Gary Prentice

I'm always uncomfortable using tracked chippers amongst trees. Do you feel that the mewp may cause soil compaction? Given that the literature says damage is caused on the first pass of the vehicle. I'm not trying to be argumentative, as I'm sure you've considered all the angles:thumbup1:

Consensus of opinion today, at the P & D seminar at myerscough, was to hold back on coppicing. Young growth being particularly vulnerable. (Ie keep as much leaf volume as possible)

I'll get the coffee on arrival then:thumbup:

They,re also unlikely to cut 10ft off the top, even if you ask nicely.

:001_tt2:me

The 5P's: Proper Planning Prevents P... Poor performance. If you break it - mend it If you use it - put it back If you blunt it - sharpen it

My bad terminology:blushing: thanks for the input

As RobArb said, this is quite difficult to get your head around at times, but thanks for expanding on some of the issues. Like anything else, regular usuage, would expand the understanding.

Jules, that was my understanding that the permitted development trumped any TPO. Anyway, I got to the bottom of it today. No orders, but the planning officer was "sort of" suggesting that the Landscaping Condition was "kind of" going to be the decision time on the tree work issue....... The TO was going to visit to look for an agreement on required works, but that ideas being shelved after discussion. To enable the development, as permitted, we can remove what we intended. I did point out the timescale of the applications, almost two years, and that our client could have carried out a lot of pre-emptive felling. Thanks for all the information, it helped to confirm my understanding of the more complex (to me) details.

There's more:001_tt2: But I'm always pleased to receive answers/opinions on the legal stuff from Jules and yourself. Thanks for the answers Jules:thumbup: 1)That was my original thought, as there is no mention of trees at all, either in the original 2011 application (withdrawn) or the current consented one. The only written indication is a condition of planning consent for tree planting " No development shall take place unless and until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved (such scheme to include any subsequent amendments as required by the Authority). The hard landscape details shall include proposed finished levels or contours; means of enclosure; hard surfacing materials and street furniture, where relevant. The soft landscaping works shall include planting plans; written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment); schedules of plants and trees, noting species, plant/tree sizes and proposed numbers/densities and the implementation programme." Most trees are indicated on the site plans, with the exception of one group in the car park. 2) &3) This is where it gets a bit tricky. I think the council would have difficulty claiming to presume the group is/was intended to be retained. Details provided state the garden area is approximately 450 higher than the access road, levels to be reduced to road level for a membrane/sub base and gravel surfacing to be installed. The planned site visit on wednesday may bring a TPO with it, but I can't imagine they can now include this group? On the assumption that they can't, I plan to remove one other tree on tuesday, (after checking the absence of TPO,s tomorrow) before the site meeting. By only removing one sycamore the FC felling licence becomes mute anyway. Anyone reading who has doubts about the morality of felling on this site should consider the following; 1) A planning app was submitted in 2011. A TPO should have been served then on the grounds of expediency. 2) A second, revised application was submitted early 2012, again showing the presence of trees. 3) A bat survey was supplied, but no tree survey or Arboricultural Impact Assessment was requested, or supplied, for either application. 4)The LPA has claimed there are/aren't TPO's applicable. If the planning department can't do their job properly, I'll certainly do everything possible to serve my clients interests. Rant over...

I've a client who has full planning consent, for a barn conversion. Normal conditions are applicable, in that development may not commence until details such as hard/soft landscaping plans, materials for doors/windows etc are agreed. Council has said there are no tree restraints present/there are tree restraints present?????????? Q1. Are tree works considered to be part of the commencement of development? Q2. If there are TPO's present and the development consent plans show carparking areas where the trees are, does this overide the TPO? (as I understand it does) Q3 The trees in Q2 are not shown on any plan (Supplied in the current application/consent and an earlier application that was withdrawn). Does this affect their status. No Arboricultural Survey was requested nor supplied. No details were requested with regard to tree protection etc and plans were accepted that allow soil level changes within the rooting area of a mature tree. Q4. Can the planning department now alter the permitted consent to take this into consideration? The car parking area is within an existing walled garden, as stated in the application. It's been unmanaged for a number of years, but contains non-native garden type plants. Witnesses are also available that this has been the land usuage for the last forty years. Given the number of trees the client wishs to remove, (subject to existing TPO,s), a felling licence would be possibly required if the land was registered as agricultural for example. Would the acceptance of the LPA of the garden statement exempt any FC felling licence issues? My life used to so much simpler when I only climbed trees.

