Gary Prentice

:biggrin: I think it's all about building bridges, particularly with TO's with an attitude that not every tree has to be saved. If replacement can be confidently assured, continuity, different age classes and variety can be introduced. Where's the downside in that?

As time passes I've found that more and more often I'm playing devils advocate with the client, responding to their complaints from the Arb Officers point of view; "you have no right to satellite reception, collecting leaves - they're legally free agents, cleaning gutters - householders maintenance etc, etc etc etc Admittedly, I'll still work in the clients best interests but won't waste my own time and energy pursuing the unobtainable. I fully understand and appreciate the TO's task 'to maintain and improve the canopy cover within the borough' and by and large attempt to work towards the same ends. I certainly don't envy their position, I'm sure very few people ring up to enthuse about the LA tree outside their house, rather I know they receive endless complaints day after day which aren't mitigated by an explanation of the benefits that trees provide. Nimby's come to mind At the end of the day, shouldn't we all: arborists, arboriculturists, consultants and planning officers all have a great deal of common ground and goals? This is a general post Kevin, I read yours this morning and it made me think all day about my own attitudes, relationships and the barriers that did exist earlier in my own career.

It's all very confusing:confused1: From the yesterdays Sheffield CC Appeal. Dillner, R (On the Application Of) v Sheffield City Council [2016] EWHC 945 (Admin) (27 April 2016) Paragraph 149. "The textbook Moore and Purdue "A Practical Approach to Planning Law" (12th Ed 2012) at [26.01] says that the cutting down of a tree does not appear to be development within the 1990 Act. That explains the use of Tree Preservation Orders, which would not be required if such works required planning permission and were thus acts of development." What is the Government’s policy on the use of conditions in planning permissions? Paragraph 203 of the National Planning Policy Framework states “Local planning authorities should consider whether otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable through the use of conditions” Paragraph 206 of the National Planning Policy Framework states “Planning conditions should only be imposed where they are: necessary; relevant to planning and; to the development to be permitted; enforceable; precise and; reasonable in all other respects.” The policy requirement above is referred to in this guidance as the six tests. After reading another thread last night (about contacting tree owners who had made TPO work applications), I was wondering why our LA didn't publicize TPO application decisions. From Sheffield I now know:biggrin: (I think!)

There's a thread on UKTC currently about conditions being fair, reasonable and enforceable.

How accurate is it? Have you created/written forms that can go straight into a report/5837 survey from this? I ask before I spend hours messing about myself:biggrin:

I mentioned that, on UKTC, but as Jules (Daltontrees) pointed out, due to the TRN there was no financial gain. i.e no further 'space' became available for development.

As mentioned on UKTC, it's interesting that despite employing a planning consultant to oversee the development, the owner was prosecuted too. I find it odd that the owner claimed to have no knowledge of the TPO, despite also saying that it had run out..... oops!

C3 - also known as a Beyonce:biggrin:

As a buyer, according this article, Ebay sides with the buyer. There's loads of ways published to get your money back shown here - It?s seller beware as eBay?s buyer guarantee is exploited by scammers | Money | The Guardian Unfortunately for all concerned if the carrier doesn't accept responsibility, someone is going to undeservedly lose out.

I asked for that:blushing: Try again. I wonder why there might be a larger population of trees with 'tolerant markers' in the UK than in Europe?

The Independent's article reads a little more promising still: "Initial screening of several small UK populations has also indicated that the markers for tolerance may be more common in UK ash trees, compared with other parts of Europe." I wonder why? New hope in fight against ash dieback - a tree called Betty | Nature | Environment | The Independent

Chris, could you email me a copy of the subsidence post and the other legal post, when convenient. They're good reference material as I aways forget what case I want to reference to or refer to. Thanks, Gary

So the trees actually a camel, by the time the committee is done:biggrin:

From the little that I've read, I can't remember settlement being a significant problem or even being particularly mentioned. Sorry, that's not much health.

You could try chip budding possibly, without beheading and destroying the rest of the tree. If the bud grows you're on a winner, if not it's only a small wound which shouldn't be detrimental. Just thinking out loud.

It also helps to prevent irate members of the public turning up and complaining that we're working on protected trees, if they've phoned planning who are aware of the extent of the work (Exempt) we're doing. Takes the wind out of their sails if planning already know and can say they are aware and everything's legit'.

Most of the LA's up here have distinct departments; TO's work on the environmental side while planning have their own fiefdoms. A planning enforcement officer would be the one to deal with TPO or Ca contraventions, with advise on the tree itself from the TO.

If we're doing exempt works, such as deadwooding, I'll generally forewarn planning as a courtesy and to prevent them coming out unnecessarily.

The tree officer doesn't necessarily have to attend as it's a planning issue (T&CPA) Enforcement officers are sufficient and I think (but stand to be corrected) are the only ones that are able to caution you 'that anything you say can be used against you". For the purpose of prosecution, as its a criminal offence the PACE rules apply (Police And Criminal Evidence Act 1984) and it has to be proven 'beyond reasonable doubt' who the guilty parties are. Despite this, contractors are prosecuted from time to time. I admittedly don't know the circumstances of particular cases, so can't say either way what the odds are when the culprit isn't caught in the act.

There's quite a few varieties of Fraxinus ornus being produced, particularly in the Netherlands. The bark is a sticking point - so far.

Acer negundo flowers appear a lot different (from an internet search), although they may be whiter than this picture.

I think it's a bit of an odd case. Most of the planning officers and TO's I've ever met would have wanted to pursue the contractor. The owner is elderly, possibly widowed, and not necessarily on the ball with TPO legislation. Whereas the contractor.... Although looking at the 'pruning' the 'tree surgeon' is probably not bone fide and now untraceable. The comments section in the first link provide a fair sample of Mr Joe Publics understanding of statutory protection and appreciation of trees in general.

Looks like a shame to be eating that, after the effort that's gone into it

As just a quick reply, the soil needs to rewet below the garage before any remedial works. The soil is probably in a state of dessication (due to the trees) and muchreduced in volume. As the soil returns to somewhere near normal moisture levels it will expand and cracks will close. This is why cracks open and close during different seasons with tree related subsideence problems.

I'm not sure that this is something that can 'fixed' by working externally. I did read a very good explanatory paper about graft incompatibility a while back but can't find it now. I did come across this paper that expands on some of the issues, but there is quite a lot of research available. Unfortunately, most of it involves young trees less than 4-5 years after grafting. Graft compatability in woody plants - Frank Santamour.pdf