Gary Prentice

They'll be an exemption in a few years probably and permission wont be necessary.

Me neither, but it sounds like something a few TOs I've met would say. Anyway, it's understandable and to the point. I'll rephrase my earlier comment and say that I think they may have gone for the safe bet of wilful damage, rather than destroying the tree. For all intents and purposes, the tree has lost any aesthetic value it originally had and now has a reduced SULE without some further remedial works - but to pursue the 'loss' issue would have been extremely difficult. It must have needed those limbs hacking anyway, cos the highly qualified Doctor across the road said it was dangerous.

So you haven't got a copy?

Only if they're still inside the boot.

"The tree has been significantly disfigured and stripped back. The amenity value of the tree to the street scene has been mullered." Mullered - if that's a technical term it's a new one on me. I think that the council should have gone further. The low limb is just awful now and failure prone - right over the footpath and road.

Reading the discussions on other forums regarding TPOs and the use of air spades and hand excavation, to establish the presence of roots I'm of the opinion that the definition of 'wilful damage' would really be up to the individual officers of the planning authority, in the first instance. But, personally I'd crack on in the knowledge that even if there was a claim of wilful damage it would, probably, be laughed out of court - if the legal team couldn't see sense before that stage.

It's a conspiracy to keep me away from planning departments!

Thanks, I rang this morning and got an answer. the interactive hasn't worked for the last three weeks, since I've been trying

What do you need to know?

Playing devil's advocate. If the developer adheres to the AMS, then the AC has to visit and sign off particular stages. I'd imagine that there would be some be difficulty for the 'Project Arboriculturist' to remain totally objective ( if he/she wants to work for that company again) when things aren't as they should be. I don't know if there are any fees involved for the councils building inspectors site visitors, but maybe there's an opportunity for the TO to visit site to undertake these tasks, paid for by the developer? Or an independent Arb Consultant, with no other interest in the project selected by the LA. Sad? Frustrating more like, as it's readily apparent that the system isn't working effectively and, IMO, no-one really cares.

Has anyone got a link to St Helens interactive TPO/Conservation mapping page? Every link I follow comes up as not found/broke etc.

Sorry Arboricultural Method Statements aren't pointless. They're a requirement of the LPA, a material consideration in the planning process and the developer always ensures that they are strictly adhered to. In the very rare instances of non-compliance (always inadvertent and to the embarrassment and chagrin of the culprit) expensive remedial measures are immediately affected to mitigate any impact on the potential damage to the tree or its rooting environment. I take back that part of the post EgGs, and will now continue the very important task of ensuring the safe retention of the trees on this development, with a nice warm feeling inside that I'm really, really doing something useful and productive, safeguarding the natural environment.

Taking the mick out of you or writing a totally pointless arboricultural method statement. Tough decision

Sharp chipper blades to socks!

Longer lengths won't prevent it entirely, just reduce the percentage of slithers in the volume. It also helps a bit to keep the material feed continuous, so the chamber between the feed rollers and flywheel is full - material has no/less room to change alignment.

Good morning Edward, I don't know why but for some reason we seem to be polar opposite on a lot of subjects. No argument from me that the developer/applicant should abide by the conditions, but experience says otherwise and mine, over the last thirty years, is that compliance is the exception rather than then the rule. Others experience may differ. And, this isn't on single dwelling applications only, the largest house builders are often the same. Austerity gets blamed for a lot, but I don't believe this a new issue. I've witnessed it as I've said over three decades and in many different parts of the country. I'n not sure that being cash strapped prevents enforcement and suspect general apathy on the part of the planning department/legal department is often to blame. "Policing/enforcement comes after the failure to comply, it does not cause the failure to comply in the first place." Or, lack of policing/enforcement creates a culture where the developer sees no requirement to comply? If there is no fear of punishment or consequences, lawlessness (for want of a better word) ensues. Don't get me wrong Edward, I'd like to see change. I'm writing a survey, AMS and AIS today in the knowledge that, more than likely, it's a paper exercise and pointless. The only real objective is to achieve planning consent and tick boxes on both the developers and PA's part. I suppose if nothing else it pays the mortgage.

You mean you haven't got one already?

Three hours to get to the top? Sorry, but he'd be getting straight back down if that was my job. We've all had to learn, but in this situation I'd have no confidence in the lads ability to do that job.

Oi, don't drag me back kicking and screaming into the pollard/topping discussions. Along with politics and religion, it's a topic I'm trying to avoid involvement in.

Compliance by the applicant isn't my point. The planning system methodology is there, through conditions, to ensure compliance. Disregarding conditions can have consequences, but the very people who are in place to police the conditions don't and then complain that the conditions haven't been complied with. When I write a 5837 survey and AMS I include information for tree protection. I include tasks that require arboricultural supervision or input during the construction phases. I also include examples of documentation for proving that this actually happens (sign off reports) Planning consent the application, subject to adherence to the AMS etc and then it seems that boxes have been ticked and everyone will do exactly what they say they will do to achieve the consent. Personally, I do blame the planning authority. If they won't police the planning system, who is expected too?

I always find TOs and planning officers comments about specified fencing and ground protection in AMS's not happening strange. If they've been conditioned in planning consent, doesn't it come down to the planning authority to police it?

I'm not a fortune teller, but I foresee disappointment in your future!

I think everyone's bored today

I would have thought that a knife breaking, for example, due to a fault in the manufacturing process would be covered by the Sales of Goods Act, so guaranteed or not I'd personally expect a replacement. im really not having a go at NAS, I just dislike promotions claiming 'Lifetime Guarantees' BTW, we've bought and used many knives, for many machines, from you/Saturn over the years without problems.