Gary Prentice

Since this isn't being put to bed quite just yet... I'd be a little careful taking too much advice from LA legal departments regarding their interpretation and opinions on legislation. The only person who will decide what the law actually means will be the learned gentleman in the wig, should the LA (in their opinion) decide that you've contravened a TPO. I stand to be corrected, but I imagine that the 2012 changes were a lot more to do with LAs confirming TPOs years after serving the s201 and preventing 'interesting parties' making objections/representations (in the spirit of the act) than any ambiguity in the understanding of that particular section. As an aside. Has anybody ever attempted to defend a charge of contravention (pre 2012) because the order wasn't confirmed within 6 months but confirmed later?

I wasn't involved in the marketing at the time Bill, (it was a long time ago). to stand by my post, as a lot on here have said the same as you, 'personal use' seems to be the biggest consumer.

The reason insurance goes up is because they're a business and want to make profit.

I thought footing was to prevent the feet sliding away on a hard surface more than any other reason? You can foot mine OWC

How to make friends and influence people

I'd be reluctant to spend time and money milling in the expectation of all the local butchers beating a path to my door Maybe it's a case of being proactive, tell the local lads what you need so they see milling as viable and with a market available. Most of the stuff I've milled and others have that I know about, is still stacked in sheds cos no-one wants it or are prepared to pay for it. I'd love to see better utilisation of timber, rather than firewood, but until there's a sustainable profitable market available I don't think it's going to happen.

Thank you Edward, I think that you have explained the position perfectly.

Sorry, I'm on my phone so I'll have to be brief. Pre 2012 it was not uncommon for LAs to confirm later (a lot later as I know of one confirmed after 13 yrs) I can't remember where in the 1990 act it allowed this, but it'll be there somewhere (or LAs were confirming orders unlawfully) what doesnt help, IMO, is the 2012 regs being an addendum or modification to the act- which makes it difficult (even more so) to follow. I'll try to follow this up this evening to quote chapter & verse, but I'm confident in my understanding of this. reading your post again, I think the key word is 'provisionally' - (b) applies until (as a provisional order) (I) or (ii) occurs/expires. So, in affect at the expiry of six months the prov order ceases to protect unless the order is confirmed. We we are really looking at the wrong section though. The answer should be in the confirmation section of the 1990 act I think- that orders could be confirmed at a later date. Sorry, the best I can answer right now

If it's milled, who's going to buy it though?

Good Morning Rob and welcome to Arbtalk I apologise, it's early and despite reading your post several times I'm failing to see your point. The distinction I was trying to make was to the date of the opening posters TPO. Prior to the 2012 regulations, the application of provision 201 meant that the tree(s) were protected for six months or until confirmation - whichever came first. If the order wasn't confirmed within the six months the protection ceased, BUT the order could be confirmed at a later date (and be valid and legal) The 2012 regs changed this position. If the OPs order was served post 2012 the regs were different. An order that wasn't confirmed couldn't be confirmed after six months. A new order has to be made from scratch, the original order couldn't be confirmed six months and a week, a month or years later. I went into this situation myself a few years back, where a clients tree was served under section 201 and not confirmed. The council told the owner the tree was protected for the next eight years, refused consent to fell twice and then subsequently confirmed the original order. As the original order was pre 2012 it was perfectly legal (apart from the LA actually being in a position to require and determine a planning application). If, in the original posters case, the order was pre 2012 there's no argument - the LA could confirm 6 months and one week after. If post 2012, then a new TPO should have been served. I would expect that now that this issue has been raised with them, and if the order was post 2012, good practice would be for them to serve a new order. Gary

Threaten her with framing the Stihl calendar?

I was going to react to this, but can't decide whether the 'like' or the 'sad' button is the best choice. Maybe I'm just old, but I preferred the Oregan calendars with the old black and white American logging photos

I don't know who answered a previous comment of mine about the use of engineering solutions (advised by the panel), but IIRC the bottom line was that although engineering solutions could be proposed, there wasn't much in the way of/any provision in the framework/schedule or whatever the term is to actually fund these solutions. So the panels recommendations were pretty pointless! Like some other towns and cities, the whole thing is a bloody nightmare, in planning/conception/consultation and implementation. But they shouldn't be! There's no reason why they should be, apart from the trees end up as an afterthought and aren't given the consideration required from day one of whatever the scheme is. The arboriculturist must be involved from the very beginning of any project and the only way that will ever occur is when the value of trees is recognised by all the other relevant professions. I'll get off me soapbox now.

