kevinjohnsonmbe

Sounds like you read the application Gary..... "...Notwithstanding the absence of notable defects, decay or dysfunction which might normally be associated with an application to fell, it is suggested that the long term diversity and sustainability of the tree’d landscape might be better achieved by proactive environmental management: - Removal of a tree which is currently presenting (likely remain / increase) an intolerable level of conflict / administrative burden. - Pre-empt and avoid potential future financial liability for local authority should damage occur after refusal of TPO application. - Selection of a species and new planting location which allows for unimpeded growth to maturity. - Facilitate new / additional compensatory planting with the associated benefit of diversifying the area species composition. - Address the age class imbalance...."

Can't see how anyone could offer a price per m without having first scoped out all of the above - especially given the eye watering price range for the surface finish. Might be fair to do price / m excluding materials - anything else is a recipe for getting yourself done over by a sharp customer.

One of the "ups" from today Gary, after some email and telephone exchanges, I've met a TO from a neighbouring county that I hadn't met face-to-face before. The scenario was always going to be a 50/50 (at the very best) chance of obtaining a TPO approval for a fell/removal. There were no credible (in fact there were just no opportunities) to present decay/dysfunction justifications for the removal. The only possible case for the application was "wrong tree, wrong place" and, with the benefit of hindsight, possibly a questionable decision to TPO the tree in the first place - lack of foresight for potential future 'complications' (drain runs/power/phone lines.) After some issues with time to determine (non determination appeal) and site visits that didn't get up close and personal with the tree, we had a joint home owner, TO, arb meeting at the base of the tree today. I have been absolutely open with the TO about understanding the potential difficulty in them being able to reach a decision that favoured the home owners desired outcome. And have made an extra effort to demonstrate the existing positive attitude towards trees and canopy cover that the home owner has, and the potential negative effect that a refusal could have on this person's future approach towards trees and TPOs. My goodness, who ever expected to be so deeply involved in arbitration, mediation and ego management when they started cutting trees? It's a fairly long and complex scenario cut down to the absolute minimum (for the benefit of not typing too much) the upshot is, I've met someone today that has made a massively positive impression. Despite the obvious difficulties of covering a merged LA area, staffing and recent IT (for upgrade - read problems!), a TPO scenario that was far from straight forward, but has (hopefully - subject to written confirmation) delivered a pragmatic and forward looking solution to a difficult problem, whilst taking into account not just his own considerations, but those of the home owner and the arb as well. He who shall remain nameless - I hope you're reading this and getting a good feeling from someone that appreciates your time today! Your final paragraph above Gary, I think we could all take a lesson from that!

Ummmm, I thought I "got it" until you posted this Gary.... Ummmm, thanks (I think) for making me read all of that as well! Head in hands after a very up and down day! It's a curse, the more you ask, the more you have to read and try and reconcile!

If I understand it correctly, CE is a self certification by a manufacturer that their product conforms to a recognised standard. Trouble being, it's self certified - I think there were 1000's of women affected by CE labeled PIP breast implants who might have a different view on the validity of CE marking. CE = self certified (open to abuse by unscrupulous manufacturers) BSI kite mark = tested and certified by an independent laboratory I'd agree in general though, one would hope that a reputable manufacturer would abide by the CE standards.

Thanks Anno! I try not to think of it as a "fence" with the possible connotations of barriers.... Plus, Chris and Ed comments above are from TO perspective too I think. What I find really useful is getting real life feedback from TO's because there is often a perspective that the contractor may not be aware of.

Thanks for that guys! Thanks all for comments.....

Struggling to find an answer or probable/possible implication where a TPO approval is granted, subject to condition(s) but some or all conditions are breached. For example: Normal or expected conditions "completed within 2 years" - ok, fairly obvious, after 2 years the approval expires and it might be treated the same as there not being permission. "To the standard of BS3998 - what if it isn't? What happens next? What process would LA be able to implement to force remedial action? "No work between Apr-Aug so as not to disturb nesting birds" but then work is done within that period? What could be a LA reaction? What is the mechanics of LA response to condition breach? Does it invalidate the approval and lead to possible prosecution along similar lines to doing work without having gained approval? Any thoughts appreciated.

Not the sharpest tool in the box! No mention of a proceeds of crime cash grab in the article.....

