kevinjohnsonmbe

With alacrity Mr P! PM follows!

Pair of W anchors! I done the other one as well.... it was "as" but I changed it to "than" First bottle of red, done.....

No small undertaking and not to be attempted without due thought and consideration! I'm not at all sure you'll find the Voltaire-esque illumination you've asked for, but there may well be an immediate and obvious reason for that..... There is nothing to disagree with in your preceding posts where you present the position that nothing more, or less, than amenity and the submitted justification for requesting consent for works should be considered in the decision making process that precedes a DN. On that we are in complete accord. Where, I think, we may diverge slightly, is that (I presume) you exist in a highly professional, fully resourced, experienced, qualified and equipped environment where consultee input to DNs is given all of the necessary attention and staffing prior to submission to the PO and as such, you may not have been exposed to, or even be able to comprehend the possible existence of, poorly conceived, inadequate or blatantly "made up" statements, requirements or conditions attached to DNs which eminate from (dare I say it) less well equipped, resourced and motivated working environments than I imagine yours to be? And so, whereas enlightenment may be beyond my ability, it is with much regret that I may actually need to bring to your attention the disappointment that can be experienced when exposed to organisations with less qualified, experienced, engaging and professional staff - yes, I'm sorry to be the bearer of such devastating news, they do exist and the empirical evidence is here on this forum and within my own personal experience - where, it may be felt that, DNs can appear to be justified by 'amenity' (subjective and almost impossible to define) in order to avoid any deeper staffing of the application. Purely a personal opinion, but the A word can be the refuge of the inexperienced or overworked TO and whilst it may well be enough to deter the random homeowner applicant or equally over-worked and ambivalent contractor, in the long term, (again, a personal view) it's does no credit to the shared aspiration of achieving real amenity. Perhaps we could re-visit the discussion when the outcome of this particular incident is in the public domain? Beer O'clock!

This might end up taking a tangent (and potentially getting a bit heated) but it could also throw up some interesting thoughts / opinions which may give sangmish some food for thought as to how it might be taken forward...... (hopefully) So, if the roots of the tree encroach into your boundary causing an obstruction to the free use of property so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property then it might be considered an actionable nuisance (What is ACTIONABLE NUISANCE? definition of ACTIONABLE NUISANCE (Black's Law Dictionary) and RE: define actionable nuisance) From the 2015 Mynors seminar at Barcham, it was suggested (much to the horror of some of the LA representatives (+/- 60% of the audience)) that, a TPO cannot overrule a persons right to enjoy their property and that no permission might need to be sought in the case of an actionable nuisance even where a TPO tree is concerned. There was a thread after the seminar which re-visited many of the topics that were discussed, including this issue: http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/training-education/87782-barcham-seminar-charles-mynors-trees-law.html What I wouldn't be clear on in this instance is wether planning permission might need to be sought for the installation of the parking area (I'm guessing that would very much depend upon the nature and extent of the works necessary to install the parking) and, if planning consent WAS required, it might not be approved BECAUSE of the incursion into the RPA. If planning permission WAS NOT required (subject to the nature of the works), it might be the case that the known (or assumed) presence of the roots is presenting an actionable nuisance by preventing the free use of privately owned property - ergo, an actionable nuisance. I'm not suggesting any of this should be relied upon, it's more of an open question that I have yet to resolve in my mind (or test in court - although we did recently come close!) and I'm hoping that some more experienced and qualified comment may follow.....

Clear the car park for crane / working area, might be possible to do TM with stop works boards? That'd be super quick if possible.

👍🏻 What's the chances of it being a farmer / ag related?

The Newspaper or the website??

She's finally surfaced again since her Brexit migraine then - shame really. Funny, you couldn't turn the news / political discussion programs on without hearing her drivel, then embarrassing absence at Brexit vote and as Labour cabinet collapses (again), then she's off the radar for a few days, now she's back.... Shame really....

174 posts later.... Keep the faith brother, it may take an interesting turn yet!

I read that as the remaining trees should be re-inspected Gary?

