Chris at eden

I'm about 60 miles from Chester and have a Picus. Happy to quote for 1 or multiple if its too far for Steve. Cheers

Yes always, or as far as I can check and is relevant to PINS appeals. The oldest we have is 1976 and it is signed as confirmed at the bottom. Sure the older ones were probably rubbish but that is why we review and get rid of the older ones, or that are inaccurate. Its unacceptable in my opinion to have TPOs from the 50s that have no relevance today. The resources argument is nonsense. We have over 800 TPOs we still manage to review. Its a winter job when the works apps are less demanding. Our biggest issue is that when the TPOs were originally entered to GIS they were not done in the correct detail so anything before 2010 doesn't have a confirmation date entered, well some do as I have entered them. TPOs are confirmed but its not detailed on GIS. I am working on it though. We don't have TPOs from 50 years ago, our oldest is 43 years old and it is signed and dated with the words 'confirmed on' written. Hence we don't have an issue with supplying info to the PINS. It does and has but we address them as we go along. We are not perfect, we have area orders, GIS is not in the best shape that it could be, and we may well have some that aren't confirmed but we are working our way through it the best we can.

No problem. Its more specific with cherries and plums as you are avoiding the sporulation season of silver leaf disease. Don't get me wrong, winter pruning of deciduous trees happens all the time and generally without notable effect as long as the cuts are kept small. But pruning when the tree is actively growing and can seal off the vessels is always going to be better. Not straight after leaf formation though as the energy reserves will be depleted. Again though, this is in an ideal world and realistically tree surgeons prune all year round. If it has public visibility you could always tip off the LPA. Probably wont go down well with your client though.

Hi and welcome o the forum, in answer to your questions: A) Two parts to this answer. A-1) No late winter / early spring is not better, that is kind of an old view. Fungal spores are higher at that time than in the summer and the wound response of deciduous trees is pretty much zero in the winter. As such spores will settle and the tree will not begin compartmentalising until the summer. Also, you would be removing stored energy just before the tree is going to need it to start to grow again. A-2) You can't pollard a mature tree, its a pretty common misconception. Pollarding is something which is carried out from a young age and then done cyclically. What you are describing is topping of a mature / maiden tree. Google 'why topping hurts trees' and have a read of the ISA leaflet. It should answer your question. B) Again see ISA leaflet. As topping is not specified by best practice it could be taking off the top third which while not great for the tree probably isn't going to kill it. Local authorities do this all the time, not great though but at the end of the day people do manage tees in this way and most tree surgeons do it as if they don't, someone else will and they still have to earn a living. Or, it could be cutting it down to a 4m stump with 600mm pruning wounds, this would be worse and a mature tree isn't going to recover well from this, even if it does survive it will look pretty terrible. Again, some local authorities do this also. C) The topping will reduce the overhang and maybe the amount of pigeon mess, the only way to stop it would be to fell. I take it the tree doesn't have a TPO?

Probably not that often but that's not to say it can't happen, and conversion is not a crime (heinous or otherwise), its a civil offence. The scenario you suggested is theft and could probably be dealt with by the police / CPS. If they couldn't prove beyond reasonable doubt that a criminal offence had occurred, or they decided it wasn't in the public interest, then the owner could get a solicitor and pursue it in the civil arena as it is easier to meet the evidential test. Not saying they would, but if the OP already doesn't get on with the owner its not that much of a stretch for the to try to get one over on him.

You could but you would need his permission, or at least you would need for him to say he doesn't want the bits back. I'm guessing he would change his mind if they had some value. If you sell the arisings or keep them for yourself, then that is technically theft which pretty much everyone knows and has alluded to on here. A lesser known fact that I was made aware of when doing my L6 is, if you make something with the arisings then you can be sued for something called conversion.

Trees are a material consideration in the planning process, building regs are relevant but they are a separate issue. They will need to spec the foundations with the trees is mind of the soils are of a shrinkable nature for building regs. This is not what the LPA are referring to though when they say impact on the trees / trees on the development, or at least its only part of it. They are referring to shading, dominance, living conditions, physical damage to the trees, pressure for future removal, etc. You will probably need an arboricultural impact assessment (including a tree protection plan) produced in accordance with BS5837:2012, not just a letter. You will probably need something from an ecologist also looking at the site. Is it Bideford as in North Devon? Cheers

I met a solicitor about 5 years ago that had been doing property conveyancing for over 20 years and had never heard of a TPO, so as Ed says, get involved, it shouldn't be arduous. There are some really bad solicitors out there so its in the OPs interest to make sure he is covered. That was dealt with in the way I suggested. I seller hadn't complied with a tree replacement condition, it was actually long overdue, it was just after the end of March following felling. I met them on the Friday and advised of the issue, the seller hired a van to get the trees and planted at the weekend, I went back on Monday to check and then emailed to confirm they were in. The variation followed shortly after. One of them has actually died now so it needs to be replaced and new owner is being a bit of a tool about it. After I was really helpful in getting his sale pushed through as quickly as possible. Some people.

No bad there mate. I was agreeing but just mentioned the possibility to appeal if the TO starts being ridiculous. Sorry if it came across as something different.

The duty for tree replacement will transfer to you when you buy the land, as will the duty to replace if the new trees die. I would insist that the current owner replaces the trees before you exchange contracts and then make sure you adjust the ties and water them while establishing. I'm surprised your solicitor will exchange before its resolved. I've seen several property sales held up due to missing trees. Its not difficult to resolve, agree the spec with the tree officer, plant the trees, and then get the tree officer to confirm they are ok by email. Then exchange. The prosecution is the previous owners problem.

