Gary Prentice

If you're planning a road trip, Oldham/Manchester is on the way to Silky's. I'm sure we could put you up for a night or two. As long as you like cats and dogs. On another note, an American company published a lot of results, using I think the picus, through one of the ISA regional magazines. (I came across it while researching an assignment) If you haven't read it I've probably got a link or downloaded everything) It was interesting and may be helpful. Give us a shout if you need to. Gary

Sorry a bit short notice but we have a fair sized sycamore near Kearsley. Anyone who could collect some wood from site or where we could deliver locally today (I know, I'm not asking much:blushing:) could you give me a call 07590 937 170. Same with woodchip, we'd deliver that and it would be a nice clean load. Timber could be collected from the site later in the week, but it's a pub car-park and there's no guarantee that it won't 'walk' after we leave. Although that might actually be a bonus for us:biggrin: Many thanks fary

You're a good man. I was going to message you at some point. A horticultural contractor I know has a friend/client who's purchasing a property at Cockermouth and is going to need a arborist at some point. Do you know any one that way. The property has woodland TPO's as well as individual tree orders by the sound of it. I'm trying to promote the use of an expert to deal with the planning when the time comes because it sounds complicated. Is it something you'd be interested in and if so can I pass your number on? Sorry Chris for the derail:blushing:

As Chris said, the guidance being guidance doesn't make it clear that notifying the person who submitted the S.211 is mandatory in the regulations. How many people actually read, or want to read, the statutory instruments if they can avoid it. The way the guidance is written can lead to lack of understanding because it doesn't or can't define what must be done and what should be done. If planning departments use the guidance it appears that they should but don't have too. Chris writes things so much clearer than me. Again policy would have been clearer if I had said normal practice.

We had a minor paint issue with a used Forst. One phone call, you can bring it in and we will sort it or do you want to DIY and we will send you the paint. Can't be fairer than that. Same with the axle, the original was the lower weight one. Sent some photos, new heavy axle came within a couple of days. ( we said we would fit it) brilliant company to deal with. Sorry, had no dealings with GM but those who I know that have, have been happy.

Not just Essex. Climber saw a transit casing up our pickup and chipper from the tree in the back garden, when the passenger realised they'd been spotted they sped off before the groundsman could get round for the registration no. It's almost a daily occurrence.

I'm getting to like you, I think I look nearer 70:biggrin:

If the depth guides have been so high they've been running in contact with the bottom of the cut, they seem to become case hardened. A couple of strokes under hard pressure seems to remove it- but I know what you mean. Had similar with customers saws where they've been ground in a hire shop and a round file wants to skate off. Just my conclusion.

Nail and head, Chris. Interestingly, I spoke to Oldham planning today. They have no actual policy of informing the agent- but the only officer who deals with trees sends the TPO to the agent because he personally classes them as an interested party. Bolton doesn't have any policy, that the fellow I spoke to was aware of.

My point was more that picus testing was cheaply available, the decision could (in some cases) be to do nothing. I often feel that works done unnecessarily in an attempt to mitigate a risk, to be on the safe side, without any real knowledge of the actual need. I'd love to own more testing equipment and be able to offer that, but currently the cost of testing is so high the client is just fell it.

You might find that loose bolt has threaded the hole. We had one recently do that. Helicoiling worked.

Simply to terrorize. Hit the soft targets and the up swell of public opinion achieves what can't be attained on the battlefield. TBH I haven't a clue. I avoid world politics and religion as much as I can. Religious zealots (of any persuasion) can't be reasoned with. Makes you wonder when it's the Uk's turn.

Everydays a schoolday, as they say. If my understanding of the differences between should and shall are correct (David drummed that into us) it's easy to see that the guidance, which i imagine is the first and probably reference source anyone looks at, has continued the practice. We've a large, publicly visible sycamore to fell tomorrow in a CA. It's caused a load of damage to the neighbours garage with cracks every where. It's really a no brainer, but I haven't dealt with this authority before so they could possibly serve it (they'd never confirm it).I don't want to travel there tomorrow and the postman arrive with the order at 9am. I'll still end up ringing the planning department to check this afternoon to cover all bases.

Reading some legal dictionaries in the early hours, after posting, I think 'shall' makes it an obligation, 'you will serve the person who submitted'. The agent has become an interested party - so it's always been daft that they're not informed IMO. It's a bit poor that the Planning Practice Guidance uses 'should' - which has a lesser order of instruction, (you should do but don't have to) when it appears from the regulations that it's a requirement and not voluntary. I'll start ruffling feathers in my future s.221 notices, reminding planning departments of the requirement to serve me too and see what reaction I get. Orders on everything probably.

That really tickles me:biggrin: and I like the carving as I think it's not overworked/overdone. Be nice to see it with the finishing details done.

I wish I knew at 24 what I know now.

Cheeky whippersnapper, I only turned 50 six weeks ago.

Me too. I thought that might be the solution, but wondered if you'd replaced tonnes of soil and removed all the colonised roots. If it was still used for that purpose the consideration would always be weighing damage to good soil fungi against killing the HF. I'd probably have done the same in you situation. I was also kinda hoping you had an unknown and unpublicised solution that no one else knew. Thanks, Gary

From what I can make out there doesn't seem to be much in the way of crown symptoms in the main stem? Wouldn't it be nice if the Picus was a £1000.00 and more decisions could be quantified? Not disagreeing with your decision, based on the information available I'd be proposing the same.

And it appears to be in the Regulations (if I understand it correctly) STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 2012 No. 605 TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, ENGLAND The Town and Country Planning (Tree Preservation)(England) Regulations 2012 Procedure after making an order 5.—(1) As soon as practicable after making an order, and before confirming it, the authority which made it shall— (a)serve on the persons interested in the land affected by the order— (i)a copy of the order; and (ii)a notice containing the particulars specified in paragraph (2) (b)make a copy of the order available for public inspection, in accordance with paragraph (3); and ©in the case of an order made following service of a notice under section 211(3) (preservation of trees in conservation areas), serve on the person who served that notice the information specified in sub-paragraph (a). http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/605/made So am I correct that 'shall' means that the LA must serve the agent too? Sorry for monopolising my own thread, it's been bugging me all night.

Found it. Protecting trees in conservation areas | Planning Practice Guidance Paragraph: 119 Reference ID: 36-119-20140306 How does the local authority decide whether a tree in a conservation area merits a Tree Preservation Order? The authority’s main consideration should be the amenity value of the tree. In addition, authorities must pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area. Even if the tree’s amenity value may merit an Order the authority can still decide that it would not be expedient to make one. If an Order is made, in addition to fulfilling the usual statutory requirements, the authority should also provide a copy of the new Order to any agent who submitted the section 211 notice. It should also explain to the person who gave notice that an application for consent under the Order may be made at any time. Revision date: 06 03 2014 Unfortunately it's guidance and reads 'should', not 'must'

Thanks for posting that David. I'd forgotten the title.

Do tell? Now this is getting even more interesting. Gary

I came across a TPO that wasn't confirmed, under the old Regs, for eight years. I think IIRC the longest one I've read about was thirteen years! We've also had a couple of clients who had bought houses unaware of statutory protection because the solicitor hadn't searched them/been misinformed in their searches.

Thanks Chris, I was sure this had been changed ( for the better), I've a list of changes somewhere at work from Mr Dowson I'll dig out in the morning. I'm pretty sure that Jules wrote one too - My memories not particularly good at the moment but my filings always been worse. If I can find a definitive answer I'll post it. I may be getting confused with my LA informing me ( as agent ) but that may be more courtesy than regulations.