kevinjohnsonmbe

Yeah DA and Jeremy Corbyn. I just generally included them under the Labour banner - although, I think, Corbyn is still kicked out of Labour isn’t he?? He needs to go in the lime pit either way. Probably wouldn’t hurt to throw Clarkson in for good measure too - irritating tosser.

+ HMRC and the Labour Party? Now you’re talking!!

If you love it, let it go….. So to speak?

Leave the stump be, let nature do it’s thing. Better job would be to poison the neighbours and all estate / letting agents and use their decomposing entrails to fertilise the struggling Cherry.

I’m going, prob Friday night for Saturday at show.

Yeah, right, I went out in the rain to get that!

Is the point yome making simply that there is no need for a sign to say a bus ain’t coming? Stand there long enough and it’ll become ‘king obvious the bus ain’t coming. It’s like having a sign wot says no shagging in the bus stop. 99.9% will get by just fine without a sign telling them not to, especially as it’s see through, but just the odd 0.01% might benefit from a sign… You fancy APF shag? I’m planning on schlepping up there and having an overnight. We could always get pissed the night before and miss the major part of the show like the Greenmech factory visit.

It’s been a hilarious read from start to finish! With a bit of foresight, patience and a sensible formative prune every couple of years, 10-15 years from now your cherry tree will have relocated next door as a splendid example of early Spring blossom and possibly even some tasty fruit for our feathered friends. I’ve lived in my house for a little under 16 yrs. Just before we moved in the previous owner cut out a fairly chunky Cherry with a stem diameter of about 15”. Just cut the top out and left a 3’ bare stem. It’s taken a decade but I’ve got it into fairly good shape as a lovely garden tree - so YES - a Cherry absolutely will, can and does enthusiastically throw out both suckers and epicormic growth.

Is it an area TPO Dan? The TPO regs place a recommendation upon LA to review their TPOs - especially long standing area TPOs (recommendation rather than requirement.) Local Government Ombudsman finding "Report on an investigation into complaint no 06/B/16269 against Fareham Borough Council 31 March 2008" also affirms at para 59 - 61 the government guidance and is critical of that LA for failure to update old ATPOs.

Ah, I wouldn't take the completion of the whole development to be a go/no go factor in validating the self abatement - I would consider the rest of the development, and any conditions that may apply to it, to be subservient to the right to self abate. Granted, the likelihood of a genuine need for abatement of an AN is pretty slim, but if it did exist I think it would trump PC. The realistic threat of enforcement / prosecution is, as you say, tiny - I watch the county wide enforcement for general planning matters quite keenly, it's a bit like the Carlsberg complaints office, the phone just rings out 🤣

Definitely agree! There appears to be a groundswell of over confidence resulting in over-stepping the mark (where it is thought it will go unchallenged) by certain elements within LA - and I am sure (and unofficially assured from elements within LA) that forestry and environmental departments are behaving with a strange new vigour perhaps associated with the various national / international tree initiatives that are en vogue. A notable personal example would be the initiation of a WTPO on an area that they hadn't even visited because neighbours claimed there was a potential for development. A comprehensive counter argument resulted in the provisional WTPO not being confirmed but it was, despite being completely inappropriate for the site, touch and go for a while! Crazy times indeed±

Hi Paul! my reference to 20-30 years was in relation to a (local example) of an ATPO initiated shortly after a residential development decades ago. Bit of a red herring since I was referring to the implementation of (an inappropriate TPO (area as it turned out and still not updated to individual of group)) after a residential development. Forget that bit as not important. Yes, agreed conditions timex according to the circumstances. The key question, from the info as is available, would be is there a PC and does it apply to the homeowner as distinct from the development site owner. Well, I'd suggest that the very existence of a PC could be challenged for its applicability and enforceability since, if it does exist, it could easily be argued that it partially fails the first test (necessary) since it is no longer necessary to prohibit the developer from undertaking works upon land upon which they don't own the title, it could fail the fourth test (enforceable) - I guess it 'could' be enforceable but unlikely to pass the public interest test, it would certainly fail the fifth test (precise) since it already seems to have created confusion, and finally it would fail the Sixth test (reasonable in all other respects) since it is patently unreasonable to expect the new homeowner to not work on his trees until the developer has completed the entire project - that could potentially take years or indeed never reach full completion. What I'm trying to show there is that, in so far as we know - and it's not enough at this stage - even if a PC exists, it seems to be a particularly poor one in relation to the dotgov guidance on PCs since the condition was likely put in place to prevent developer over exuberance in close proximity to trees and was unlikely to ever have been intended to 'control' individual residents. "...It is important to ensure that conditions are tailored to tackle specific problems, rather than standardised or used to impose broad unnecessary controls..." Use of planning conditions - GOV.UK WWW.GOV.UK Explains how conditions attached to a planning permission should be used and discharged effectively

