professional body. It is unlikely that the Queen, as you say but actually the Privee Council will confer professional status on the AA for the same Members as the IFC because it is not to do with how wonderful the AA is but about profesionalism and part of the requirements of the professional body is to act as the lead consultant to the Government which can not be carried out by two seperate organizations. It is similar to Landscape Architecture where the professional body is the Landscape Institute and BALI is a trade body which actually does fantastic things to support and market the landscape industry. BALI, as with the AA confers post-nominals on its Members which make people think it is a professional body.

I think the ICF is the only professional body for arboriculture in the UK. The rest and the AA included are trade bodies who wrap themselves up as a professional body. This is why the AA has gone down the road of linking in with the Chartered Environmentalists.

I have come across TO's who have been generally useless and so involved in nit-picking minor points that I lose the will to live and I have come across TO's who are excellent and totally understanding of the planning system and where trees fit into this. I have also come across consultants who are just the same. There is no legal protection to the title of TO or Arb Consultant. I also come across TO's who question my landscape proposals when the TO has no knowledge of landscape and I am a Chartered Landscape Arch . . that is a bit galling but the TO generally holds the power. Sometimes and in fact all times, it is not appropriate to carry out some personal battle with the TO just because the TO is acting like a nob, all at your Clients expense. My view is to be pragmatic. Fight your battles when you can and give way at other times and if the TO wants RPA's shown on the planning document, then let him/her have it.

I always include RPA's on the TPP. It allows the TO to see clearly that your location for the tree protection respects the RPA. Paul mentioned that the information in relation to RPA's is shown on the TCP except that the TCP no longer (officially) exists and is no longer considered a planning document but an internal design document. If the site is complex, I would draw it on a bigger bit of paper (larger scaled plan) or split the site into areas and show part of the site on each TPP. Although it's a nice thought that tree consultants are believed by TO's when it comes to showing tree protection, as we know anyone and everyone can be a tree consultant and I can see why the TO would want their life made easier by giving the tree protection/RPA information on the same plan although, I don't think there is any requirement in BS 5837 to do so.

An appeal decision does not form a precedent which can later be relied on by another Inspector. All appeals are judged on their individual merit and many Inspectors start from the status quo. The tree exists, it is there, it is protected by a TPO and the TO has refused permission. Now what is the owner/Agent/Consultant bringing to the table which will make the Inspector reverse the decision of the LPA. My view is that it is usually very difficult to persuade the Inspector to go against the decision of the council unless a lot of money is thrown at the appeal for additional surveys etc in which case, the sufficient evidence reason is, by default, no longer valid. When I was a TO, I never lost an appeal and now as a consultant, I hardly ever win one . . strange but true. It seems that the Inspector, with great wisdom can see things which I am unable to see. I have had Inspectors who have stated within their reason for supporting the LPA's decision, that a back garden is a public place because a sufficient number of neighbour's can see a tree growing there. Another Inspector agreed with the TO, that a row of leylandii's were in fact a group of trees and were legitimately protected by a TPO. Not sure where any of that sits in law but the great wisdom of the Inspector is like the great wisdom of the TO . . beyond my understanding.

When it comes to approving the felling of a TPO tree, the TO is often between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, the TO wants what's best for the tree and safety but has to balance this with Amenity Value and the opinion of the LPA's elected Members (who originally approved the TPO) and also public opinion. Many TO lack the ability and possibly skill to identify hazards in trees and to determine the risk of failure. Arb Consultants, who hopefully have the skill, knowledge and experience, provide reports to the TO of their expert opinion but sadly, many TO's do not trust the opinion of the Consultant. I have had feedback from TO's that I have not provided sufficient evidence that the tree is hazardous in some way. To me, this is often a cop out. The TO has received a report from and expert but still wants more. This often results with the requirement for a picus or resistograph inspection. All good so far until the bill is sent to the hapless tree owner. The bill is now hitting £800-£1000 with no guarantee that the tree or tree part will be removed. I can now see where the tree owner is coming from when the owners liability could be moved to the LPA on refusal of tree works. As some great once said "the tree you see this year is not the tree you saw last year" which means that the tree is constantly changing and as such, any Consultants report is only valid for a period of time. This period is normally set out within the tree report. Note to folks, limit how long your report is valid for. As far as council liability is concerned, I would be surprised that the council would be liable except in cases of gross negligence (what ever that is). The council will rely on their reasons for refusal and the classic reason is . . . insufficient evidence has been provided to allow the council to determine the application (this is the cop out clause).

