kevinjohnsonmbe

Are you confused by your own argument Q? You seem to be both for & against the prosecution in 2 consecutive posts??

Can't believe the level of energy and opposing support / condemnation for this case. It's simple in my book, no training, poor working practice, no PPE = liability. Every bandit that gets exposed and prosecuted is the architect of their own misfortune.

Tree Warden scheme details here: Scheme Details | The Tree Council If possible you should apply via your parish council but this is sometimes ineffective as they don't always know much about it. I went direct to county council chief forestry officer - good luck, drop me a line if you hit any snags. There is also a thread earlier on in the forum (search PTI) and you should find some details about Guy Watson teaching the Professional Tree Inspectors course early in June (not sure what area you're in but worth talking to him to see what his schedule and locations are)

There's a wealth of experience and opinion here. Good thread and fantastic contributions which have been insightful and thought provoking to read. The references to slavering lawyers (as an aside) caught my imagination. Have you guys actually been called in front of a judge, or a planning appeals hearing and been required to account for your findings or are we speaking in terms of the hypothetical potential for that to happen?

Agreed, the BS isn't (supposed to be) a spec. But if banging head against a wall is to be incorporated at the next amendment, the WALL will need a spec otherwise all sorts of potential hazards could emerge: embedded particles of masonry, structural damage, dislodged masonry, etc, etc... The potential litigation could be disastrous!

Good stuff! Perhaps there should be a paragraph detailing the spec of said head banging wall!

Best bet is to run some polypipe through it in a coil and heat your water and radiators! It's being done in France.... Freebie!

Interesting thread, I'm typing up a report right now.... I found 5.1.1 useful in leading my thought process, the trees are only 1 factor in many that contribute to a planning decision. I've been mentally challenging the 'amenity value' tag which seems to be somewhat over applied. There are some appropriate definitions which I've found and they have been useful in supporting a recommendation for removal of a TPO tree - who'd have thought it! 5.1.1 The constraints imposed by trees, both above and below ground (see Note to 5.2.1) should inform the site layout design, although it is recognized that the competing needs of development mean that trees are only one factor requiring consideration. Certain trees are of such importance and sensitivity as to be major constraints on development or to justify its substantial modification. However, care should be taken to avoid misplaced tree retention; attempts to retain too many or unsuitable trees on a site can result in excessive pressure on the trees during demolition or construction work, or post-completion demands for their removal.

Very welcome! I've got several TPO issues running with 2 different council areas at present. It's been a useful revision exercise for me too

Let me know if you're ever in SE Cornwall!

Why am I such a dullard???? I can't attach a pic from a MacBook... Am I missing some magic trick?

Great news! PO has granted permission for pruning despite TO's latest request for MORE detail! Life is good, the sun is shining, there's a challenging dismantle scheduled for Thu-Sat, I've had the morning at The Sportsmans in Exeter and I'm spending the afternoon prepping kit for tomorrow.... Happy days!

Jules, the point was well made with the link Tony Sorenson posted above, and acknowledged as such. No ambiguity, no room to misinterpret, no point missed... The original gist of the thread, as I read it, was 'are TOs requesting too much specific detail (each individual branch) in TPO applications.' If we acknowledge that conscientious arb professionals are generally well versed in the best practice (BS, industry best practice, training, certification and experience) is it really necessary, appropriate and, ultimately, in the best interest of the future health and vitality of the tree, satisfactory to the client and 'workable' for the contractor to over engineer the TPO application process? Where frustration reaches an untenable point, is it not inevitable that client, contractor or (in my current case) neighbours will take unilateral action which is damaging to the tree and a breach of planning law? That lead me to wonder, who, when and how many people have even been cautioned for pruning a TPO tree. In the case I have for example, the TO has visited the site, viewed the tree and it is blatantly obvious that the neighbours are hacking at will. Has he taken any action....? Of course not but is he demanding a pedantic level of detail in the formal application from an experienced, trained professional that wants to achieve the best possible compromise for tree and client....? I'll bank in an FOI I think, see how many cases have been reported and of those how many led to formal or informal action. Lively debate, keeps you thinking!! Maybe I'll take it up with FSB...