Interestingly, that is why I said the homeowner needs to seek professional conveyancing advice and that the original post [as ever] lacked sufficient detail. "If" the purchasor's legal representative didn't inform the purchaser of a live covenant [in the form of a planning condition], in this case tree retention - or any other which might apply to the entire development site - then there could be a claim for dereliction of duty. Maybe the the homeowner is aware of the restrictive covenant[s] but chose not to inform the prospective tree cutter. But then why would the cutter 'seek consent?' Doesn't add up. So the parts that don't seem to 'ring true', if, as has been stated [I think, subject to confirmation of the potential typo] there are no CA / TPO protections in place, why would the contractor seek consent from LA unless the homeowner told them there was a planning condition? If the homeowner told the contractor there was a planning condition then they must have known about it. Whilst a planning condition may remain with the land through successive ownership - for example a removal of PD rights - this is slightly different, if the available detail is to be taken at face value. It might reasonably be presumed that the TPP applies to the developer and is discharged at the completion of the development at which point any tree not subjected to subsequent protection is open season unless TPO'd at that stage - I've just dealt with precisely this scenario albeit 30 years after the Area (6 months?) TPO was initiated after an estate development. If a new landowner buys a plot on the development they may or may not be bound by the terms of the sale to comply with extant planning conditions which apply to the entire site and were imposed as a condition of granting consent for the entire development but at what threat of penalty if they don't? I guess it's possible penalty clauses might be included in an estate house sale particulars but is that likely? Who knows? I've never bought an estate house. And regardless of conditions, the homeowner still has the right of self abatement which over-rides a planning condition even if it was enforceable. I presume [from observation of way too many med - large scale developments that have had ridiculous, short sighted, poorly motivated inappropriate tree retention plans] that the real 'problem' here is an LA seeking to retain trees [whilst they still have some degree of control] which should never actually be retained if the development is going to go ahead anyway. This is so common in former agricultural land with field boundary trees which were perfectly well suited to their agricultural environment - including future growth potential - but very soon become oppressive and inappropriate in a domestic development setting. The tokenism of retaining inappropriate tree[s] in inappropriate location[s] runs strong in LAs that seek to retain and exert inappropriate degrees of 'control' and invariably leads to a 20-30 year investment in a greater problem down the line as those inappropriately retained trees have far and away exceeded the domestic residential environment they were retained within. The root cause of the problem is schizophrenic LAs - on the one hand they have planners obliged to approve development proposals to meet housing targets imposed by central government at risk of costly over ruling at appeal and on the other hand, they have TOs seeking to retain, and enforce by condition, inappropriate tree stock. You can't please all of the people all of the time! But you can take care that the 'compromise' doesn't end up being a curse on everyone's house.

Do you mean to say "there is no legislation on them apart from planning condition? You do say the house is a year after build on a part completed site - right? So this house is in private ownership and no longer owned by the developer? So the new owner of the house was not the planning applicant that sought and received conditional planning consent - right? Why did the current owner ask you to seek 'consent' from LA if there are no TPO / CA restrictions in effect? What did you ask LA for 'consent?' What the house owner needs to establish is - does the conditional planning approval bind them to the condition placed upon the developer of the whole site. If not, then the condition cannot be imposed upon the person that has bought the land after the grant of consent. Your post doesn't make clear the relationship (if there even is one) between the homeowner and the developer. Are they entirely separate entities? Your homeowner needs to seek proper legal advice about whether the condition is even applicable to them. There is not enough info to properly understand the situation.

Ah bugger..... We share our post code with 2 other properties, I guess that puts me right back in with the minions....

QED

I understand what you mean and what you say, it’s just that I don’t really see or hear any tangible offering from your posts. What is it you are actually trying to punt? You espouse a position that implies you have something significant to offer but I’ve never been able to ascertain quite what it is you’re offering. It’s not for the want of trying - I just find you are too elusive, evasive and suggestive but lacking substance.

He didn’t even know what he wanted Andy, just thought it would be a wheeze to have the Beech stem he’d had felled milled up. I had to explain he’d be better off deciding what is was he wanted the timber for before he had it milled otherwise all he’d end up with is a pile of timber that he periodically moves around until it desiccates away to nothing.

I haven’t read on to the end to see if anyone has already said it yet…. And similarly, I don’t want to sound like an ass (but genuinely don’t care if I do - it’s not intended) it seems to me like you are trying to make the ground fit the map rather than the map fit the ground. You ‘think’ you know better than Mick (the man, any man, with years of hands on experience) because you’ve sat through a lecture or read a book which gives you a view of the world that you believe in and you want everyone to agree with you. Now that’s proper cognitive dissonance. It’s kind of like that dick that wrote the article published by the AA. Not saying it’s anything like as dickish as that though - I’m just saying there could be the perception of low level similarities.

