Chris at eden

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.

They can use any condition as long as it passes the six tests. This is why I think planting prior to felling is a no no, I don't think it passes test 1 and 6, i.e. necessary and reasonable in all other aspects. I spoke with a PINS inspector about the positioning a couple of years ago. What the regs say is at the same location, not in the same location which to me means the same address not the same spot. He seemed to think it was a reasonable approach. Cheers

Asking for the replant on the same day is over the top in my opinion. Remember you have the option to appeal the condition or any resulting TRN at which point the PINS turnaround is 27 weeks I think. They are supposed to give a reasonable amount of time for replanting which is why I think the condition to replace before felling is inappropriate. Cheers

Trees planted pursuant of a condition are not automatically protected by the original order. The LPA would either have to vary the order or serve a new one. Trees are only protected by the original order if they were, felled in contravention, felled because they were dead, or felled due to an immediate risk of serious harm (i.e. they were exempt due to condition). I'm not convinced they can condition that you replant before felling either although I'm not sure about this. I would appeal the condition just to see what happens. Regards

Its volume of material over 8cm diameter @ 1.3m or 10cm for thinning. It relates to the trunks as lopping and topping is exempt so no problem with large branches. So therefore your 8" trunks would be covered. As in your scenario you have LPA consent this would be an exemption. Works to implement full planning consent are exempt in the same way as with TPOs. Cheers

It's not just about woodlands or large numbers of trees. Check to see if you fit one of the exemptions. If not you will need one.

Yes that is about right. Places to be aware of is things like industrial estates, they require a felling licence if the volume is exceeded. Cheers

I think that is about non-determination. As far as I am aware the appeal still needs to be made within the 28 days but the PINS wont proceed until it has been confirmed. The PINS send a questionnaire to the LPA asking for the appeal documents, the bit about confirmation says: Evidence that the TPO was confirmed - This is a mandatory requirement. If the TPO has not yet been confirmed, you should advise us of the anticipated date of confirmation. We cannot proceed with the case until the TPO is confirmed. If you are unable to supply evidence that the TPO was confirmed, its is likely that we will decide that the appeal is invalid and the tree not protected. The last bit is obviously about older TPO where the LPA have no record of confirmation - that is more common than you would think. Doesn't really say anything about not being able to supply an anticipated date for confirmation or how long they are prepared to wait. I suppose its the 6 months.

I heard a while ago that the one of the PINS inspectors was attending the Tech Cert sessions with Treelife with a view to getting an arb qualification. Good idea I would think but it made me wonder why the arbs wouldn't do the same in getting a planning qualification to better position themselves. I was told by one of the inspectors that the reason the arbs don't do hearings is that they don't have a formal planning qualification which is a pre-requisite. Seems like a no brainer to me. Bit late now I suppose.

I've done dozens of fast track appeals and a few hearings when working as a TO and only ever been overruled once by the PIN inspector. I knew I would as well and only refused the application on someone higher ups instruction. I always think if the PINS inspector is going to give it then why bother refusing, its a waste of everyone's time. I take your point about some TOs though but they are not all bad.

You can also appeal consent subject to conditions, e.g. tree replacement, or TRNs for that matter.

I think a little confusion in terminology. There is no appeal route against the making of a TPO but you can make an objection within 28 days. The council then need to consider your objections when making decision on confirmation. As for appeals. I know it says 27 weeks on the PINS website but they don't usually take that long, especially if you go fast track. If you go fast track you will get an arb consultant, if you go hearing you will get a planning inspector. In my experience anyway.

I stand corrected, maybe I should have read 211 before jumping in. Every day is a school day. Sorry but - just a slight derail here - I have a client at the moment who felled some trees in a CA without consent and was duly prosecuted. Got a fine from the magistrate. He has now been contact by the council to say he needs to replace the trees, not a TRN, just a letter at this point. He asked me if this is allowed as he has already been punished which is nonsense to be fair, section 213 requires replacement. Where it gets odd though is that the LPA have said if he doesn't plant them be February they will serve a TRN thus giving him 28 days to plant them, after the 28 days has passed they will send someone onto his land to plant the trees and recharge. This in my view is an incorrect interpretation. The 28 days is the objection period in which you can appeal a TRN to the PINS. Therefore the TRN cannot take effect until at least 28 days after it is served. The guidance then says that the TRN should give a date by when the tree replacement notice should be complied with and that the authority should consider what the landowner can reasonably do. In reality I suppose the LPA are thinking they will make the deadline 1 day after the notice takes affect and they can use the 28 day to plan, but does this really consider what the landowner can reasonably do? It will also be getting very close to the deadline. Additional to this the trees have no public visibility and so it may not be in the interests of amenity to replace them so we are probably looking at appealing the TRN within the 28 days and this would definitely be pushing the situation outside of the planting season. It seems a fair approach to me would be to serve the TRN saying trees to be planted by the end of December 2017. If they ignore then there is still 3 months left in the planting season to enforce and there would be plenty of time to process the appeal. Any thoughts people? Cheers

Hi Gary Yes the 2012 regs require that the order is confirmed within 6 months, you cant confirm later. You are correct about the old system in that it could be confirm after the 6 months but the tree would be unprotected for the period between the end of the 6 months and confirmation. Although you could confirm after 8 years as you say, the guidance specifically advised against this for the reasons you outlined so they shouldn't really be doing that. May even be a case for judicial review - don't quote me on this though. As for your situation, its unusual but I would say you need to serve a new 211 notice. Its a pain yes but the LPA responded to your original 211 and there are a number of reasons as to why they may not have confirmed. Long term sickness for example, or someone dropped the ball. I still think its a new 211. I see what you are saying but they couldn't simply keep serving new provisional orders every 6 months as this would end up with the ombudsmen, not to mention it would be a ridiculous amount of work to administer TPOs in this way. Cheers

The basic tree inspection course is for people such as highway engineers so they can spot obvious defects while doing their job. You need PTI really if you want to get in with tree surveying companies. 5837 is also a separate subject altogether. There is also UA5 you could look at although its not my thing really. Good luck

Have you tried linked in?