To add to this, The planning authority does not need to be notified of works to trees in a conservation area in circumstances where consent would not be required if that tree were subject to a TPO. So you CAN prune for fruit in both a CA and if the trees are subject to a TPO. You may only fell without consent or notification if fruit production is commercial. 1999 model order. art.5(1)(b),© and draft TCP(TP)R 2011 reg.14.(1)(a)(vi),(1)(d)

I'm finding it really difficult to use. It seems to require a lot more information and the two or three attempts that I've had I just ended up quitting.

They can suggest what they want, if you agree then alls good. If not, they have no alternative other than to serve a TPO. They can use the threat of a TPO, tell you they are going to serve one, but after six weeks if the order hasn't been physically served you can do what you want. I've had this arguement with our LA. the orders being made and is in the legal department. Its fair game after six weeks, but get your dates right. Our LA now deal with my 211's promptly, whereas they used to be a bit lazy and serve orders at eight weeks and later.

LA's are good at getting you to provide un-necessary paperwork. My query was, are the same exemptions applicable in a CA as with a TPO. Mynor seems quite clear that pruning (presumably for fruit) is exempt in any context, commercial and domestic. BUT only commercial growers may fell without application and consent. (When the trees are subject to a TPO) So, is this exemption the same in a CA, in that you may prune, but not fell, domestically.

The 211 is a notice of intent to carry out tree works in a CA. Unlike an application for a TPO it doesn't have to be on an official application document. Sounds like you've done these before, not knowing what the relevent title was. The LPA have six weeks to agree or serve a TPO. The downloadable form is easy as it ensures you provide all the necessary details.

Out of interest, have you any references for this? Reading Mynors, with regard to TPO's, the 1999 Model Order relating to fruit trees. (2010 draft has identical wording) Consent is not required for c)"the pruning, in accordance with good horticultural practice, of any tree cultivated for the production of fruit." For felling it is clear that the exemption is only with regard to commercial production, whereas the pruning exemption does not make the distinction. I can't find any clarification with regard to CA's, but would find it surprising that the regulations would be stricter, as it were.

PMSL..... Our lad didn't mention you were shovelling too. Re-wired it temporarily, so something else on the "to repair" list.

Don't know about personal noise, but working is I believe 10am on a Sunday. I think the local councils website usually gives permitted hrs.

Can you expand on why the velar remains make it saprotrophic? Is there another form without a velar that's parasitic?

As tree quip said, but its just as easy to use the downloaded form. There is a section that differentiates between Tpo's and CA,s. the lpa are not obliged to acknowledge receipt, so keep a note of the date of notification. If a Tpo isn't served within six weeks, fell them. By filling in the official application form, as a 211 notice, should the trees be already TPO'd the authority deem it as an application. Again they are not legally obliged to acknowledge receipt. We email everything and get a read receipt as its surprising how many applications are mislaid.

Thanks for the offer, it's twenty back home for us. We do odd jobs your way though, so I'm sure we'll meet up at some point. John's helped us out this time. I didn't get to meet him, but I will do.

Thanks John, that was a big help today. Hopefully I can sort the tipping electrics out in the morning. It's been one of those days, I'll try and get over myself next week and say hello.

bump..

I thought they were all over dramatised. I'd imagine a lot of the American members on here are actually embarrassed that the rest of the world may think these programs are an accurate representation of the US forestry industry. One of the only real issues are the breakdowns, the rest seems like eastenders or towie