Alan Webster

Sunbury area.

Experienced climber and Team Leader required. 

NPTC or equivelent of Felling, chipper, climbing, saw in tree, dismantling and pruning. Ideally first aid, Managing Safely and a recognised arboricultural qualification.

Experienced second climber

NPTC or equivelent of Felling, chipper, climbing, saw in tree and first aid.

Work is a mixture of domestic and commercial for an established company.

Wage dependant on experience and qualifications.

DM me a CV in the first instance if interested.

I have a copy of the Body Language of Trees, if you are interested PM me.

Would anyone be interested in a cedar stem, West London area?

Just doing a Wee planning query, objecting to an application, one of the trees in question is multi-stemmed, calculating the RPA using the Helliwell method gives an RPA of 5.3 m using the other method of 10 x diameter above the root flare gives 12.5m. This difference could have a significant impact on the application.. 5837 gives a measurement guide showing the individual measurement of stems but does not supply a formula. Anyone know the 'approved' method?

The 10 x diameter is from the 2005 standard and is no longer used; this and the Helliwell method is not to the current BS5837 British Standard. Arnold describes the correct calculation method in the above post.

It is the average dtameter for more than 5 stems.

Any one interested in occasional climbing work in the Staines/Whitton/Ashford(Middx) areas?

It is for a sports ground maintenance company, I have done all their climbing for the last few years.

Work includes dead wooding, reductions, pollards, small dismantles. Nothing too difficult but you must be able to turn up to the job blind with your own kit.

PM me for details.

Near Faversham, for a briefing held by the FC

The map does not show outbreaks in new planting just in the wider environment. This is because they assume that they have dealt with all the infected stock.

I went to a woodland in Kent last Friday where all the trees were affected.

Here:

Chalara fraxinea in the UK

How do they manage prosecution if your not caught in the act!?

They were!

The Forestry Commission, and I'm talking England, haven't prosecuted anyone in years. At least not since the law changed to allow them to pursue re-stocking without a prosecution. And pursuing restocking is what they do, at least in England.

 

So well done Natural Resources Wales.

 

As far as I am aware the same legislation applies to Wales as England, but I sit to be corrected.

 

If re-stocking is pursued, and there's no reason why not, the developer won't be able to develop the land for as long as the restocking notice is in force, usually 10 years. Planning permission does not override the re-stocking notice. If it was the developers intention to increase the chances of development, they could have shot themselves in the foot.

 

Ed

There was a prosecution last year for an illegal felling of scots pine at a site north of Basingstoke.

I'm on my second weaver, got 10 years out of first one, it looked rough as but nothing was about to break

You bought a second!

The customer was under the impression you would remove them offsite and dispose of them, this was the contract.

 

That is exactly what he did

What village Steve?

Addendum - btggaz made a usepul point in the original thread; the exemption reliant on planning permission can only be used 'so far as such work is necessary to implement a planning permission'. 'So far as' can be taken to mean 'no more than' and 'necessary' seems to mean 'unavoidably required'. Getting planning permission does not therefore give you carte blanche to do what you want to TPOd trees. If your site ha planning permission and there is a TPOd tree on the site in the corner where there is no effect on it of the development but you chopped it down anyway, the exemption does not apply and you could/should be prosecuted. If the tree is outside the site but it's roots are inside, the same rationale applies. Prosecution for unnecessary root damage.

 

Help me out here guys and gals, it's not very conclusive if I have to answer my own question.

Only Paul has seen the planning documents and I'm not sure if he has seen all of them.

It was asked earlier on if all the detail is included in the plans if service trenches etc. Usually the site boundary fence is included as it is required to comply with the Secure by Design requirements.

The photographs from the original thread show that the main damage to the tree is due to the grade change to allow the fence to be erected.

Also if the tree was included in a tree survey and either categorised as U or indicated for removal this also forms part of the application.

Some interesting discussion has been generated from a thread on the homeowners advice forum, where a tree with a TPO outside of the site has been potentially damaged.

 

Julian Morris posted a great question that is worth some further thought and debate:

 

JM: The Regulations say that nothing shall prevent the cutting down, topping, lopping or uprooting of a tree so far as such work is necessary to implement a detailed planning permission. It does not exempt the wilful damage or wilful destruction of a tree. Presumably because severing roots, which might otherwise be 'damage' (and which may be different from uprooting) could be controlled by planning conditions. There is no way in my mind that the legislation has anticipated this scenario where damage is done to a TPO'd tree that is mainly situated outwith the planning application boundary.

 

Was the developer meant to check for TPOs outside his land. No. On balance if it went to court would the onus have been on the Council that makes TPOs to notice and control the damage by conditions. I think so.

