oslac

I once lived in an old cottage and hornets moved into the first floor wall cavity between the whether board outside and the wattle n Daub internal wall. At night they would get into the house through a window (attracted by a small light) and in the morning I would collect the hornets wandering around the living room carpet . . . They had to go. One evening, 5 hornets came in and scared me beyond belief. The fear that the hornets had only to eat their way through the wall and zooop, I am dead in my sleep but worse, my 18 month daughter being stung by a hornet whilst she was playing on the carpet scared me far more. Council wasn't interested, they wanted a cheque to be posted to them and then cashed and once cleared, would come by and sort the hornets out. A private pest control company did the job in 30 mins. Sad but there you go. Hornets are great when living in old trees but living in the cavity of your bedroom wall . . . no thanks.

The rights or wrongs of the TPO was not part of my thinking. I accept the TPO exists and has been confirmed. The issue was in relation to an appeal to PINS in respect of removing the TPO tree. Although the Inspector passed other comments about the tree and why he would refuse the appeal, it is his comments in relation to visibility which made me sit up. I would have been more content if no comment about visibility was made when deciding the appeal but they were made and as such, I am concerned as to where this might go. The inspector, in future could decide that a tree in a private garden overlooked by one house has public visibility and that would shift the goal posts somewhat. (yes I liked the previous goal post comment and I agree). You may think that this is all ok as the Inspector is protecting trees but there is another side to the coin and the application to remove trees is a legitimate occupation and I would not like to feel that I have been hijacked by someones interpretation. Perhaps if the Inspector set out how and why he came to his decision, I could understand where he is coming from and learn from it for next time.

Yes that is so. Planning Inspector is the great overlord and we all agree to be subject to his (or her's) rule. I would just like to know the rules of the game before I start playing.

Yep. Makes it all the harder to put together a cogent argument to remove TPO trees in relation to public visibility when trees are growing in back gardens. Might as well toss a coin because I cannot see how sound advice can be given to the tree's owner other than . . maybe/maybe not, who knows. If this is how the Inspector comes to a decision in relation to TPO trees, what hope is there for removing trees as part of a BS 5837 development. As for appealing to the High Court . . A partner in a law firm once said to me that he would never take a case to the High Court, would not happen. Its too expensive, too risky, too time consuming and too stressful. So de facto . . The Planning Inspector is the last stop.

I won't go into too much detail as my client, the Planning Inspector, LPA etc. deserve anonymity. An application was made to remove a tree on various grounds (lack of visual amenity, safety etc). The tree is growing in a quite small rear garden. There are probably 20 gardens in total forming a long oblong area. This is surrounded by 5 storey terraced houses. Tree is not visible from any of the public roads (Inspectors comment). It can only be seen from the rear of the houses which abut the aforementioned gardens. The Inspector states that where there are sufficient number of views from private properties, they constitute a public view. The Inspector goes on to say that there is no defining number of properties which form a public view. The Inspector concludes that as there are enough (views) from the surrounding terraces that the tree has public visibility and therefore public amenity value in terms of the TPO The question therefore is how many properties overlooking a TPO tree would be required to give the tree public amenity value.

Its in relation to a TPO appeal to PINs. The tree is not visible from a public place (acknowledged by the Inspector) but is growing within a rear garden surrounded by numerous 5 storey houses. Most houses will have limited views of the tree. The Inspector has dismissed the appeal partly on grounds of public amenity and saying that as the tree can be seen from numerous private property's, the tree therefore has public visibility and therefore has public amenity. Part of the question is; how many houses should the tree be visible from to have public amenity even when not on view from any public place.

Putting aside the other factors and only looking at amenity value. Is it necessary for the tree to have amenity value i.e. can it be seen from a public place and what is a public place. This is in relation to a TPO appeal not in relation to the serving of a TPO. Thanks

When considering whether a TPO tree has amenity value, is it necessary for the tree to be seen from a public place . . . and if so, what constitutes a public place. Thanks

Looks to me like a hedge and I agree with the earlier comment . . if it was planted as a hedge, looks like a hedge and is maintained as a hedge . . . its a hedge. The TPO legislation for protecting trees within hedgerows was not brought about to protect hedgerows. It was brought about to protect unmanaged hedgerows which have developed into a row of trees. The emphasis is on the tree. Although this has also had the effect of preventing overgrown hedgerows from being brought back into the typical field hedge. To say that if a hedge consist of a tree it can therefore be TPO'd is (in my opinion) wrong. Most hedgerows comprise of small, clipped trees. You wouldn't expect a hawthorn hedge to be TPO'd although you may argue that a hawthorn is a tree. In this case, I think the Tree Officer has pushed his luck and is no doubt laughing all the way to the wood store. Options would be to apply to remove hedgerow, state reason as 'not a tree and therefore does not come under TPO' legislation', appeal if necessary (you do not actually need to remove the hedge, just apply) or be brave and just fell the thing and argue your case in the magistrates court. I would be very surprised if the council will take it that far. Or just write to the council, copy in the legal department and ask what part of the legislation the council served the tree under and what was the council's reasons for serving the TPO. Ask them to revoke it.

