oslac

Except that its not "here you go" because the council lost the case and the farmer was innocent and awarded costs. Why would you carry out enforcement for something that you think may happen. Surely enforcement relates to the failing of some planning requirement. Enforcement can only be carried out when something is not done in accordance with a planning approval. In this case, there is no planning issue to enforce but there may have been a criminal offence taken place, in which case the council may choose to prosecute or perhaps caution. My view would be to go for the caution and save us all £10K.

If I was coming from this from the point of view of the Tree Officer, I think I would be very cautious. If you are hoping to stop an offence from being committed, you may need to write a very gentle letter to the land owner letting them know that there are protected trees in the field and that livestock may damage those trees and if the damage is proven to be willful and that the damage is so great that the tree may be destroyed, a prosecution may be taken out. You may then want to set out how the trees can be protected from the livestock. Your protection measures had better be pretty good because if they don't work, you will be blamed for the damage to the tree. One hopes the landowner gets the point and does what is best for the trees but If a land owner came to me and said that in his opinion, he has received this threatening letter from the council when he hasn't even committed an offence and never was going to gov, I would say to the landowner, in much more professional language than I am using here, to go and tell the council where to stick it. I go back to my previous point (before the thread was taken down), a landowner can do what he likes on his land until such time that he can't or in other words until such time that he has broken the law or becomes a nuisance or some other such legal constraint. So the point here is that, has the land owner committed an offence or are you just acting like his big brother and pointing out that he should err on the side caution less the local rozzer come knocking at his door. Its a minefield but I would think I would have more chance in getting him off than I would have in winning a prosecution case. Saying that, the law is the law and who knows what a magistrate will come up with and as far as I know, the land owner may have trained his goats to systematically strip the bark from every tree in the paddock and as such, its an open and shut case . . . providing you can call the goat to the witness stand.

Outline planning permission means that you have planning permission in principal. It doesn't mean that you can start developing. Development usually starts once the reserved matters have been discharged in accordance with the outline permission. Discharge of the reserved matters allows you to lawfully develop. If you are required to discharge the landscape reserved matter and in that package you have shown TPO trees for removal and the council discharges the reserved matters, you then have permission to fell the TPO trees without recourse to any tree officer.

I have come across situation whereby during the planning process, the council has asked that removal of a TPO tree is carried out as a separate application to ensure that a replacement tree is planted to continue the TPO. Removal of a TPO tree within the planning application does not allow for any replacement to continue the TPO. A new TPO would need to be served and it would be p[ossible to object to this new TPo on grounds such as amenity value.

Reserved matters can be seen as a glorified planning condition. Once it is discharged or once all reserved matters are discharged, full planning has been achieved. Full planning overrides TPO legislation and there is no requirement to seek further approval from the tree officer. Any negotiation in relation to TPO trees should have been considered either at the outline planning stage or during the discharge of reserved matters stage. Otherwise we could have the situation where the developer has gained planning permission to carry out lawful development and the tree officer is going against the council and possibly against the elected members by refusing to allow lawful development.

Outline planning approval is usually planning in principle. Depending on the amount of information supplied at the outline stage will depend on what will be required to discharge reserved matters. You can look at a reserved matter as a glorified planning condition and once approved it will override TPO legislation. TPO's are part of the planning system and one would expect as part of the discharge of reserved matters for the case officer to ask the relevant consultees for their comments and one would hope that where TPO trees are concerned, the consultee will be the tree officer. Full regard should be given to the TPO when the consultee offers their comments.

AIE UK Tree Officer Index This list is on the AIE site. Maybe worth a visit to have look around. I contacted over 300 tree officers for my dissertation a while back and got about 60 responses. Good luck

We have had a few ground penetrating radar inspections carried out. There are at least two companies near to London which do this. I would suggest that anyone considering going down this route have a chat with both. There are differences between each company because the inspection is dependent on the kit, the operative, the interpretation of results etc. The inspection should be able to identify root diameter and depth as well as map them onto a plan. Problem is that two smaller roots growing adjacent to each other can be identified as one larger root which would obviously affect the final outcome. Again, speak to the company to determine what you require from the survey and level of accuracy. I would also suggest that you do not wholly rely on the results in the supplied report. You will also need to understand how the survey works in order to correctly interpret the report and be able to use the results in their intended way as well as being able to explain to a Client what is what. The survey is not cheap and not always suitable but we have used it for basement work within gardens and where buildings are proposed within the RPA of protected trees.

Root Barriers - GreenBlue Urban These people specialise in root barriers for all occasions.

I think you would be better off checking the local planning policies in relation to development within the area occupied by the park, change of use and the general policies on public parks. You may be able to find something which identifies that the council is going against their own policy to allow the park land to be used for housing. On the other side, the council may be desperate to find suitable housing land especially if it is for affordable or social housing. Although you want to keep the park, which as you say it is little used, perhaps housing is the best use of the space. I think that if the park is given over to housing, the two cherry trees are likely to be history. If you get your way and the park is saved, who will pay for its upgrade and on-going maintenance.

I think you will find that all trees growing within the site (greater than 75mm dbh) should be included and any tree growing outside of the site whose RPA is or is partly within the site.

If the council does their job properly, you will need a tree report carried out by a suitably trained and experienced arboriculturalist. The tree will be a material consideration when considering the planning application. The council may want to consider its potential for growth and whether your extension will interfere with that growth. They may want to consider the effect of shadow from the tree and may want to know if the working area impacts the trees or the means to construct the extension impacts the tree. A half decent council will expect a competent person to provide the relevant information and could refuse to register the application until suitable documentation is submitted. Which local authority area are you in?

