Chris at eden

You got no chance of getting that past the TOs at Shropshire County. You wont get far with the damage to the sewer approach.

Good advice from Jules here. The only thing I would add is that the impact assessment is the effect of the development on the trees and vice versa Also, realistically the AMS should come via condition. I know some LPAs ask for it upfront but this is not the correct approach in my view. Cheers

As previously stated there is no requirement to describe the tree with absolute accuracy on the plan or schedule. As long as it can be identified from the documents it should be ok. Even if the plan and schedule conflict the guidance accounts for this saying that the plan takes precedence. I suspect what they will do is modify the schedule on confirmation to state the species. As this doesn't have to be for 6 months they will be able to check the tree when in leaf and the confirm subject to a modified first schedule. Its not uncommon for trees to be misidentified on a TPO. Everyone comes across trees they don't know from time to time. Out of interest what is the tree? Cheers

I've still no idea what you mean by a root protection system? To me a root protection system is fencing or ground protection boards on a development site, or a no dig drive. Did you mean a root barrier? Kev, I wasn't suggesting that you would need to root prune before installing a root barrier. What I meant was that from what I remember (I would need to check) NHBC specifically state that root barriers are not recommended for mitigating existing subsidence from trees. New tree to keep roots away from the building yes. Root barriers are around about £1,000 per linear metre depending on depth. Speak with target fixings, they have a system called heli-pile which can be installed and tied into the existing footings as an alternative to underpinning. may be worth a look. All of this seems an unnecessary cost though if they haven't confirmed that the tree is the cause. The tree is undoubtedly close enough to cause subsidence but only if conditions are right. Even then they should have some type of monitoring to check the movement is seasonal. In reality though they are thinking it will cost 20 times as much to underpin or install a root barrier than it will to fell the tree.

Have they done any crack or level monitoring? Soils testing? What are the other issues you mention? What do you mean by root protection? Root barrier? NHBC doesn't recommend the use of root barriers to abate subsidence so that's probably a non-starter if it is tree related.

Thanks both.

Is there a JPEG that can be downloaded or do you cut screen shot and trim in paint? Cheers

Kid, I would have still been up for that at 28.

Jenga extreme!!!

OK, the engineering operation is a long shot but it does happen. Not saying it would go anywhere but if the LPA wanted to be awkward it could certainly delay matters. In terms of a solution to dropping the level there may well be but it would need to be looked at properly, not under the radar in my view. I think Jules covered the TPO contravention bit so nothing to add. PD rights are probably in place as long as not in a CA but that would be just a guess, so my advice would be check first. I know a couple of sites where PD rights have been lifted because they are in the AONB. Not a CA. As for max five years, this is not so. Standard conditions are 5 years but I know more than one site where the conditions have been applied for the life of the development. For example garages built with a condition limiting their use to just that for the life of the development. I know of a protected conifer hedge with a life time condition as it forms part of a bat mitigation programme. Every time the owners want to prune it they need to apply to planning. Its not common but it does happen. I'm all for getting things in order first and then telling the TO what you will be doing. Cheers

I think you may both possibly be on dodgy ground. How do you get the no dig drive down to meet the highway level when you consider that the RPA probably meets the highway. I think you need to grade down and that may require TPO consent. Otherwise, you may have a steep ramp onto the new drive, pretty unsightly. The LPA will know as soon as you start work so I wouldn't go under the radar. There are other considerations. What if the PD rights have been removed from the property say by a long standing condition? What if the planner comes out to look and says that the change in level is an engineering operation and therefore requires consent? I've seen this happen and its can stop works half way through.

There is no such thing as a heavy pollard, that would be topping. Generally not good for trees but some will regenerate, e.g. lime and plane.

You don't need planning consent as long as the drive is porous otherwise yes you would. You may find the use of cellweb problematic though. The cell itself will need to be at least 100mm to support a car and so by the time you have the wearing and binder course on you may end up with a 150mm level change. How do you get that down to meet the road/drive without digging. If you dig then you may be cutting tree roots so consent required for that. If you are digging for fence posts then it would be worth putting in a TPO app to prune small roots (<25mm), and you will need to be flexible with the post positions in case you find a large root. Speak with the tree officer to agree a way forward. He / she may want a basic method statement to support the application for digging within the RPA and possibly options for the drive.

That's a bit of a conundrum alright as if you discharged the reserved matters the requirement for a felling licence would be superseded by full planning. The smaller stuff will be exempt (<80mm @1.3m) so couldn't you just get away with cutting access tracks to test and survey and then clear fell as part of planning? You could then just keep below the five cube. If you did it at the end of March and let it run over into April you could span two 1/4s and therefore remove 10 cube. As long as you are not selling it that is. Cheers

Its the word tree that isn't definable. Amenity is generally meaning visual amenity. There are other considerations such as wildlife value but TPOs cant be served on these reasons alone. This essentially means that the thing looks nice and is visible. Yes ambiguous. Its helped though by the fact that trees should go through an amenity assessment before being protected. e.g. TEMPO. The guidance also says that the council should considered making a TPO if the removal of the tree would have a significant negative impact on the local environment which if you are objective should be pretty easy to consider.

