Chris at eden

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.

Its a very specific long chain keyword which I am guessing no one else uses so it will be top. It will only work though if someone types that into Google. The trick is to figure out what your customers are typing in, not what you would type.

No worries mate. As I said, I have tried to be fair and sensible from day one but I think this is partly because I split my time between TO and consultant and so I see both sides. I can imagine TOs get pretty wound up when they get constant flak from all sides. My background in my 20s was also as a climber which I think helps when dealing with contractors. I remember working in a tree in the 90s (when did I get old) and the TO had consented a height reduction of 50% (a bad start straight away). He then stood on site telling me while I up the tree that I must prune to a side branch that was 1/3rd the diameter of the leader that I was reducing. He could not get his head around the fact that those side branches don't exist with that level if reduction!!! The bloke I was subbing for was having a meltdown. The one I see now is a condition saying that felling must be carried out in accordance with 3998!!! Some TOs are not the best but some are really good, its the same in the private sector though. I tend to include a condition covering max cut diameters on all of my decision notices to avoid that issue with lifting. On the subject of objectivity, I started my Expert Witness training with Bond Solon just before Xmas, I did the report writing and court room skills days. On the report writing day the trainer said when you write a report you should consider that if you were writing it for the other side, would you come to a different conclusion. If the answer is yes then you have a major issue. Its obvious really but that is that major problem with many of the reports I see, you can tell they have been directed by the client.

Just a couple of point to address. You don't need an engineers report for light structural damage, just written evidence an appropriate expert. You would qualify under that heading but the resident wouldn't. As a TO I've accepted written evidence for this type of thing from competent tree surgeons or building contractors. I have also provided written evidence in a report form for light damage. Its not the authority though is it. Its on the one app form which is a legal requirement and provided by the government. The authority are jumping through the same hops as you. If they accept sub-standard apps then they could be criticised for it. MPs enquiries are pretty standard when folk don't get what they want with their trees. As I said, you could provide that and for less than £400. Subsidence is a different issue altogether. Again, this isn't down to the LA. Its on the direction of the government ultimately. The agent yes (if they are competent). Not the applicant, they are not objective and don't have the necessary skills to look at the all options in most cases. As above No I get what you are saying. But the LPA also insist that you supply technical report and plans for planning apps but don't insist on the use of a particular builder. TO's come in for a lot of flak and yes some can be a pain in the arse, some of it is a bit harsh though. When I have my TO hat on I try to be fair and sensible but not all do. I still get some folk moaning about me, its just the job.

You will need a report if you are mentioning damage within the statement of reasons otherwise the LPA TO is likely to refuse it or possibly not even validate it. Even if you get the report they may well refuse but having better supporting info will increase your chances on appeal. Additionally, the report could advise you on engineering solutions to fix the drive and whether or not they are feasible. Looking at the levels Cellweb is probably out if digging is to be avoided but you may get away with using Rootbridge - expense though - 4 x the cost of Cellweb for that type of site.

ps. I suppose you can differentiate between those which are providing support and those which are not though, and assume that is what Paul is getting at.

Not just Duncan Slater. Mattheck said it years ago, something which he was pretty miffed about last time I saw him speak.

It will only really make the tree more safe if you are addressing a defect. I still think the top looks like it is retrenching from the pics, I would keep an eye out for Merip or Kretz. wouldn't be a bad idea if you are unsure on what to do. You shouldn't really be thinning and reducing at the same time as reduction is quite stressful for trees.

Agreed. Agreed again. And again, I should have made that clear. When I was discussing reduction as a percentage it was in relation to Frank Rinn's research on the effect of crown reduction on loading. Not as a specification.

As Matty said if you are looking to reduce sail area then a light end weight reduction would be better - if the tree needs it that is! Thinning won't really make much difference to sail. Doesn't have to be huge - 10% reduction of the extension will reduce loading at the base by 20%. The tree is multi-stemmed from about 5m so the rubbing branches may be important for support so (again as Matty said) you should probably keep them. It looks like the top might be retrenching slightly - have you checked the base for fungi?

? ?

Yes and disproportionate to the actual level of risk, you can find that in the NTSG guidance as well relating to trees (rather than lakes), but its not the same as trying to say health and safety is over the top.