Chris at eden

The standard does state that trees to be retained and removed are to be plotted onto a plan and annotated where required. I see no reason why the TPP shouldn't superimposed over this. There is no additional cost. Kev, I don't think access to a TO job is as easy as consultant no. I saw an AIA from a chap the other week who is not an arb, landscape architect, or anything related. I haven't worked out what he is yet but I think he may be a land surveyor. He had said the tree had 2 stems when in fact it has three. Coincidence that you can only see two on street scene? I don't think so. The RPA was about a quarter what it should be, the issues are too many to list on here. I know another one who advertises as an arb consultant and uses the post nominals BSc, what he doesn't say is his BSc is totally unrelated and he has no arb qualifications. With a TO job you would get a person spec probably saying minimum L5 qualification, maybe L2 or 3 for junior TO. You would get the same if you applied for a consultants job with a large company. If they set up on their own though, probably nothing. When was the last time a client asked to see qualifications or insurance? I work on both sides so see quite a lot. Yes there are some pretty bonkers TOs out there but some of the consultants you come across, they have no experience, no training, and no idea. One actually stood with me on site a couple of years ago asking what category the trees should be!! I answered the first couple and then advised him to hire an arb. I have never come across a TO that is that clueless.

I always show the RPAs on the TPP, just for clarity. I've seen some consultants plot shading as well but not sure what the value of that would be on a TPP!!! I sometimes provide 2 TCPs though with and without shading as that can be messy. TCPs though were always a design layout tool so more important for the architect than the LPA in my view. Like 10 bears is saying I also plot tree works, phasing, fence spec, etc to the plan so its all in one place. Cheers

It also depends on the resources available to the duty holder, or at least the type/level of inspection at that frequency does anyway.

Why would the date it was served matter Kevin? The 2012 regs brought all existing TPOs under the same set of rules and dispensed with A5 certificates. So liable is liable. They would only be liable if their decision is wrong though I would think.

I assumed that the OP was taking about academic qualifications (i.e. the ABC Quals), not the new version of the CS units?

The L4 will be pretty technical so unless you have a good basic understanding you may struggle. If you do then you will just be building on what you already know. Something like ISA cert arb would probably be ok as preparation for L4. Education theorists call the constructivism or constructionism, I can never remember which one. I did a teaching diploma years ago and they bang on about this a lot. Going in at the deep end too early can be counter productive. If you are looking at the ABC L2 and L4 download the rules of combination and read the learning outcomes and assessment criteria. This should give you an idea of where you are at. Cheers and good luck

As the above said. L3 is A level, but GCSE is L1 and L2 depending on your grade. It will be about the difficultly of the questions and tasks also. For example L2 may ask you to or identify something whereas L3 will go more toward describing things so more of a test of knowledge. This changes as you go up so L6 will be all about analyse and critically evaluate. These are higher order mental skills. If you need to give more in depth answers then you need more in depth learning.

Yes I remember the shall / should debate well. I would think that the word shall is used in the regs because its not an option, they are regs that must be followed. If you remember what Dave used to say about 3998 using the word should, i.e. its recommendations and so not binding so has to use the word should. I suppose you could apply the same logic to the planning policy guidance. Not really joined up thinking though as you would think they would match!!!

I stand corrected. Cant say I ever come across this to be honest. I do a lot of pre-app meetings to filter out unsuitable apps and I don't TPO trees that I think we would lose on appeal. I know some LPAs do!!!

If it wasn't served then no not valid. Serving could be a simple as pinning the order to the tree though if the owner is not known. Seems unlikely that it wasn't served at all. Not confirmed on the other hand is far more common. Still not valid in this case. It used to be that you could confirm an order years after it was served but it wouldn't be protected after the initial 6 months until the date of confirmation. So a gap in protection. But then once confirmed it would!!! That's gone now, if you don't confirm within 6 months the TPO is invalid and cannot be confirmed. This is how the LPA that Reuben mentioned got caught out, not up to date with the current regs. What is also pretty common is that the trees are TPOd and then the land changes ownership with the new owner not informed of the order by their solicitor. I spoke to a solicitor a few months ago who had been doing conveyancing for years but had no idea what a TPO was and this was the first time he had come across them, I'm still not sure if he was winding me up. In this case the TPO would be valid but the LPA may consider that to be a mitigating circumstance. Also, felling one tree within a woodland is probably not going to destroy or damage the woodland as a whole so may not be in the public interest to prosecute. I stress the words may not though.