Hi Can we see a photo please.

Are you able to say who the LA is. If the council are not prepared to change their mind, they either have a strong case or a Case Officer/Tree Officer who is unreasonable. You need to unpick their case. There will be reasons for refusal within the notice and you will need to identify precisely what the LA concern is. Once you know this, you can directly address the issue or prepare a case for appeal. All this info should really be coming from your planning consultant

Have you considered the services of a planning consultant. Although arb consultants can produce all the information needed in relation to the tree, you probably need someone who knows how the planning system works and can navigate a clear route through. If you are concerned about impartiality of the planning service or think that an independent opinion is required, speak with the planning consultant about going to appeal. The BS recommends that the future growth of the crown is considered when determining a planning application but if the tree is pollarded or goes through a cyclical crown reduction programme, I don't think the council would be able to use 'future crown growth' as a reason for refusal. Hope this helps. Post a picture if you can.

I think this is the nub of the issue. The AA is doing a best fit and is slow moving because of its historical position. I think it needs to bite the bullet and do what is right and change its structures in line with other professional bodies. The Membership level should be the peer reviewed level and Fellow granted for exceptional work beyond that. I think the concept of a Registered Consultant sitting above the Members and Fellows is weird and not in keeping with how other professional bodies are organised. How can this be changed when the RC voted to keep their status and quite frankly (in a manner of speaking) said up yours to the rest of the Members and Fellows. Asking Turkeys to vote for Christmas springs to mind. Good luck with turning it around, I wait and watch . . but with a beer in my hand rather than with bated breath.

Being a Member of a Professional body ie Landscape Institute requires the candidate to take a rigorous period of learning (beyond the academic) but peer reviewed and then to take an oral exam (peer reviewed) and if they pass all of this, they are awarded Chartership and become a Member. The AA seem to want it both ways. On the one hand you say Members and Fellows are the highest levels of professional membership but then again not high enough to be given the ultimate accolade as that is reserved for Registered Consultants. Is the AA really being fair to its Members and Fellows. Surely, like other professional bodies, you are peer reviewed at the Membership stage not at some later point otherwise, what is the value of employing someone who is only a Member of the AA rather than a registered Consultant. Just wondering like

I am sure you are very professional but the AA is not a professional body whether you or anyone else wants it to be or not. AA registered consultants (no offence to any Registered Consultant) is an in-house status thing and has no professional meaning outside of the AA. In any other professional body, being a Member or Fellow is usually the highest level one can reach. Somehow Members and Fellows of the AA have no real value within the AA yet Registered Consultants are seen by the AA to be the gods of arb. . . why's that then? If the AA want to be considered alongside the ICF, they should raise the status of its Members and Fellows and get rid of the Registered Consultants. The AA pushes the status of Registered Consultants and even advertises them on the AA website but the Members and Fellows are invisible and can't even use their (non-professional body) logo . . Why's that then.

The term Professional has different meanings to different people. A professional is usually considered to be someone who would normally be taught to minimum degree standard, be a chartered member of a 'professional' body and abide by the codes of conduct of that body. The professional body is usually identified as the lead body for that particular vocation/industry and is usually (but not always) given its charter by the Privvy Council (as mentioned earlier). The title is usually protected but not always ie. Architect is protected but Landscape Architect is not, however Chartered Landscape Architect is protected. Professionals would also normally give advice and opinion which one would expect to rely on and be insured for professional negligence. Many people like to call themselves professional but the meaning of the term professional often relates to being paid and having some skills in an area of work. So a tree surgeon is not professional in the Chartered body understanding of the word but is professional in the fact that he/she has some skills and is paid for a job and caries out his work to a good standard. The Institute of Chartered Foresters is a professional body but the Arb Assoc is not (no matter how much the Arb Assoc want to be, they are a trade body albeit with a membership structure and Codes of Conduct. To get past this slight difficulty, the Arb Assoc teamed up with the Society for the Environment and can now confer the title of Chartered Environmentalist on its Professional Members and Fellows. Clear as mud . . . I hope

I should imagine that the bungalow requires planning permission in which case, as soon as the planning application is registered, the tree will become a material consideration and the council will almost certainly require a BS5837 report and suitable methodology and tree protection measures. This will require a survey by a competent/experienced person. If the proposed building or any of its associated infrastructure is proposed within the RPA, you may need to show the council that the works can go ahead without any negative impact on the tree. There are always special engineering solutions available but the more special the engineering solution, the more costly it is likely to be for you. I am not sure I would call a raft a special engineering solution. My view would be to identify what you want and where you want it and then speak with the local authority tree officer for guidance. If you speak with him/her now, you may save a lot of wasted time and money later. If the tree is not protected and you are not in a Conservation Area, you may want to remove the tree prior to application but as you are probably aware from reading this forum, there is a debate as to whether this is ethical or not. My view would be to speak to an arb consultant who has knowledge of the planning system and engineering solutions before you go too far along the journey. You must sort out the ownership of the tree, if for no other reason than liability. What happens if a branch falls off and causes injury or damage. From your description, it sounds like you may own the tree but remember, boundary lines may wobble around over time.