Yes but appropriate in terms of what the LPA think can be appealed if you don't agree and you wait for the TRN. I agree, a standard seems more likely than something which is semi mature. I doubt the PINS would ever support that,

Even if the council take another 10 weeks to determine the application, it would still be quicker than going for non-determination. The pins aim to turn around appeals within 27 weeks (once validated), and I would emphasise the word aim. In reality they often take longer.

Yeah, I hadn't considered that when I responded. The one from the OP is from 1999 which I didn't notice until later. We have always sent out a notice of confirmation which is basically one side of A4 with the details then signed and dated. Been done for years so we don't tend to get that issue with the PINS. Yes, that is what I meant, when it was confirmed. I just assumed Gary involved when it was confirmed late.

Ignore the bit about section 4, that is from the new model TPO. Just noticed yours is on the old model but the process is still the same (sign and serve, then sign to confirm and re-serve), just the section numbers are different, and the new TPOs are much more compact.

You could probably have gone for judicial review on the one that was confirmed 8 years after serving as it could be argued that you had not consulted with those affected. For example, if nearby properties had changed hands in that time.

Hi Folks When you serve a TPO it is signed and dated (sometimes sealed) in section 4 which I assume is what you have a copy of. At this time it hasn't been confirmed hence it isn't signed as such. That is your first copy of the order. You then have 28 days to object or make representations to the LPA. Lets just say no one does. Once the 28 days have passed the LPA can then decide to confirm without modification or subject to modification, or not to confirm. Once they have made this decision they will then sign the next bit that says confirmed or decision not to confirm and send you an updated copy of the order. I think you probably have the original served order, the first one they send out. Speak with the LPA and ask for evidence of confirmation. The will then either send you the order with the confirmation bit signed (the second one mentioned above), or sometimes they have a thing called a notice of confirmation (this is rare) which is signed by legal and has the date of confirmation. They still sign and date the original (as this is the legal bit) which will be stored in the fire proof room in legal. Cheers

I'm sure that one was on last week as well.

That's the problem with using common names. I always stick to purple leaf plum to be honest as there are loads of cultivars for P. cerasifera and they all look pretty similar and the rules are not so strict with common names as they are with scientific. Nice use of the italics by the way.

Yes, essentially the condition would usually be that the trees is replaced by a set date, and that the exact size, species and position is agree in writing prior to planting (again by a set date). As Ed said, you would usually make a new TPO to protect the new tree, or I suppose you could vary the original to show the replacement. If so the 75mm may not come into it.

You don't need to wait for it to die. If it presents an immediate risk of serious harm then you would allow removal under exception and the duty to replace would apply the same as if it was dead. Like I said though, this is still a stretch. Does a declining tree really present and immediate risk?

That is the down side if the new regs (2012). Its not dangerous now, its an immediate risk of serious harm, so again that is stretching things a bit if the risk isn't imminent. That said, I would also take that approach and pursue via section 213 rather than the approach they have taken.

If the foundations are shallow enough, you can get clay shrinkage subsidence with no vegetation present at all. The trick is to put proper foundations in.

Valuation surveyors are extremely risk averse, they are just passing it on as they are not qualified to comment. Its the right thing to do. There may also be other trees within influencing distance. I have seen a few valuation reports recently that a just check lists, they don't ID which trees need looking at, there is just a section that says specialist reports and they tick next to the Arb section. I did one two weeks ago where the owner had tried to get around it by just felling the tree. The bank still wanted the report as they are not qualified to say if this is an appropriate course of action. They also had another 7 trees within influencing distance. Just get the report and be done with it. You wont get one for £200 though. As Gary said, mortgage tree reports are predictive, they don't ID existing damage, just the potential for future damage. You can't really do them if there is existing damage as that would be a subsidence investigation. Where is the site?

Hi Paul Just to clarify, I am not slating the ISA, its just that once I finished Tech Cert, I stopped doing the CEUs as I felt I had massively superseded it. The OP is asking about new ventures and so I assumed this would be surveying and leading into consultancy. The L4 would set him up for this, but the ISA will not in my opinion. I think the ISA is useful for someone working as a tree surgeon that has only the CS units but this chap has an L3 qualification already and so he is going to already know about target pruning, soils, anatomy and all the other stuff that is contained within the ISA, or at least you would hope. The L4 will move him onto issues such as fungal colonisation strategies, BS5837, mortgage reports, etc. These are not covered by the L3 he has or the ISA realistically and so I think that would be more benefit to his new ventures. I remember doing a CEU on the bulk flow mechanism, probably about 15 years ago now. It was interesting but I can't say that I have ever used that knowledge as either a tree surgeon, TO or consultant. I think there are better examples of CPD out there, including the many excellent courses that are run by the AA. As for job opportunities, the L4 would probably get him an interview for a surveyors job, or junior TO but the ISA almost certainly won't. The ISA will carry some weight with employers for tree surgeon jobs but they will be more focussed on CS units in my experience, and he already has this covered. One thing I would say about ISA is that if you want to work abroad employers do often ask for it as an additional. If people do want to do the ISA I would personally do it on top of something such as L4. I don't think you need to study particularly hard for the ISA. I read the book twice and then sat the exam and passed. This was 4 years after completing my NC so it may be more difficult if starting from scratch. Just my opinion based on my experience. Others may differ. Cheers

No problem. ABC don't do L3 for Arb. Its L2, L4, or L6. I'm not sure about L2 but I am pretty sure Tree Life do L4 as distance learning, they call it tree-mail, or at least they did a couple of years ago. Its probably worth giving them a call to discuss your options. They are an excellent training provider. Their number is - 0116 260 6939