Mate, I remember when I did mine, its just getting started and then it just kind of roles along. Its really interesting once you get moving. What is your preferred methodology and methods? OK so just some ideas: Subsidence - What about looking at Biddle's list of high, mod and low water demand trees to see if they are still relevant? I've toyed with this myself for a Masters Dissertation if I ever get round to doing it. Tree related subsidence is not particularly predictable so I would stay away from that but you could look at the correlation between tree species (and WD), soil type and MPI, and foundation depth and then compare this to NHBC. Trenching - This would be difficult as service installation companies aren't supposed to be cutting roots so I doubt you will get them to admit to it. BS5837 - What about something around the success of tree protection measures? Were they installed properly? Were they maintained and monitored? Did the trees survive? Did you LPA take enforcement action? Was this successful? How does the failure rate between protected trees and unprotected trees compare? Cheers

I would say no trees over 3m within 10m is also over cautious. One of my insurance quotes a few years ago asked me if I had any trees over 15ft within 8m. Ignoring the fact they had used imperial and metric measurements within the same question (which in itself is bizarre) I asked why. The woman on the phone then went on to explain with complete confidence that this situation would almost certainly result in subsidence. I didn't go with them but it makes wonder the public believe.

I spoke with Giles about this at one of his subsidence seminars a couple of years ago and he doesn't like the term as its been misrepresented and miss used. It doesn't actually relate to the amount of water a tree uses and it wasn't ever designed for arbs. It was a way he could convey information to builders in a non-technical manner that they could understand as a laymen. His comments on the issue relate to his observations on the ability of certain trees to cause damage to buildings so for example oak causes a lot of damage while birch is relatively less. Therefore they were considered as being high and low water demand respectively but not necessarily just to do with water uptake. I read another paper on the difference between oak and beech and why trees which are pretty similar would be high and moderate water demand respectively. I forget who wrote it but his thoughts were more to do with rooting depth so with beech being shallow rooted it was less likely to extract moisture from deeper down and this made it less likely to damage deeper foundations. Hence deeper foundations for high water demand trees. Before anyone corrects me, I know there is more to rooting depth than genetics but this was his general view and it made sense to me. We did an assignment on water demand on the L6 and the outcome was that there was not a great deal of reliable data on water demand. My point being that when I said water demand I didn't necessarily mean the amount of water taken up. Just that Birch as a species tend to be less problematic than some other species. I should probably drop the water demand thing as it seems to confuse the issue but I tend to stick wit it as its within the NHBC guidance. Cheers Paul - hope you are well too.

Who is Charles Biddle? Any relation to Giles?

I agree with Paul on this one. Additionally, Birch is a low water demand tree which would further reduce the risk. I do mortgage reports in Bristol from time to time and I have never considered heave as an issue. I've never come across a high shrinkage clay there but they do have Mercia Mudstone which can be clay like and shrinkable but only in its weathered state. Compacted Mudstone tends to be less shrinkable or so I am told by the BGS. The big thing is that the tree doesn't date back to Victorian times so I don't see how the house could have been built on a pre-desiccated soil. I've never been able to get my head around this whole removing in stages either. I know its in one of the BRE guides but ultimately if you remove a tree on a pre-desiccated soil, the soil will recover to its original level. So therefore the movement will be the same ultimately just at a slower rate if removed in stages!!! Doesn't stack up for me. Cue - Dr Heuch to poke a hole in my theory. The usual disclaimer - to the OP, please don't take the above as professional advice as I have not seen the site or investigation in detail, this is just my initial impression. Cheers

When the consultation document was released for 3998:2010 they had a thing in there about this type of work, crown reduction it related to. I think it was referred to a 'shoot renewal pruning', I thought that was a good term but it never made it to the standard for some reason. I think prune back is the main issue any way, the word should be reduce as this is what is specified within best practice (3998). How can you condition a spec that says prune back in accordance with 3998 when it doesn't cover that spec. Its picky I know but LA solicitors like things to be water tight if you ever need to enforce. I had one a few years ago where they wouldn't enforce the destruction of an ash tree on a development site as it said 're-locate sewer outside of RPA' on the approved plan. To me that means put a new one in and route around RPA. They claimed it meant rip the old one out with a JCB taking the rootplate with it. Even though all the fencing and tree protection was conditioned the still would not enforce as they said it wasn't a dead cert. Bonkers

Not sure what the trench would do other than sever roots any way. Better option would be decompaction, mulching and removal of competing vegetation. If the tree was alive that is.

Reviewing TPOs is always a problem for LPAs, its one of those jobs that tends to be low priority. You could look at it another way in that the land owner (who is the duty holder) is not monitoring the condition of their trees. Unlikely the developer would get away with saying I don't want to replace because the tree is in poor condition. Section 206 of the act places a duty on tree owners to replace trees which are removed in contravention or due to condition. In this instance the original TPO also covers the tree, even if its a different species and planted on a different part of the site.

From the LPAs perspective they want them in and signed off. Its a pain when you have to start chasing them up at a later date.