Hi Gaz I don't think its changed to be honest mate. You actually have to serve less people now. It used to be anyone with a common boundary, now its just if they can prune, i.e. overhang. It would make sense to serve the agent though as when you present these things to legal (at least when I do) they want to grind out all the aggravating and mitigating issues. Cheers

You have covered the basics and Paul offers good advice. If you know the areas you list and have experience in doing surveys its not that hard so don't worry too much just do what you know. To add to what Paul said. Remember tree inspection is a process - findings - conclusions - recommendations. Don't start forming conclusions on something you haven't mentioned in your findings, and make sure you form a conclusion for all of your findings. Then recommendations should be based on and should address both. I know this sounds like common sense but its a pretty common mistake. Also, inspectors tend to get consumed by structural condition but remember to assess in terms of physiological condition also. And proof read, spelling mistakes won't go down well. Hope this helps and good luck.

Those maps are fine for mortgage reports as long as you caveat them and there is no existing damage. You can't use them for a subs investigation. For one they are only accurate to within 20 miles. The online viewer is based on the S and D maps and they are not suitable in this instance. Yes shrinkable clays only account for 1% of uk soils so chances are slim. But looking at it another way, trees are the most common cause of subsidence and cost the insurance industry £500m during event years so to write it off as unlikely is not a good idea. Subsidence itself is relatively rare but trees are still the most likely cause. As Gary said earlier you need crack or better still level monitoring to determine whether trees are implicated.

Sounds like he got pretty lucky to me.

Or to put it another way, below market value and without a mortgage. Not a problem if they are happy to go down that route.

If you remove the trees you get recovery in the first instance. You only get heave (i.e. past the point of recovery) if there is a persistent moisture deficit. Heave is much less common than subsidence.

Good post also. Sounds to me like the surveyor has guessed at the cause and recommended more surveys rather than investigating before forming a conclusion. I do quite a few mortgage reports and the valuation surveyor's always state that they suspect the house is built on shrinkable subsoil. When I ask why they suspect this they never have an answer. They won't even discuss it.

Its a bit extreme but have to say this would be my view also. Even if you solve the subs issues with tree management/removal and/or structural re-enforcements, the stigma that is attached to subsidence will ultimately cause you problems with mortgage and insurance companies, and when you come to sell it you probably wont get market value.

Sorry, not PD rights. I meant building regs exemption.

Cheers. That was my interpretation, with it not being a permanent structure or fit for habitation then no building regs. If you check the PD rights for temp structures though (which you would think is essentially not permanent), they are defined as those not being in place for more than 28 days. I think the terminology adds to the confusion sometimes. Probably why your PO had no idea what to do.

Not much of a tree house at 2.5m - shrub house maybe. Good point though. Like your approach to the nosey neighbour. What are your thoughts on the building regs?

Not sure mate, possibly. I was thinking along the lines of it being an outbuilding with a floor area of less than 15 sq m, so no building regs. Possibly not a permanent structure? Definitely planning required though.

If the tree hadn't been damaged then I doubt it would pass the evidential test. Wouldn't recommend doing it without speaking with the TO though. Shouldn't be that difficult to come up with some kind of none invasive system.

Makes no difference why you are doing it. If you wilfully damage or destroy it you could be prosecuted.

Wouldn't be subject to building regs but planning consent would be an issue if someone complained I would think. Considering you need planning consent to install a fence which is taller than 2m or a drive larger than 5.5 sq metres, large sheds, etc. Can't see how this would not be an issue. Generally gets ignored for some reason though.