Chris at eden

Arboriculturist generally refers to consultants, surveyors and TOs. NTSG recommends these type of people being qualified to at least level 3 in Arb. That’s equivalent to A level. It isn’t a protected designation like architect or dentist unless you are a Chartered Arboriculturist. You will need level 5 (foundation degree) or 6 (honours degree) in most cases to be a chartered arb, plus you need to create a work log showing what you do, write a critical analysis, and attend a professional interview. You will also need CPD records of 60 hours over the last two years and will be expected to carry that on once chartered. I am probably 2/3rds through mine, it isn’t as bad as it sounds, it’s just finding the time to do it. I can’t turn away paid work to commit time. I can, I just don’t like to. Arborist is generally another term used for a tree surgeon. You just need your tickets, and balls of steel of course. Some have an academic background but you don’t have to. I had a level 2 arb when climbing in the 90s but only because I always planned on doing consultancy when I got too old to climb. Much respect to some of the old boys that still climb.

I’m not sure how it can be misinterpreted. It’s black and white in the regs and guidance. TPOs protect trees and trees only. Jules is correct, you cannot protect climbing plants with a TPO. Now if you damage a TPO tree while removing ivy that would be an issue. My approach would be let the council know that you are removing the ivy as they will get complaints from neighbours, I wouldn’t be submitting an app unless you need to prune the tree to get the ivy off. There is also no exemption for dangerous trees. The exemptions are; dead trees, deadwood within trees, and where there is an immediate risk of serious harm.

Kretz

Be careful with the term DBH. Its a forestry measurement at 1.3m, not relevant to BS5837. You may end up with over sized RPAs which is not ideal. Cheers Chris

You measure diameter at 1.5m above ground in mm, to the nearest 10mm. Diameter tapes will have diameter on one side and girth on the other. Multiply it by 12 for single stemmed trees and then use that as a radius (in metres). You should really be taking RPA measurements from annex D which bizarrely uses 25mm increments after asking you to measure to the nearest 10mm!!! Offset if site conditions require it. Don't over think it, it is that simple. Otherwise, multi stem calculations are going to blow your mind. Cheers Chris

I'm sorry but again i have to disagree with what you are saying. Taller trees are not more likely to blow over. This opinion is not supported by science. Trees reach an ultimate height maybe 1/2 - 2/3rds into their life span but stem diameters continue to increase strengthening their bases. Smaller trees are rapidly growing in height at the expense of stem diameter and thus their height to diameter ratio makes them more likely to fail than the large ones. Defects are what makes trees more likely to fail, not height. You are confusing the impact of failure with the risk of failure. Or, if the tree is dangerous, then submit an app with a tree report and avoid the criminal record. Then be a lawyer, I'm not saying you cant but you will need to do the training. You cant just spout stuff you read on the internet and dress it up as professional advice. It will destroy your reputation before you start and there is a lot of money in law. Before all this Covid stuff kicked off i was half way through my expert witness training. One of the trainers told me that the only people to win in court is the barrister and the expert witness. The money they charge is ridiculous. Think £800 per day as a starting point which goes up as you progress and build your reputation.

Good idea. If you have concerns over tree safety though, you should get it inspected. What contact? Was it refused? Are you going to appeal? Impossible to say without looking at it. Can you get up the access drive on street scene? It depends. It should have but some TOs like to stretch the rules slightly. That isn't to say it doesn't meet the amenity test. The PINS inspector will definitely look at it objectively. But it is still their opinion so difficult to judge for certain. I have seen mature Beech trees taken out in front gardens on appeal based on dominance. But then i have seen similar in rear gardens with less visibility retained. If the tree has no visibility from the street then you may have a chance. But, the PINS inspector may consider that the view from 10 houses is sufficient as they are occupied by members of the public. It is impossible to say from the info supplied.

