Gary Prentice

But it'll be safe, some bloke on the internet said so!

I keephoping to find this, but I doubt I ever will. Arboricultural Association - Manual of Tree Statistic and tree Inspection

I'll ask the missus, that'll screw with her mind for the rest of the day:lol:

If you enter the full cost of the item, what it cost you to get including post, you'd get it back. Don't know if it would wash, but that is what you've spent. If you drove to pick it up, you'd claim the vat you'd paid at the pump after all:confused1:

are you paying Vat twice on the carriage cost? If the sender pays the post office £2.00 (including vat), then charges the customer £2.00 for carriage (net) + the item, then adds Vat, The customer then pays Vat on the Vat that the courier charged the sender

Reading Openspacemans post I had a quick look for a Pinus conifer key. I found a pretty good one, which I'll put up later, with a dozen or so 5-needled pines. I've seen that book on the shelf at Syston, but never looked at it. I'll get it bought. Problem is my missus is starting to ask just how many ,tree' books I actually need!

Thanks Andrew - one for my plant portfolio then!

They may not have agreed to topping a tree, but they certainly haven't opposed it by protecting it by a TPO, have they? You can have the win, I shouldn't have said 'agreement', I should have said 'unopposed'. BTW, I do know the differences, all the differences, between Section 211 Notice submission and TPO applications. Probably averaging at two a week, and rising, and have been applying/submitting for the last ten years. Along with TPO objections, representations and appeals.

There's huge disparity about the information we can get across the six or seven LA's I regularly deal with. Some have no online information, whatsoever, some have websites that I have to change my internet settings to access and even then I don't think include S106 information. Our own LPA took all the CA maps off their site a few years ago, never had TPOs at all, but the staff are very efficient when you phone up (when the IT is actually working!), but there's always an awkward silence if you request info on S106. I don't think they actually have access to that information. One authority PO who answers queries only works two day a week, enquiries (phone and email) usually take a fortnight or more to garner a response - if I'm lucky. One major city MBC website has been threatening to put its TPO addresses on the interactive map for the last twelve months. I still foolishly try the internet site in the vain hope it's been done everytime I need to search. Still, I believe that legally all the information will have to be online by 2021:lol: judging from some of the conversations I've had, I'm the only one who appears to be aware of it within some LAs. I'm not complaining, the front line staff are cheerful, pleasant and do their best to help and answer enquiries, it is what it is, but will it improve. Personally I don't see where the budget is going to come from.

You would hope so....

I can post some samples to you:001_smile: I'll get some more photo's too

The plate in Collins shows it as quite sparse, so I'd discounted that, but you may well be right. I should be doing something else right now, but I'll do some searching later and return to the tree to confirm during the week. Thank you:thumbup:

Don't worry, I submit on average probably two applications or S211's a week and there are still plenty of times the legality of an action is difficult to determine. We had a client who got served a TPO after submitting a 211, the LA didn't confirm within six months and then informed the owner that it was still protected by the CA. The legal department told the TO that it was still protected by the CA. We felled it, the enforcement officer turned up with the planning officer, asking for our consent to fell being in a CA. A 211 notice had been served - intention to fell, countered by the TPO. TPO NOT confirmed within six months, so our defence is that the LA was informed of the intent, the TPO wasn't confirmed IE no protection and two years from the date of the 211 notice had not elapsed - but six weeks notice had expired. We had a copy of the act on site, with the pertinent sections highlighted but the poor enforcement officer still couldn't understand why we didn't have a letter from the council telling us it was okay! The enforcement officer is a nice fellow and had to phone me up, I was in hospital, so I could explain the legislation to him. Felt really embarrassed for him, in that he hadn't received sufficient training to come on site and be confident that he was correct. Don't worry yourself about it, there's plenty of people in the industry who never need to get too involved in it all, just learn the bare bones of the differences between TPOs and CA's and if in doubt ask.

I thought the needles were a little short (Collins says short - 8cm) these are nearer six, habit isn't spire or column like. Arolla pine has squat cones - these aren't so much, large triangular scales still un-opened when they fall. This has open cones on the tree. Shoot is brown with dense hairs though. Not 100% sure that it's not a cultivar of it though. I think I'll being going back to document it further.

Came across this today, in a garden with some unusual conifers. The needles are 60-70mm, quite triangular in cross-section with pale stripes on two of the faces. Habit is fairly cluttered, not a large tree but I thing it's mature in that there was plenty of cones present. Probably a cultivar, but of what? It's not too far from home so I can get more photos later in the week. The pictures don't really exhibit how white the canopy appears, as the needles are mostly twisted with some of the undersides uppermost - if that makes sense. No pictures of ripe cones, I forgot!

I knew someone would be pedantic and pull me on that! But, I was trying to provide a simple reply for someone, who after talking to at length, has little existing knowledge of the statutory protection pertaining to trees! After 6 weeks you can crack on 'IF' they agree! If they don't AGREE they oppose it and serve a TPO. If they serve a TPO, any interested parties may submit objections or representations with a specified timescale, which may be no less than 28 days - most LA's IME give no longer than the minimum 28 days specified in the T&CPA. The LA, upon submission of a Section 211 Notification - named after the section in the T&CPA (Trees -regulations) which deals with notifying the LA of the intention of carrying out works to trees, may: 1) serve a TPO 2) tell the notifier that they do not oppose the works 3) do nothing If they do nothing, after six weeks the work may be undertaken -but must be completed within 2 yrs & must not exceed the works notified to the LPA. A TPO may be served after the six week notification period, but if, after six weeks and before the TPO is made, the work is done, the defence is that the authority were notified and that there was no protection in place at the time the work was done. So, to make things simple, for the benefit of the OP - just take it that the LPA have to agree, accept, not oppose, whatever....

That looks a big pup!

It's hard to explain all the ins and outs of the TCPA, applicable to trees, to someone with no experience of their use. I wasn't trying to be pedantic, but the little points, if unknown, can land you in an interview under caution. There's a lot to learn when anyone starts out, but most council websites provide a reasonable amount of information to start and links for more information elsewhere - worth the effort and at least you know its more likely to be accurate - not meaning yours wasn't stihlmadsaver:thumbup1:

Everything, normally regarded as a tree (be careful, this isn't always as clear cut as you imagine) in a CA, over 75mm diameter at breast height (DBH), is protected and requires the agreement of the LPA before carrying out the works. Again, it's a bit different from a TPO in that it's a slightly different procedure.

Didn't bet this year, but if I had he would have been my horse! Leading all the way but falling at the last hurdle:sneaky2:

Was that Sunday's sermon?

It works cos chuck norris tells it to:biggrin:

Ours again wait for a nice warm day, open every window and door in the house and turn the music up to 11. The rest of the street really appreciate the thought that we all want to listen to their taste of music at full blast.

So there's already a way to impose monitoring. What happens where there is no planning discharge?

You would hope, that like writing BS5837 reports, the consultant would remain objective. But I take your point and think I'd probably have to agree they'd be a certain degree of pressure. One way I imagine it might work, if the local planning had a list of consultants they trusted to monitor the site and conditioned usage of that list (might be shaky legal ground), and if it came to light the consultant was bowing to pressure - hearing, then off the list for good. Just a thought.