There are dangerous trees and then there are dangerous trees. What is the risk of failure and what is the target. If there is an imminent risk of the tree failure, I suggest you contact a licensed bat expert pretty quickly. They will be able to survey the tree for hibernating bats. If bats are present, a mitigation licence will be required to move them which will involve Natural England. My view would be to establish the potential risk of tree failure. Isolate the tree/s if necessary or possible. Call in a licensed bat expert to survey trees for hibernating roosts. Take advice from bat expert as to what happens next. If the tree requires felling immediately, I would still consult with a licensed bat expert who would need to be present at the time of felling. It is illegal to disturb a bat roost and disturbance could be in the form of vibration caused by nearby chainsaws or the removal of branches. I suggest you tread very carefully. www.gov.uk/bats-protection-surveys-and-licences

At best an accident and at worst, an incompetant spec or an incompetant tree surgeon. As already mentioned, the best thing to do is grind out stump and replace with something big. The sad thing is though, why are the council removing perfectly good trees from the adjacent land. Amenity value and all that.

Made me larf. Nice one

In this neck of the woods, the planners are usually very hot on controlling what happens within the Green Belt. The often cited 'Affecting the Openness of the Green Belt' is the main argument against development and constructing an additional floor onto an existing building is affecting the openness. I agree that you need to speak to a local planning consultant who may be able to guide you through. If you go for pre-application advice, you are likely to receive a negative response and probably refusal at determination but a good planning consultant may be able to win on appeal.

Hi This is just up the road from us and knowing the Tree Officers in the is area, they are normally on the ball and are proactive in managing trees in relation to development. The council's big concern is that the site is large enough to interest a developer but the council probably wouldn't want any mass tree removal prior to a planning application. Many developers might see the potential of this site in terms of pure profit and the trees are irrelevant to this. You may also see the trees as irrelevant to your sale. The fact that the council is aware of developer interest has caused them to act by serving a TPO. This is proactive action to preserve trees until they can be considered within a planning application and is born out by the fact that the developers have melted away. The council would normally serve a TPO on trees with amenity value but can also serve an Order if they feel that trees are under threat especially from development. You have the right to object and the council have the right to confirm, not confirm or to Modify the Order at confirmation. My view would be to ask the Tree Officer to site and talk through why the Order was served and which trees are likely to finally end up protected. Also bear in mind that the existence of a TPO will not necessarily affect any future planning proposal. It is highly unlikely that any new house or other structure will be permitted within the Green Belt and the fact that potential developers have walked away suggests that their interest in the property was to realise profit at the expense of trees. Hope this helps.

I am really not trying to question anyone's determination. I admire anyone working towards a qualification especially with a full time job and family commitments. Working at night when everyone has gone to bed but still having to do family duties is not good. For what its worth; I have been there and I have stayed up all night trying to finish assignments whilst fitting in work and family. Good luck Buddie and keep in there, it will eventually pay off.

Aggggh . . . you are right. I should have said "for passing" and not "to passing" . . Oh well . . my bad.

I don't need to recommend anything but if pushed, I would say attaining the learning outcomes. My point is that just because someone spends a lot of time working for a qualification, even after a hard days work, that in it self is not a justification to pass. You still have to pass the course academically, i.e. pass the assessment by reaching the learning outcomes.

Ahhh but now you are saying something different. You originally said "If you fail any test you can retake it until you pass, so what's the difference?" and I disagreed with you. Now you are justifying the logic behind the ability to retake the "test" adinfinitum (time dependency and drop out excepted). I am not trying to justify or degrade the L6 but I am pointing out where I see a flaw in the learning; in that gaining the L6 in the required manner of re-submissions does not give me confidence that learning has been carried out. What it does do, is show that if you re-submit enough times, you will pass and for me, that does not give me complete confidence in the qualification at L6. It has no bearing on the quality of the person who is taking or holds the L6 because, for all I know, they may be a genius. Maybe I am wrong here but in my opinion, if the L6 was graded, there would be more credibility in the qualification.

Not sure you are right there.

Not sure this really relates to what I said. I would expect a consultant to know their subject whether they have a L3, L4, L5, L6 or L7 qualification or no academic qualification. Having a L6 qual does not guarantee you knowledge but being tested sort of suggests that you had the knowledge once, even though your short term memory failed you in the long term.

Thanks for the comments. I am not suggesting that anyone doing this course doesn't put the hours in but just because you kill yourself every night after a hard days work is no justification for passing a L6 qualification. Dropping out of a course is not failing. It is not completing which is not the same as failing. I go back to my point that if you re-submit enough times, and tick the assessment boxes, you will pass and that the only criteria for not passing is that you either run out of time or drop out. I can see that there is no way that anyone can separate the good from the average and if you are average, that is not a bad thing but if you are good, surely you would want everyone to know you are good.

Going back to the original poster and the point about validity within the industry and reading many of the comments, I have some concerns with this qualification which I am sure someone will put me right on. I see how this qualification is great for the one gaining it but not so good for the customer who is relying on the knowledge. If it is right that as long as you complete the course, you pass, then in theory there is no way you can fail and no limit to the amount of resits. The only limiting factor is the overall time limit from registration (four years, I think someone mentioned). So where is the learning and where is the retention of that learning. It appears to me that you can submit and submit again and at each submission you move forward a little bit until a pass is reached. There is nothing to test whether you have retained any knowledge. Does this then mean that as a customer, I can't rely for sure on the knowledge of the Consultant as I can't assume the Consultant has remembered anything. I know you cannot assume anything in life for certain (is that an oxymoron?) but for the old Prof Dip and the BSc, you have to show learning by examination and only one re-submission for assignments. For the degree, you are then graded (1st class, 2.1, 2.2, 3rd, pass). If the new L6 was graded, that would give some confidence to the learning.