I have never seen a Liriodendron drop leaves in the summer due to drought. They are talking about the kind of drought conditions that they experience in some part of the USA. Conditions are so dry in some parts of the US that they don't have shrinkable clay soils, they have expansive clay soils as the soils are persistently desiccated. Summer branch drop is also highly associated with drought so they are potentially making reference to that. I don't know as I don't know where the research is from. Its also pretty old. If you put that in as evidence (or any of your other points) for a TPO application it would be refused, and you would lose on appeal. If you think i am wrong then you could get yourself some PI insurance and do the OPs report on a no win, no fee basis. I mean, you would have to lie about your lack qualifications in the report, and when getting the insurance, and when sitting in the PINS hearing, otherwise it wouldn't be accepted as professional advice.

Been really busy mate. Consultancy work has been flat out this last year. All good here mate, hope you are well and look forward to the story. cheers Chris

Trees don't have tap roots. In most cases they will stretch further than the branches but will also be restricted by site conditions such as building foundations and engineered highways. It isn't rocket science but there is a lot more to it than you are making out. Your comments are extremely misleading and not helpful to the OP. Although i am guessing that he is now discounting most of what you have said. I don't mean to be rude but your comments are frankly ridiculous. I have been doing this for over 30 years, have numerous qualifications up to degree level, and do 30 hours CPD a year to maintain my professional memberships, and yet you are dismissing my professional opinion (and that of others) based on a documentary you watched! Really? Not likely, i have explained why already. Not if you have a planning condition that states that you cant. Not if you have a set of plans showing existing and proposed levels that has been conditioned. Not if you have a condition saying that foundations shall be installed under arboricultural supervision. I'm not convinced you know what a pile is or how it is installed. Pile and beam is a specialist method that can be used to install foundations while minimizing damage to roots. Not by a standard spec though. No, but they are interested in breach of condition or stop notices that can be issued by the LPA if they don't play ball. They also tend to be interested in unlimited fines and criminal records that come with TPO contravention. Agreed - but not if they have to pay out all their profits in fines. All i want to do is write tree reports and get paid, doesn't mean i am going to break the law to o it. There is absolutely no way you can assess the risk from that tree by looking at a photo. Again, you are just worrying and already worried tree owner. The risk from trees is extremely small but you are buying into all the nonsense that you have read on the internet. Statistically over the years falling trees kill between 5 and 6 people annually, compared to almost 2,000 in road traffic accidents. But we don't consider driving to be dangerous. Of course the risk can increase if the tree is defective (as it can if cars are defective) but the only way to find that out is to inspect it in person on site (or MOT the car).

LPAs are meant to assess the amenity value of the trees before confirming the TPO. There are two legal tests they should meet: The amenity test. Basically that the tree has good amenity value. I.e. That it looks nice, and in most cases is visible from a public area. If you cant see it from a public area then it doesn't have visual amenity, or at least it is diminished. There is a comment in the guidance that says you can TPO trees with low visibility in special circumstances. The expediency test. That the tree is under threat. In this case it is as you want to fell it. Most LPAs use a system called TEMPO for their amenity assessments these days as it is easy and its a quantified system. Some write a report to support the TPO explaining why it was made. these then go out with the TPO and Reg 5 notice. When working as a TO i always did both as it provides a quantitative assessment which you can then base a qualitative report on so you cover all the bases. If you were looking to get the tree removed you would include this as part of the case to show you have thought about the situation in detail. It may of course come back saying that the amenity value is high but based on your comments re visibility it may not. The TO will almost certainly refuse the app so you would need to go to appeal most likely. Its impossible to say what the chances are without seeing it.

They don't have the same environmental benefits in the countryside in terms of removing PM10 pollution, mitigating flood risk, reducing the urban heat island effect, reducing energy bills and thus carbon emissions, etc. Trees are a material consideration within the planning system so LPAs are legally required to consider their retention and planting. Of course it does. Builders don't build houses for the fun of it. I'm guessing you also charge people to clean their windows. It doesn't increase by that much if its was a garden to start with as it is already designated as residential. if you get planning on an area of green belt or agricultural land then maybe, but not a garden in fill. This i agree with, but that is down to the buyer really. Loads of people buy houses with TPO trees thinking they can bully the tree officer in to letting them fell it. Not saying that the OP did this but it does happen all the time.