I’ll add to that - a bit. The wife once had to take one of my work vehicles for her daily run into Plymuff (of course the mileage was deducted for HMRC purposes) it was a year or 2 old at the time, transit custom. She was going to a meeting and her guvnor didn’t have a staff car so she offered him a lift which he accepted. En route he commented on how smart the van was and asked how come she was driving such a vehicle. She said it was one of my work trucks, described my business and he said - if a ‘tree surgeon’ turned up in a vehicle like that I’d think they were charging me too much. She was too polite to be as blunt as I would have been as I told him I earned considerably more than he did but when he later asked for a price to mill up some Beech he had at home he realised just how off the mark his thoughts were in relation to going rates.

He’s a prick. Lynch caught him well off guard with his knowledge of EU legislation and aspiration. Cnuts like JOB chopsing off about how great things would be if railways were nationalised whilst simultaneously lamenting Brexit - ****************wits have no idea that the 2 things are diametrically opposed. Corbyn understood it, that’s why he was so Luke warm about the party line for Remain. It ran contrary to all that he really believed in. And that’s Labour - it doesn’t even know why what it wants is undeliverable.

You know full well I’ve got certain suppressed Marxist tendencies! Did you hear Mick Lynch giving it to James O’Brexit on LBC Friday lunchtime - it was legendary! JOB was somewhat surprised to find one of his preferred allies had such anti EU sentiment - genuine Lefty attitude rather than posh twat North London Labour. In favour of EEC but you can stick the EU up your channel tunnel 😎

I’ve often wondered about that. Whether the federation of small business is worthwhile. They pissed me off a good while back and never really recovered lost ground (🧐thinks - AA) I can (kind of) see the worth of FSB lobbying government but trouble with a union would be , unless everyone joined it’d be pointless!

This part could benefit from a little further unpacking Jules. Whilst I would absolutely agree with the words above, we in the arb world can get too absorbed by the arb aspects of 'amenity' in a CA potentially to the exclusion of the actual purpose and justification for the CA which should be available in a stand alone document. I'm not suggesting that tree(s) aren't afforded protection in a CA - clearly they are, what I'm saying is, just because they are trees and just because they are in a CA often fails to recognise the actual purpose for the CA which may not even mention trees what so ever. I have this example locally (which results in much nugatory work prior to removing offensive Leylandii, poor form self set Syc etc, where the justification for CA of a picturesque fishing harbour is comprehensively laid out in a detailed document and there is absolutely no mention of trees or arb amenity what so ever. It's all historic buildings, cobbled streets, shop fronts etc. Its just that trees ARE included in CA protection whether they contribute to the genuine historic conservation or not. I guess its not that big a deal really, just a bit of a nuisance...

I agree to a point with some of that. I only operate in the 'micro' environment in which I exist. I have no interest in any other operating scale model - perhaps I could / should, but I don't. That's it. Of course there are macro influences at the micro level - we all know the housing market is turbo charged, that white collar lard asses are abandoning heavily populated metropolitan areas post covid, selling real estate that still has inflated value and infesting (that's not a typo for 'investing', I did mean infesting) the rural areas where their buck goes a lot further and they have probably trousered around 500k in free capital from relocation / downsizing to a work-from-home or hybrid work profile. That extra money is literally sloshing around the micro local economies with most (if not all trades) hoovering up vast swathes of new money. Of course it is a time limited opportunity but its not as if work was slow before - its just manic now and that is leaving some people with extended lead times to complete or finding the extra cash to bump themselves up the priority listing. People are so impatient which kind of annoys me in the arb world since 'problems' rarely happen overnight and are more likely a consequence of sustained neglect - the blow-ins buck that trend but that's a whole other topic. The reason I don't care about the problems of the bigger players is because they chose that life and business model. Climbers and groundies get shite wages in big companies because, out of the finite amount of money available on any job, the big boys have to pay for fat bastard business consultants, office staff, company cars, directors share bonuses and all the other bollox that takes a bite out of the climbers cake. In my world, the customer gets the CEO, the H&S expert, the sales rep, the QA guy, the office bitch and the tea boy all in one package, on site at every job and available on the phone at any time if the customer falls into category 1 or 2 of my previous post. I guess I have a fundamental difficulty with your final point about working class. What is working class? Whilst I am probably at my happiest when feeding the chipper (whilst maintaining a comprehensive overview of the entire job site) there is no doubt that is a manual / unskilled task. Does that make me working class? I fail to meet the criteria on just about every other recognised measure although I do have rough skin on hands? 😩