Gary Prentice

Think that the chicken wire is too flimsy to be effective. I'd either staple it to a couple of small posts (to keep it up) or replace it with a ring of pig netting, which would be more self-supporting but possibly less effective to rabbits

Would Stag have really complained if the replacement (artificial) trees were 50-60 ft specimens? Maybe these artificial trees/charging ports could be designed to provide all the ecosystem benefits of real trees too. Edit: Jokes aside, I know Finland is quite advanced. You pull into a public car park and every parking bay has a plug-in post to heat your engine to stop the oil cooling. Not sure what the amps/voltages are but they've created a pretty decent infrastructure so far.

How long before someone comes up with the idea of felling street trees, replacing them with an artificial one with charging ports on the stem. Think about it. Most electricity supplies are under the pavement already, you'd save a fortune in leaf sweeping, pruning costs (no future footpath damage from growing roots) and there could be loads of different artificial tree designs, small leaves/ open crown outside all the light loving complainers. I can go on Maybe there's even a means of having of having photo-electric cells in the artificial leaves, so the artificial trees create energy on sunny days. Think I'm onto a winner here

I suppose that depends whether he's working for you or against you!

Strangely enough I've never 'lost touch' with anybody that that I desired to keep in touch with.

Arb qualifications are very different to those that Planners study for. The POs that I know have 'planning' degrees and rely on their TO counterparts to advise on tree related matters within TWAs I do know of one planning officer at Calderdale (Halifax) who made the transition to become a TO though, gaining arb qualifications after many years in the planning department.

Thanks Edward, that explains a lot. My misconception was that as the appeal was for non-determination, if the LA then reached a determination there was no longer a valid reason for the appeal. I've never submitted a ND appeal myself.

Hope that you emailed the original, unrevised, quote and haven't deleted it. I sure that that would help if you end up in court. I do wonder if, assuming that you kept the grinding nice and tight to the stump itself, grinding may have been a contributory factor? With the trees being close together you would expect roots to be intermingled, so severing roots from the stump of the tree that you felled may have then reduced the cohesion of the roots of the surrounding trees. I'd hope that it would be easy to prove, with some careful excavation of the ground stump, that you didn't sever any roots of the remaining trees, but if my theory is pursued you may have problems disproving that. I'd start by reminding the owner of your original quote and its warnings, along with plenty of research literature (Mattheck is good) about soil moisture content and root cohesion. Convince him he's on a hiding to nothing even pursuing the matter. Good luck.

Good luck with that, the law is still struggling to define what a tree is, let alone a major branch. If it helps, an irate enforcement officer turned up on a site we were clearing. Some small trees and small coppice growth mainly. He was adamant that we should have had a felling licence and that we had exceeded 5cm. When told that if he could find a buyer, he could sell it and keep the proceeds he just left.

What about those taking a three day course so that they can replace tree officers?

I might be dreaming, but I thought that in the past if the LA determined an application after a ND appeal was initiated, the appeal just stopped? Has something changed or has this always been the case, that PINs determine the application. "Appeal waiting times should be reducing as the new arb NSI's start working" A recent communication I received said that that although, currently, the Fast-track system was at 33 weeks and new inspectors were being employed it was unlikely that they would reduce the time span for recent appeals.

Oi Bullman! Eloquent as usual eggs

I'm struggling to find the document that I'm thinking about, I read it while preparing to decide on my Independent Research Project Assignment about 4 -5 years ago. A quick google has provided an article from the Iow council as to why they were doing/going to do it. Isle of Wight Council OLD-IWIGHT.ONTHEWIGHT.COM

You know Kevin, you come across as a bit anti-establishment, just every now and again

I don't know, plenty of people seem happy to pay a premium for supposedly 'greener' products/services. Not being argumentative as such, but I wonder at the awareness of the man on the Clapham omnibus about the environmental benefits of urban trees.

You're just not trying hard enough

Just something to throw into the thread for consideration. As Chris has said these categories are derived from trees that have been involved in subsidence cases. We should also consider all the trees on similar soils close to structures, of similar foundation design and depth, that haven't caused subsidence!

Imagine a world where... Local authorities received adequate funding to properly 'protect and enhance' the local canopy cover The importance of trees in the urban environment was actually recognised by everyone, from the serving Government right down to the average landowner

Just trying to keep you on your Toes Chris! And I did concur with your ZOI/soil/foundation comment

To be fair Chris I think that the Water Demand tables came about more due to the requirements of the insurance industry than being based on scientific research and evidence, in that trees frequently associated with subsidence were rated in the higher categories. Hawthorn, being a relatively small species are frequently planted near to properties and hence have a higher association with subsidence than maybe warranted by the amount of water they use. I'm sure that Gile Biddle is pretty scathing about how they were produced. But I'd agree, in the wrong soils and with shallow foundations that tree would have the potential to create subsidence (most trees of that size would) Getting back to the question in hand. Is the property showing any symptoms of subsidence? Cracks that change in width seasonably, particularly around openings such as doors and windows. Generally unless you have subsidence problems heave is of little concern. Removing a tree of a period of time is no longer recognised as a means of preventing heave. It'll just cost the owner more. If the tree has caused a soil moisture deficit and a volumetric change (shrinkage = subsidence) the eventual return to equilibrium (expansion = heave) will be the same. reducing the tree over a number of years only prolongs the time for the soil to reach its full wet volume. EDIT; Not all clay soils are involved in heave/subsidence. Only certain clays, made of particular materials, have a high shrink/swell potential, so more information than just clay content is needed before the probability of soil expansion can be considered.

Is this any use?

Seems like there is more than one definition of quarter sawing.

It certainly appears that very few, consistently, prosecute contraventions. Maybe if the fines imposed came back to the LA, instead of to the Government coffers, there would more incentive. Exactly. I've found it even easier, as a contractor, to write the specification for the application. Things would work even better if the planning department were more strict in their validation of the application, only accepting very detailed work specs and following up after the work was done. We've all seen pruning works on protected trees which either should never been allowed or must have been in excess of the consent given. LAs need the resources to police the process far more stringently than most appear to do. One word. Resources. TPOs are funny things, they just protect the tree but they don't provide the means to allow the LA to enforce the maintenance of the 'asset' that the tree is. As long as the owner doesn't harm the tree it's acceptable for them to ignore it and do nothing that might be beneficial to safeguarding its existence. Sorry Matty, I don't understand what you don't! I agree that not enough trees are protected, I'm aware of many that should be but aren't. Being pragmatic I just accept that it is an imperfect system and everyone involved is doing the best they can with the resources that they have got. After the last big emergence of DED the Isle of Wight authority redid the TPOs on the whole island. There's a paper, online, about it, which explains the time and costs involved. It's an eye-opener to the magnitude of revoking and producing an amended TPO. I'll post it if I can find it (or email to you). It's worth reading to better understand the hoops that need to be jumped through to protect trees and the costs imposed to do so.

I don't think that I've ever met a TO who hasn't lamented on the inability to do away with old area orders, to be replaced with tree specific ones, due to lack of resources. Realistically we're probably lucky to even have a proper tree officer in the first place, instead of a planning officer who has sat through a weeks course in preparation for covering the arbs role. While the government fail to acknowledge the importance of trees in the environment, (locally not globally), nothing will change.

Another topic entirely, but I wonder what percentage of 'protected' trees actually merit a TPO? All I ever hear are TOs complaining that lack of resources prevent resurveying (particularly of old area TPOs). This is a comment, not a criticism. I have a feeling that it may have been a case that it was more to do with poor representation on the defendants side, than really good on the prosecutions.