Pound Hill business owner heavily fined for cutting down protected trees in bid to build new homes | Crawley News Ex LA planning enforcement officer turned bad?

Have you got a link to the group, can't seem to find it on FB Cancel that..... Got it!

Nice one! Good photographic skills!!

Absolutely..... First initiative test! Maybe contacting NPTC later, but has he also 'forgotten' where he did the training? I bet the training centre could quite easily check records of previous training / assessment just to put your mind at rest whilst waiting for certified copies.

Old stock, garden centre, pot bound roots never established anchorage perhaps?

4.5.2 The purpose of the tree categorization method, which should be applied by an arboriculturist, is to identify the quality and value (in a non-fiscal sense) of the existing tree stock, allowing informed decisions to be made concerning which trees should be removed or retained in the event of development occurring. I'm afraid this is a question rather than a contribution.... In making the informed decision about quality and value of existing tree stock, and ultimately which trees might be retained / removed on an individual potential development site, would it be reasonable to think that somebody might be taking an overview of the regional planning proposals (including historic) and bringing that collective perspective of regional tree stock (potential losses at individual sites v possible gains in planting projects for example) to bear in the decision making cycle? Is that even a realistic concept? I suspect probably not but it has left me thinking, how can a justifiable case for either retention or removal of individual trees be supported without some reference to broader influences beyond the single prospective development site? My town has several (<50 houses) individual development sites recently completed and proposed - all on former green field sites I suspect it's the same in many rural towns. If each is viewed in isolation, the loss of some trees on each might not seem too much of a compromise given the drive to build. But collectively, I suspect they represent quite a significant loss of semi/mature trees from a reasonably condensed area.

Looking for some help or pointers finding any references to the potential for, and possible impact of reclaimed land "settling" after landscaping works on former landfill sites. It looks like a great deal of research was conducted into the suitability of former landfill sites for tree planting. It would appear that the research focussed predominantly upon the site preparation to ensure a rooting environment that was suitable for tree growth, appropriate tree species and the potential risk of tree roots penetrating the infill ‘cap’ and releasing contaminants. I can find no info which explores the potential for land to ‘settle’ after remedial works and which might suggest a delay between landscaping and tree planting (to allow for settlement) might have been appropriate. Anyone been down this route before?

Ok, sorry dad....

Surprised to see an extract from a gardening website offered up given the depth, knowledge and experience offered up in previous contributions to the thread.....

I've been looking at this sort of arrangement. Offers protection from abrasion / UV and potential hyd injection injury but isn't so much of a hassle as to stop you wanting to remove it to check hoses for wear.

I sincerely hope not..... It doesn't bode well for the rest of us! I didn't exactly hold back in my youth and still probably pushing harder than I ought to be now, but on current trend, I'm thinking of ratcheting it up a gear or two just in case I haven't got as long as I thought left!! 🍻💊🍄☘💉🍾🍹🛫🏄🏼🎿🏖🌍🛬🎩🏇🏽🏇🏽🍷🍾🍻🍡🚢🎡🎢📸💰〽️⚠️⤵️🔜☠

Hydraulic injection injury - glad you mentioned that ("glad" is not really the right word though) What are your thoughts on protective over sheaths for hyd hoses? I can see the potential benefit on the one hand, protection from UV, abrasion etc and some dissipation of a jet after hose failure, but on the other hand, possibly a tendency to "hide" a visual clue to a hose degrading and needing replacement prior to failure? Any thoughts? http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr976.pdf

Are you inside TX-24 yet? If yes, and you want a punt at some GRT work placement let me know.... It's Cornwall mind!

Great table...... But.... Tell us more about the poem!

Have you considered having the conversation with the planning case officer? (I'm guessing it would only be worth a punt if, on the one hand you have a TO (as, I think you're suggesting) clawing as much RPA as possible, even if you don't agree with the logic but maybe passively do agree with the motive, and on the other hand, have an architect or land owner facing significant reduction of concept design potential?) Potentially a double edged sword but there have been occasions where I have been unable to reach a mutual agreement with a TO, but found the PO to be much more approachable and receptive to a well presented argument. TO = consultee PO = executive decision

Oh, bugger! I would only have asked the final question, just out of interest, but I'm not sure I want to now.....