Council's response is correct, in that they haven't exceeded the works spec. Sure, you can apply to fell and then do something less instead. the Miscellaneous Provisions are, IME, seldom used and the LA aren't duty bound to apply them. As the highway isn't threatened or council property it's unlikely they will be mindful to get involved. Another option, if the neighbour is concerned is a solicitors letter highlighting that as a result of the works there is concern that the tree has become unstable and he may be negligent in the event of failure. I'm not suggesting that will garner a positive outcome, but it is an option. As Wes said, the neighbour has common law rights to cut back encroaching branches ( which would be covered by the planning consent as long as it's within two yrs of the determination date)

The argument against that, based on the recorded no of deaths and injuries from tree failures (parts/whole) is that the risk is so low as to be tolerable (based on the HSEs own risk tolerability triangle) lets stop driving, climbing stairs, adventure sports etc that pose a real threat and spend time and effort promoting the social, environmental and economic benefits of trees to put things into perspective. Not arguing with anyone on this, just my opinion that too little is done by the industry to educate the general public and to balance the scales of public opinion (having spent the morning talking to clients whose trees are big and therefore 'must' be dangerous.

Maybe it got stuck in the fork when the tree was little, and then gained height as the tree grew taller?

Why should members of the LGBTQ community get preferential treatment?

Not sure what the Suffrajets have to do with it I've been following this for a couple of years and I'm still sitting on the fence. Bill Anderson wrote a really good piece, which I think was in an AA publication or a magazine somewhere, which put a lot into perspective. IMO, there are faults on both sides. The need for the work is there, Amey and the LA have handled it badly and some of STAGS actions leave a lot to be desired. Once thing that is really apparent is whose side the media are generally on, which has tended to create a biased view to most people.

Putting aside the rights or wrongs of the implementation of the Sheffield PFI, I'm all for this. This fellows actions are typical of the 'I want what I want' brigade. The tree works that are being undertaken have been deemed legal in, I believe, the High Court. The lads on the tools are turning up to the site and jokers like this are doing everything possible to prevent them, even putting themselves in harms way. I've spoken to a couple of lads employed in Sheffield, and apparently these protestors are being 'encouraged' to leave in some parts of the city by the local residents, so they're not representing the population, just part of it, but STAG has become a very vocal minority and maybe aren't the popularly supported organization that the media would like to portray. Nothing is stopping his freedom of expression, as long as he expresses outside of the workzone and he doesn't prevent or inhibit anyone going about their lawful business.

So cordwood is like 'whites' when you're sorting the laundrey ( or the missus is) it can be a pair of briefs, t-shirt, shirt etc As long as it isn't 'coloured' (can I say that?) in that it isn't 'white' ( or Chippable/ millable/for pulp, etc ) it's cordwood. glad that's cleared up

What type of wood is it?

Course it's the ladders fault, workman always blame the tools.

Yeah, there's only so many times you can say 'well documented", "thanks for posting" or "nice photos", but I do follow these threads too.

I wondered the other night what you meant about challenges to validity. I'd forgotten the 28 day limit. I can't remember, does the appeal inspector actually look at the validity of TPOS after a refusal? Apart from checking the order was confirmed? I can't but feel that the cards are stacked against a tree owner once a TPO is served, no matter how badly it's been compiled or how ambiguous it may be. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see more protection, but properly served and serviced, and more open. Currently there seems to be an attitude to retain everything because it's got an order, even if the tree was part of an area drawn up thirty years ago, with little thought of creating a sustainable canopy cover into the future by encouraging replacement planting to create more species and age class diversity. Saying that, I've met some really good TOs who are really forward thinking and are open to discussion and a little horse-trading.

I've felled a number of trees that the LA wanted to protect, at six weeks before a TPO was served and when an order wasn't confirmed and the LA still thought it was protected by the CA, My view, and other will disagree, is that I have to work in the best interests of the client. If the LA has failed in their statutory duty to properly protect the tree and there is an opportunity to do what the owner wants, whose fault is that? I'd be failing my client if I had knowledge that they could legally do what they wanted and didn't inform them that they could. I'd go as far as to say it would be unprofessional not to advise and inform the client of the position. Whether they want proceed or not is their decision, not mine. I'll admit we've felled a number of trees that I think should have been kept. That would have been kept if the LA had acted properly, within the timescales set out in statute. And every time I hope that this time will make them get their act together and stop it happening again.