Chris at eden

Ps. What ever you do, make sure it is recognised by Ofqual and is on the qualifications framework otherwise it may not be recognised over there. I.e. the NQF, QCF, RQF or whatever it is called these days.

ISA cert Arb is probably the only route you can take to get it in by Jan. you’ll need to check exam dates and work to that. It isn’t difficult though and you can turn it around pretty quickly. Or maybe the SEG level 2 if you they let you start straight away. I think it typically starts in September though and runs for a year. It would give you the opportunity to progress to level 4 which covers surveying so a plan for when you are no longer climbing. And I think you can do it all online so maybe it would carry some weight if you had started it and carried on over there. Level 3 will take you 2 years at a college usually. Give tree life a call and ask them your options. They do the SEG qualifications and I think ISA as well. You can just do ISA on your own though by getting the study guide. Good luck. Chris.

He did my training for the Q74 via WhatsApp. I also did the advanced user training at their place a while ago.

Have you tried Treesource?

What do you mean? Turn around time for a report once surveyed or lead time to get a survey done?

That isn’t really a pollard although it is often what tree owners want when they ask for a pollard. It’s been topped. Topping is not great for trees and although trees often grow back you are kind of rolling the dice. Pollarding is done from when trees are small and on a regular basis. The cuts are small and become occluded forming the bolling over time. This means they become resistant to decay and they are not site for entry of pathogens. It does not take much energy to occlude them and you are not removing much stored energy in the small branches removed. Yours has lost a lot of stored energy from large branch removals and the wounds are too large to ever successfully occlude. Plus, they are quite prone to frost damage so pruning in January may not be the best time. You could try decompaction and mulching to improve the rooting area but it’s a long shot. And Enerbite injections to give the top a boost. That’s an even longer shot as trees have to be actively transpiring and the more the better. Yours only has a bit of leaf area. Chris

The problem with the old 20% offset was that some folk were offsetting them in the direction of, and under roads to create more build space in gardens. That doesn’t make sense as the soft garden area is likely to be ideal rooting whereas the road will be suboptimal. Some folk were reducing instead of offsetting as well. The new standard does allow for changing the RPA to reflect barriers to root growth but it says deviation from the circle should be justified by the Arb. I personally think there is some scope to offset slightly or at least there should be. I did an AMS a few weeks ago which was secured by condition, bad start I know. The building footprint occupied less than 1% of the RPA, from memory I think it something like 0.2%. A tiny amount. I suggested hand digging and root pruning under supervision. My logic was that roots at this distance will not be bio-mechanical, and any fine roots can be replaced around the rest of the RPA as the build was only to the east. This was all presented in the AIA. The TO came back saying that there was a road in the opposite direction so we couldn’t offset. There isn’t, the road is to the south. I pointed out that roots could be replaced to the north and west. He said no and insisted on pile and beam. For 0.2%. Problem was that as the LPA had secured the info via condition, there was no scope to appeal. I am okay with the 12 x Dia but I think that it should be clarified that some offsetting could be possible if justified based on common sense as above. I think a standard off setting of 20% is too much though without a robust justification. This is a bit off piste but one of the other things he objected to was the removal of a Cat U tree that was next to the proposed drive. It was split at the base and hung up in the adjacent tree. He first said that there was no justification. I pointed out that the condition was advised in the survey schedule and also in the specification of tree works in the AMS. He then said okay you can fell it but I want a separate TPO application and it needs to be shown as retained on the TPP. Bizarrely, he didn’t want a condition survey with the TPO app even though this is a requirement of the one app! What is the point! Cheers Chris

Not really. There are loads of engineering solutions to avoid damage and he clearly wants to retain the tree. In that case it’s either engineer around it or move the house. Planting replacements is all very well but none of us will see them at maturity. If the OP want a big tree in the garden then fell and replace isn’t an option.

It possible but why would you want to. Engineering solutions are likely to be expensive and the tree is always going to dominate. Then there is the perceived risk from tree failure to contend with, you ma not like it so much when it’s whipping around in the wind above the roof. I do development site impact assessments and method statements for a living and have been for the last 15 years. I would always recommend appropriate clearances where possible. I suppose if you live in a hot country then the shade will be a benefit. if you do want to build near the tree then you will need to look at specialist foundations such as tree safe. See here: Treesafe - Abbey Pynford ABBEYPYNFORD.CO.UK If you are looking to build near trees with a TPO, our patented Treesafe foundation is tree friendly and will help your get planning. Then you need to consider things such as service runs and hard surfaces. Like I said it’s all achievable but it will be expensive. You will need some proper advice from a tree consultant really. Chris

Be careful with the expediency assessment. An immediate risk is when someone calls and says 'is there a TPO on that tree as i want to fell it'. Or sometimes council's get tipped off by tree surgeons that have been asked to fell something that they don't' think should be felled. Yours sounds more like perceived or maybe foreseeable. As long as the tree is nice, has reasonable retention potential and is visible then it shouldn't be difficult to get to the required score to justify a TPO.

Agreed - TPO guidance is available online It should have but not always. I did an Arb method statement last week where the whole lot including the survey was secured via condition. The house is in the RPA as is the parking so its just mitigation. i agree

If there was no planning, your neighbour could build a massive 3 storey 12m extension with balconies that blocks all of you light and over looks your garden so you lose your privacy. Planning can’t refuse reasonable requests, they wouldn’t be able to defend it on appeal. They only refuse stuff that has a negative impact on the area or the people that live there.

I’m guessing it’s along the lines of, she paid a premium price to buy a house in the leafy suburbs and she isn’t in favour of a developer buying a plot and felling all the trees so they can get more houses, make more money and never actually live there.

I think what Jules is saying is that there is no exemption for dying or diseased. Those reasons alone would need an app. Felling for those reasons would be a criminal offence subject to an unlimited fine. Dying was an exemption before 2012 but diseased never has been. The exemptions are now dead trees or those which impose an immediate risk of serious harm. Both require a five day notice. Or removal of deadwood. They may well not respond to notices as they are not required to, it’s a notice. But if you felled a tree on the basis of it being diseased they could prosecute you and there wouldn’t be much you could do about it unless you could otherwise show it was exempt. For the record I would ideally want a response from the TO before I went ahead anyway.

Because some of the exemptions changed. The DDD for example. Other bits changed as well. The provisional protection being automatic, before 2012 you had to serve them with a 201 direction. The requirement to use the one-app, from 2008 i think. Some of the very old TPOs didn’t cover uprooting or wilful destruction, prior to 1976 from memory. The orders became more compact. Lots of reasons. The 2012 regs were meant to streamline things and bring all the historic TPOs under the protection of the new regs. So even TPOs from the 60s prevented uprooting and wilful damage. Annoyingly, I resurveyed and reserved all of the TPOs older than 76 at the LPA I used to work at in 2010!