woodrep

Not true However until we get a Billionair builder who wants to permanently piss off every civil servant planner and town council in the UK its not likely to happen is it

New legislation yes ,recent case law yes because human rights are part of the processes.

Never ever forget about the Felling licence rules.The removal of 4 large trees would exceed your limit ........Unless it falls within the exceptions.Strangely the rules have been applied very aggressively, where there would seem to be tenuous forestry justification.Small domestic garden no problem,large one perhaps, extensive you may well find the district office may hold that there has been a breach of the act

The new 2012regs cover it .But you are the expert. Your client is relying on you ,and the LA has to prove you wrong,despite case law previous to the charter of human rights.If we are scared of doing whats right and legal(look in the tpo bluebook from the planning portal)the we deserve a good kicking from the tree officers

The problem is liability the owners (district) have liability.They have passed it to the county via SLA.They either reassume it formally and make their own arrangements or repudiate the agreement and face penalties.This need not be confrontational.But who built a bridge that within 4 years it is rubbing against trees. Where was the tree officer then there must be a paper trail, negotiate it. I as tax payer am astounded that it ever got to this stage

KOMATSU ZENOAH If it is older is reed valve saw which runs at less revs than standard carb type(stihl)tuning is done by checking cutting ability as it begins to fourstroke,when you turn down the H screw from scream.Also reed can get debris in. Easy fix try it

this saw was retailed under a few names including opem & oleomac 031 Suggest you search net.good saw if bar small and right type of chain.Komatsu did have an outlet in the uk. midland power Its on web .Ihave bits but not band PS they had nasty problem with splitting oil tans ,there is a preventative .Fill the space between the cover and the main body with hot melt glue

Look in the book down loadable from the planning portal Tree preservation orders :A guide to law and good practice . After 6 months the have to do the whole thing afresh. page 12

The dept in central goverment that deals with tpos, issues a blue book every so often which is called tree preservation orders a guide to law and good practice.Free as a download I think .This will tell you what makes a tpo .It illustrates some of the pitfalls for a local authority to avoid.It implies many of the flaws ,it is a document of some note in law.To paraphrase what it says unless correctly drawn and served a tpo is just a spell.Spells only work on the unquestioning.An example, the client has a copy of a tpo there are a dozen trees on the site some are identified as tpos others are not ,the map is small scale.He has felled with permission some trees which do not precisely match the tpo .so the question is which of the remaining trees is tpod.obviously the tree officer doesnt know as the old permissions demonstrated.the client isnt a surveyor he is a layman he must make a judgement on the import of what is before him.He is no more partisan than the tree officer . If he decides to back his judgement then there is no breach unless it can be proven. even though councils have got a reprieve with the new regs that will not repair existing flawed tpos they are out there in their thousands,waiting

as i said i am retired. after 30yrs as tree surgeon latterly dealing with difficult planning cases I think have a fair view of the real structures of local government .I also know about absolute offences. However the fact remains that local authorities have not updated their tpos but have often acted as if they had.Any offence is derived from the specific tpo document and cannot exist if that is wrong.Obviously the new regs cover a wide area,but the homogenization of past tpos is the main legal change

whatever you do check that its perfectly healthy(bleeding canker etc)otherwise it will turn up it toes.Pruning 20% by leaf volume on a chestnut is going to throw epicormic so you might as well go as extreme as you want as it will very bushy if healthy

Wilfully

Sharpish doesnt happen unless there is an urgent need .Tree loss is not caused by development per se it is caused by bad development nurtured by ignorance .Down the road a small close has been built in which some houses are completely shaded by retained trees. there will soon be a time when these will come down.No doubt at greater expense and by you or your colleagues.the tree is still gone but so is the possibility of a properly managed mature treescape.Further even before the build some of the tree had crown dieback?Whos job is it to stop this,who do we pay----THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT It would be nice if this were a system based on consensus but it is not. IT IS is adversarial but it should also be professional and open.frequently I have noticed that being friendly with the tree officer makes a lot of commercial sense,but that removes some decisions to an arena out public gaze .Do not assume I have any negative attitudes to tree preservation as a concept. I have kept trees for clients despite notices to fell ,but this really annoys tree officers.

Not a single case ,tree officers jobs are to protect trees. A contractors duty is to his client.You dont have laywers turn down cases because what client is accused of is bad .It is a fact that you are not guilty until proven . Nothing my client did was illegal as it did not involve ANY breach of the law.The latest April 2012 changes are to clear up the mess that LAs made when they ignored circular 36/78 advice to update existing TPOs.The tree officer is junior planning officer with his own departmental clients.Not trees or the public

lack of confirmation for six years means that there is challenge.Firstly as the legislation is package with timetable at this extreme your clients right of appeal has been usurped ,secondly the consent given is tree specific and providedit is not time limited it can be carried out.Provided the tpo was not done using April 2012 docs .Which is unlikely if it is just a confirmation.PS the 2012 regs will not stand up in court for human rights reasons

planning conditions apply only to the carrying out of the consent and cannot supercede your obligations under other legislation.So if health and safety say you must do something the making a condition is unenforcible .Ditto highways. noise. wildlife .etc

forestry commission used to do asessments of vibration risk via thier WORK STUDY group the results of using chainsaws are many and varied on the arms.Carpal tunnel is a common misdiagnosis by GPs. Any employer should have asessed the risk an have apolicy to minimize it.Dont even ask about aspergillosis

as a retired arborist I rarely concern myself with my past activities.But seemed from looking at the planning threads there is not much evidence of the change in the case law governing TPOs that occurred as the result of the incorporation of the human rights act into UK law.Briefly TPO breach is a criminal act and thus must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt.No one can be prosecuted without strict adherence to the magistrates acts and PACE.What this means is that if you do work the LA deems a breach .THEY have to prove that it did not come within the exceptions of the acts.Rather hard if the tree is felled or the prunings are chipped. How do I know how this applies,by arranging for an old client to fell a tree causing a obstacle to an proceeding planning application.Much huffing an puffing and posturing occurred including initiation of non prosecution.The ministries blue book does not mention this change for obvious reasons .But it is a fact. Local tree officers have been cosseted by an old court ruling which made the offender have the burden of proof of innocence ,always an insult to the precepts of good law.So get up off your knees out there and realise that TPO legislation is for too long been blunt instrument wielded by often ignorant officials