 

But does the exemption due to planning permission apply? I'm not so sure it does. It might rest on whether severing of roots counts as uprooting a (whole) tree. Patently it's different. And so the exemption cannot be relied upon. Which shifts the question onto the word 'wilful'. Did the two eejits with the bulldozer wilfully damage the tree? Was the intention to damage the tree or was the intention to remove the roots. I know they have the same consequence for the tree, but the legislation is there to examine the motive. There has to be damage and will.

Lopping is a exemption, it doesn't say branches so presumably includes roots.

Mynors, cover to cover.

As we are having a discussion about something that we obviously have different views on, it would be useful to provide a quote or reference to back up your stance.

As you have read Mynors cover to cover how did you not remember the mischievous quote?

You still have not given a good argument on why the planning does not over-ride the TPO

dalton:

"However, I am so clear in my mind now that roots are so different from branches, insofar as nuisance has to be proven by damage,"

what have you read to form this opinion?

Ah but this is overridden by statute of TPOs and is only exempt if the action is necessary. I am inclined to agree with the sentiment in btggaz's post. If there were no TPO you would of course be entirely right, subject in my mind to chasing up the rteference you provided on the matter of mischieft.

Please refer to my post above

Please don't rely on that for tpo'd trees, I have some personal experience in the use or attempted use as an exemption. But it did have to go to appeal

We are assuming the TPO is irrelevant due to the detailed planning permission.

These cases are therefore relevant to the removal of the roots and where several posters have said there should be compensation owed.

You are quite correct that the nusience exemption should not be relied on as the case law is complicated. With the case of Perrin the outcome is considered to be incorrect by others.

What damage were they doing?

Don't have to.

"The right of an owner to cut away the boughs of trees which overhang it, although those trees are not his, is too clear to be disputed. This has been declared to be the law for centuries.... and there is no trace of the age of the tree or its branches being a material circumstance for consideration" (Lemon v Webb Court of appeal)

Harman J in McCombe v Read

"It is very old law that if my neighbours tree encroach on my ground, either by over-hanging boughs or by undermining roots, I may cut the boughs or the roots so far as they are on my side of the boundary"

Reference:

Mynors. C. 2011. The Law of Trees Forests and Hedges 2nd Edition. Sweet and Maxwell. London.

ps. no one picked up on the abatement of nuisance comments from my post this morning?

I would be interested to follow up teh concept of mischevious abatement. Do you have a particular case or text you got this from or are you paraphrasing the general understanding of the law?

Mynors 2nd Edition 5.3.3 page 117, reinforcing the comments in Lemon v Webb

There has been a lot of speculation about this scenario some potentially libellous and in many cases inaccurate.

QUOTE]

 

This is worrying! I would hope it is understood by anyone using this Forum, whether it be a householder looking for advice or anyone contributing to a debate that use of the Forum does not constitute a contract where normal duties of care apply. And for libel to occur, someone needs to be defamed and for there to be unjustifiable measurable loss of reputation or words to that effect. No names have been given, though, personally I have no idea who the developer, the Council or the owner are or where the site is.

 

Do you think that a site moderator should be reviewing the libel situation?

 

I would add also that there is an inherent flaw in looking for tactical advice on a public forum.

 

The posts to which I refer I'm sure are not libellous enough for any legal action to be considered. There has been many posts saying such things as 'a clear breach of the TPO regs' etc.

 

I see that you extrapolated my comments into providing advice on a forum and liability for that advice. If you provide advice in a professional capacity and a member of the public acts on it in good faith and then it led to a loss etc. They could try to recover their loss from you or your insurers (as you are giving advice you do have professional indemnity insurance don't you?)

Again it would not be cut and dried - a judge would decide.

 

And no I don't think the moderators should be involved. It was meant to be a note of caution to those who are giving definitive opinions

Although the situation might not seem fair just as long as the developer has complied with the planning conditions and the excavation was required to carry out his approved plans the TPO is irrelevant.

The roots were encroaching into the developers site and he has abated the nuisance (also an exemption to the TPO it can be argued). He could in theory make a claim against the OP to reimburse his costs in doing this.

Compensation recoverable through a Civil action would look at if the developer took reasonable care and if the abatement was mischievous.

If the tree is now unstable due to the excavation costs to remove it can possibly be recovered from the developer.

The roots that were removed were technically stolen if not offered back to the OP, but what is the worth of a few roots. I doubt that the police would be interested in charging the developer with theft. (think of the CPS tests).

There has been a lot of speculation about this scenario some potentially libellous and in many cases inaccurate.

Civil law is decided at court and is not cut and dried as it is decided on the judges interpretation of case law.

Myrtus apiculata