Oh! and if any Tree Officer is reading this . . I think you are all very fine people, doing a very important job and I have full respect for you and any decision that you may come to . . .

I normally tell the Architect/Planning Consultant/ Client what he is likely to require and why. If I am ignored or if the application has already been submitted and approved, I pick up the pieces. The issue isn't about the Architect but about the LPA who has determined the application without sufficient information. It may be that the TO wasn't even aware but we are where we are and the bottom line is that, no BS survey was carried out, the application was approved and an AMS is required. In a perfect world, perfect things happen but we often get applications similar to this. There is no point blaming anyone. If you think the Architect/Client is a numpty then add a numpty charge onto your fee. At least you will be smilling whilst you sort out the mess. If you think that trees need to come out, check the planning condition and if no mention is made of retaining trees then remove them as PD rights. If you are required to retain the trees (which sounds the case), you will need to submit a minor amendment to the application or chat up the TO and see what you can do. The TO may come back with the thought that the application was approved on the understanding that trees remain. The trees may be seen as screening or structural. If this is the case, you could offer up a landscape replanting scheme but all of this is outside of the approval and has no place in planning law. Any informal agreement could not be enforced. Once a material start has begun, you have indefinate time to complete the development. Normally planning conditions require a material start within 3 years but not completion. Normally planning conditions last for 5 years and if the retention of trees is required as part of the approval, once the five year period is up, you are free to fell as long as the tree is not protected in some other way. What is the LPA? I find that we deal with numerous LPA's but generally they have completely different requirements from one TO to the next and from one LPA to another. Generally TO (in my opinion) are a bunch of nutters but sadly a bunch of nutters who have too much power and spend too long dealing with trivial planning issues. There are, of course, one or two who are very good but generally . . nutters

Not sure the Architect is responsible for initiating the AIA. As long as everything is above board ie, trees were accurately shown on the supplied plans and the application form identified that trees were present. The council should have refused to register the application until sufficient information (about trees) were submitted. As they did not require this information, it can be assumed that they had sufficient information to approve the application. The council has acknowledged the presence of trees on the site by conditioning an AMS. My view would be to attend site, carry out basic measurements of trunk, crown , species etc. overlay this information including the RPA onto the approved plan and produce method statements and Tree Protection Plan. Approval for the development has been given and as such, the development will be constructed. You only need to work out how. There should be a proposal plan which shows the proposed building, driveways etc and this plan should show trees. From this it can be assummed that no tree needs to be felled. If you want to remove trees, you will need to survey the trees (condition report) and either include this within your documentation and see if it will be approved or speak with the TO. A 'U' cat tree is a 'U' cat tree is a 'U' cat tree. NOT to be kept. If there is sufficient space to carry out the approved scheme, why remove any other tree. Unless you have shown on an approved plan that you are going to remove a tree, you will not normally be able to remove a tree.

I think the highways would call it encroachment and no-doubt the local bylaws say the same but it is also a trespass. As one legal bright spark said to me "law will always take precedence over an absence of law". In other words, if the law of trespass is stronger than the laws governing encroachment, a legal bigwig will probably go for the trespass.

Hedge looks great and a fantastic feature for the village but unless it is formally protected in some way (can't see that as a possibility) then the hedge is just that a hedge and it appears to be trespassing onto someone else's land and like many a folk on this forum would agree, if it trespasses, then remove the trespass. Perhaps the owner of the hedgerow should have foreseen that his hedge would cause a problem and maybe he should have managed it so that it wouldn't trespass over the public footpath. Is it not likely that once the hedge is reduced to the boundary line that in a couple of years it will have greened up and no-one would be any the wiser. So now look at it from the council's viewpoint. They have had a legitimate complaint and if they now do nothing (i.e. allow the hedge to block the footpath) and an accident occurs, for whatever reason and the blocking of the footpath is cited in mitigation, where does the council stand. It's a hard one to swallow but mum and her pushchair and two kids meets man with dog and nutter boy-racer comes along . . . big problem and the council will no doubt be blamed in part. It is very easy to make the decision to keep the hedge as it is but what happens when the hedge grows another six inches over the footpath. It looks to me that the council is between a rock and a hard place.

Apologies for getting the wrong end of the stick. Your "Here you go" was interpreted as a justification for the link rather than the posting of the link.

Except that emotion has no place in law. Stick to the facts and provide suitable evidence which will be believed by the court. When the law is changed and it becomes legal to prosecute on the grounds that the LA think an offence may be committed, that is the day to shut up shop and hoist the red flag . . . kafkaesque or what.