I think Treelife produced an abridged version but I am sure it had to be paid for. In my opinion, the problem with the BS (there are lots of problems with the BS but this is with the whole BS system) is that the document is a lead document for planning issues. There is no real alternative and as such we are obliged to buy a copy to carry out our work. The document could be a thousand pounds and I would still need to buy it. The BS is stupidly overpriced and there is nothing we can do about it. I would rather it be half the price not because I want to save money but to make the document more widely available and to show that the BSI are not a money grabbing organisation who don't give a fig about our industry. The BSI seem to bring out standards for just about everything and then regularly update them so that you need to buy them all over again. The whole system is a rip off but we are just the little people and we do as we are told. . . rant over . . grrrrr

Hopefully I am wrong but the implications of your post is that if you are a student or if you are poor or if you have decided you have spent enough money on books and other documentation, then it is OK to use copyrighted material without paying for it. As mentioned earlier, public libraries usually hold copies of the BS and will allow limited copying of it. Most Universities and other colleges have access to the BSI as part of its library system and you can view as many BS documents as you like. Many copyrighted documents are passed around and generally this is overlooked because it is low key and small scale although still against the law but in the case of the PDF identified in this thread, it is a somewhat blatant (or stupid) attempt at providing a copyrighted document free of charge to anyone who wants it. I agree with you that the BS is overpriced. In fact I would go so far as to say that it is a rip-off but that is no justification for it being uploaded by anyone other than the copyright holder.

I wouldn't like to be Kevin O'Connor at the moment. That pdf will do the rounds for years to come and there are likely to be consequences for years to come as well. Can folk who ask for a free copy of the BS now realise (apart from it being illegal) why people cannot send unregulated copies around the internet. Even if Kevin O'Connor didn't upload the document, someone else who received a copy from him might have. The document is expensive. Stupidly expensive but if you rely on it, you are likely to be surveying trees in relation to planning and planning requirements and either working as a consultant or pretending to work as a consultant, in which case, you are working in a professional capacity and as such . . BUY YOUR OWN COPY.

Be very cautious. Bats are protected species and it is ilegal to handle a bat or interfere with its roost without a licence. It doesn't matter if you have planning permision or not. Bat surveys include foraging, commuting and roosting surveys and it would appear you have roosting bats. Next a survey will be required to determine which species of bat and how many. Once that survey is completed, a mitigation report may be required to set out how you will manage the bats whilst carrying out any works to the building. Mitigation may include the need to construct a temporary roost, transfer the bats across and then recreate a new roost in the converted forge/house and introduce them back. It can all get very complicated and very costly and very time consuming. Before you purchase the forge, I would get up to date reports (two year old reports are probably at the edge of their reliability) carried out by an expert and find out what would be the consequences. An ecologist may be able to help but even they cannot get too close to a bat without a licence, so look for a licenced ecologist. Light, noise and vibration are all a no-no in the bat world and so expert advice is essential. Good luck

The replacement tree will be covered by the TPO unless the Order is revoked. Normally the replacement tree species will be decided by negotiationwith the TO. the council could require the same species i.e. if the replacement tree formed part of an existing avenue. Yes the council could require the replacement tree to be planted in a crazy place. I was once required to plant a replacement tree in the hollow stump of the removed tree and that was by the Planning Inspector after I appealed.

You do not need an OS licence for Google maps. OS stands for Ordnance Survey and it is they that hold the licences for their maps. Google is a seperate company and I think that if you go into the small print on Google, it allows you to use their maps as long as you reference Google (I may be mistaken on this last point, but am sure I checked this out some time ago). Also with TPO work, you only need to identify tree locations on a plan to enable the tree officer to ascertain which tree you are talking about. There is no requirement for absolute accuracy.

The term 'consultant' is meaningless, we are all consultants now . . . Arboricultural consultants can be any one, with no quals and little experience. How does joe public identify the numpty from the highly trained expert. A consultant doctor will have academic quals, been to university, studied for ever and a day, and maybe 20 years of experience in a particular field of medicine. He will be at the top of his game, educating more junior doctors and passing on his great depth of knowledge. Arb consultants . . . anyone and everyone.

If you carry out a bat roost survey, you will need a licence and you won't get a licence unless you can show that you are competant. If you are a competant surveyor with the appropriate licence and you say there are no bats in a potential roost when in fact there are and, for example, the tree is felled, I expect the tree surgeon who who relied on your findings and felled the tree would not be liable.