Bit harsh mate. That wasn't the advice in the 90s. Many LPAs don't have the resources to review old orders.

NHBC Chapter 4.2 has been around since the late 60's. BS5837 since the 80s. They would have considered the tree when specing the foundations. Based on what? Based on what? Are you saying that the installation of foundations 30 years ago has compromised the tree but for some reason it hasn't fallen over yet? Seems like a long shot for a TPO app. Do you write tree reports? What is your experience with the PINS?

Where is the site?

Pre-app discussions is always a good idea. 👍

You have hit the nail on the head there mate. Trouble is, tree officers object based on proximity and are labeled the bad guy. Planners overrule the TO and allow the build and then we end up with this situation. Developers make the argument that it will be obvious to potential buyers and get consent. But it isn't always the case. That isn't the correct approach in planning terms. You should build the house with sufficient clearance from the higher quality trees.

Highly unlikely. Soil environment under the house is sub-optimal and so probably won't support root growth. Plus, the house foundations will be at least 1m deep. As i am sure you are aware, the vast majority of tree roots are in the top 600mm so wont be deep enough to go under. The droppers that go deeper tend to be vertical. Even if roots are under the house, what is the risk?

It depends what the report would cover. If its just a visual tree assessment based on safety then yes that is expensive. If you start adding amenity assessments and such then yes it is probably still a bit expensive. Its about right for a CPR (expert witness) report and very cheap for a subsidence report. The soil analysis would cost more than that. With all due respect you could not do it yourself. Supporting evidence has to be prepared by a competent professional. you could do the app yourself but that is about it.

i agree On what basis? The only issue with area orders is that they may protect trees that don't warrant protection, or confusion on old orders as to whether specific trees were present when the order was made. This tree probably was and they will have records from the planning app to prove it on file. I know its good practice to review area orders but no one does. Long shot in my experience.

Only problem with that is that they will need: tree report engineers report info on foundation depths atterberg limits testing - very expensive root id and starch testing and evidence of actual damage - level or crack monitoring they wont even register an app without the detail as it is legally required by the one-app. that is a real long shot when the house would have to have been designed with the tree in mind to get a building control certificate

The LPA won't allow felling for allergens and you would probably lose on appeal as well. I had an application a few years ago when working as a tree officer for a LPA which was similar. Resident was allergic to the Birch in her garden. Even got a doctors letter to support the application. I refused the app on the basis that hay fever is a natural hazard and that there were other trees in the area so it wouldn't resolve the issue. It would be unsustainable to fell tree due to allergens. I wasn't sure how it would go on appeal but the PINS inspector dismissed the appeal and was pretty scathing in his assessment of the applicant. It doesn't matter how big the tree was when the house was built. LPAs are meant to consider ultimate height when determining applications. Pressure for future tree removals, nuisance, etc. Proximity to the house is a different issue to safety. Occupiers Liability (1957 and 1984 - i think) is the main law for tree safety. Proximity to buildings comes from BS5837:2012. Assuming your tree will grow to have a stem diameter of >600mm it should be planted at least 1.2m from the house. This is to prevent direct damage from contact. Subsidence risk should be low as the tree predates the house and so foundations should have been specified with the tree and site conditions in mind. As above. Pruning may be an option if the tree canopy is close to the building. That is because there isn't any. Its nonsense propagated by insurance companies trying to get out of paying claims. Next time an insurance company ask you a question like that, ask them where the figures come from and listen to them waffle and glaze over. Standard practice, they have a legal duty to protect trees in the face of development - S197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 - i.e. there is a law for that. The area designation isn't great but there is no question that your tree wasn't there at the time so they are covered. You could potentially argue that the issues you face outweigh the visual amenity. you would need to do an amenity assessment and report that looks at all the issue. not just one angle.

HS2 will run at 300km/h apparently. Quicker or as quick as anything other than the Bullet Train apparently. Its the current intercity trains we have that run at 200km/h.

Long tail I should say - before someone corrects me.

Decent website is important in my opinion. Adwords works well for me but it takes time to get it right and can be expensive if you get it wrong. If you are going down the website route then read up on SEO and PPC advertising.