I think that's a good post there Roz!

You missed one Ed! It's "amenity" when the TO can't be arsed to think of anything else.... (I hope you take that in the way it was intended, it's not confrontational, but rather a humorous reflection on some of the frustrations that are experienced at the operators end of the process. There has been plenty of discussion regarding the ambiguity of "amenity", plenty of discussion about frustrations over seemingly odd decisions / random or made up conditions and plenty of discussion about under resourcing of LAs - they all play a part)

(1) Thanks for that info, that wasn't apparent from that which was immediately available. (2) Struggling with this bit: The applicant has to provide sufficient justification / evidence to allow the LA to reach a decision - was that achieved? (Well, they made a decision!) But perhaps the info provided was not in sufficient detail or sufficiently compelling to facilitate a consent? The LA has to refer back to the applicant if the info is vague or ambiguous. It doesn't appear that the information provided was vague or ambiguous, just insufficient perhaps? The balance of probability is that all trees will fall over, it's just a matter of time. I didn't see anything in the survey report that gave a timescale within which the tree should be felled to avoid failure (I might have missed it, it was getting late last night when I read it.) How does the probability v time scenario play out in that case? (3) Good, quite rightly so.

Has anyone ever done a pull test? I suggested it once for a row of trees bordering a playground where the muppet who installed the play equipment had run a wheel digger along one side of the trees. The PC didn't take my advice on that occasion (pull test or fell & seek recompense from landscaper - turned out the "landscaper" was the partner of one of the councillors ✉️ 💷. Chairman was super keen to offset the costs back to the landscaper until the dodgy deal came to light) They're riding their luck in my opinion but I'll be the first in the queue with background evidence when the 💩hits the AC.

I can Mr E! Because, to him, unlike us, 85k is pocket change!! 😄😄

Agreed - a fine cost / result balance is required when spending others money. Maybe I make it all too 'personal' but if I'd received that decision notice I'd feel professionally and morally obliged to follow up (perhaps more realistically, pre-discuss positions with with TO prior to DN) what appears to be a fairly generic, unimaginative and lame brush-off DN based on less than compelling consultee input. Perhaps that region isn't blessed with approachable, sensible and experienced TOs who have the time / resource to engage with applicants?

I disagree, humbly. Short of being forced into Islamic obedience (or death) nothing will change the opinions of some.....

The homeowner appears to have been "content" to accept the refusal notice rather than progress the matter. The survey report failed to provide sufficient evidence to PROVE the probability of failure (or provide sufficient weight of evidence in support of the probability.) The TO appears to have relied upon the old "amenity" chestnut to recommend refusal. If the homeowner or surveyor had had sufficient conviction they could have progressed to more advanced investigations (leaning Beech - Merip? GPR root finder?) Will be interesting to see where liabilities are laid! The lesson I'd take from it is, if you really believe the cause is just, never, ever give in (unless you have a signed indemnity excusing you from progressing any further - wether that be from the tree owner or the authority who is taking on liability as a consequence of refusal.)

Just google it: https://searchbonus.eu/independent-most-europeans-want-immigration-ban-from-muslim-majority-countries-poll-reveals/ https://newsnyork.com/poll-most-europeans-want-to-ban-immigration-from-muslim-majority-countries/ http://m.newsok.com/article/5537283 http://truthmovementnews.com/europeans-want-immigration-ban-muslim-majority-countries-poll-reveals/

Hells teeth! Even Nicola Sturgeon's getting in on the game! Apparently, she didn't like the outcome and recommendations and wanted a second opinion before the economy, Er, tree, came crashing down!

I did see a headline in online news about Teressa May mocking his hand size today.... Didn't read any further... I'd imagine he has small hands, clammy palms and a limp lettuce handshake....

He don't go cattle class with the curry massive!

You heretic!! You've referenced the satanic publication..... :lol:

There are many models & spec's Steve, only way to get an accurate price is to phone Jordan at MultiOne and ask for details / demo. Their details are here on the sponsors page or google for phone number.

Do people actually eat lentils?