Chris at eden

Amelanchier, I think.

Possibly jumping the gun slightly. Sounds like you have completed stage 1 of the VTA process (visual check for defect symptoms) but you would need to go on to 2 and 3. i.e. quantify and evaluate against the failure criteria. There may be several options when it comes to recommendations but you would just need to justify them. If you are saying fell then you would need to give good reasons. e.g. t/R evaluation, target, etc. You could equally come back with crown reduce (but how much by would need to be shown) or conduct a more detailed investigation. e.g. Picus or resi-PD drill to quantify. As long as its reasonable and you can defend it. If you had a partial root plate failure and you recommended crown reduce you would probably struggle to justify that but there is some flexibility with lesser defects. In terms of type of trees. I did mine in 2006 but at that time we had to inspect 10 trees all of varying condition. I don't think I recommended felling for any of them from what I remember. Hope this helps Cheers and good luck

Good idea with the reckless issue Ed, they did it for the wildlife legislation so why not. To be fair they change regulations all the time with as you say the 2012 regs and before that the introduction of the one-app, and so on. Then there was the change to fines on summary conviction now being introduced to TPO's via a completely separate piece of legislation earlier this year. So it can be done, and should be. The fact that felling a tree without consent (or exception) is an offence, but none compliance with the notice that secures its replacement is not an offence just does not makes sense. A five year old could tell you that!!! It make you wonder who writes this stuff. :confused1:

Sorry, slight typo there. Min depth on low shrinkable would be about 1.55m for the OP, possibly reduced to 1.4m. Again speculative. Same caveats for my comments.

The apple trees would be irrelevant in this situation. Apple has a zone of influence (ZoI) of 7.5m so at 40ft (12m) its not close enough to be an issue. I would think that the foundations were specified with the sycamore in mind which has ZoI of 16.5m and with the soil being classed as highly shrinkable with an MPI of 40%+. That would mean with the sycamore in situ the foundations would need to be 1.4m (4.6ft) @ 12m distance and 1m (3.3ft) outside of the ZoI. Under no circumstances should foundations be less than 1m on highly shrinkable soils, even if there are no trees present. That ties in roughly with what the inspector said. Not sure where the site is but you could possibly reduce the depth by 100-150mm based on climatic variation if you are in Cheshire but not below 1m so possibly down to 1.25m at the closest point. As for the OP, the foundation depth would depend on soil type but if it was low shrinkage then they could be as shallow as 750mm. High shrinkage they would possibly need to be 2.35m deep at that distance. To the OP. This is fairly speculative on my part so don't take this as professional advice as I have not been involved in either sites and my comments are based on very limited information. To echo what others have said get a tree consultant involved.

You would think so wouldn't you but people still try to get out of the replanting as long as possible. So 10 site visits later and 10 letters if you are lucky the tree goes in. If not then you have to go in and plant the tree yourself and hope that you can recover the costs. LPA legal departments are not big on taking risks and in reality the local authority doesn't have the resources to do that anymore. If when you turn up o plant the tree the owner prevents access they are subject to a £1,000 fine. Why not put that fine on the none compliance of the TRN? Obviously give them every opportunity to do it but ultimately if they still refuse, hit them with the fine and then say you still need to replant. That way it ends up costing them more, so an incentive. Just my opinion but it takes the responsibility and cost away from the LPA and puts it back where it belongs.

If that is the builder taking care of the tree I would hate to see him trying to get rid of one. Don't see how you can retain this tree long term as even if by some miracle it survives the dominance and nuisance issues will be horrendous. Even if its subject to a TPO and the council refused to allow felling, you would most likely win on appeal. Another point to consider is that if the building is a breach of planning the LPA may refuse to discharge the planning conditions. This can create issues when you come to sell the house. Un-discharged planning conditions tend to make solicitors and bit twitchy. Not always, but sometimes. Be carful, speak with planning to makes sure the boxes have been ticked. I don't see how planning could have consented this layout with the agreement of the tree officer.

Best comment on the thread. Spot on.

Not quite. Refusals and conditions are ultimately still appealed to the secretary of state I believe but the majority are then delegated to the pins automatically. The SoS can jump in at any point though and take over. Unlikely with TPO's though. TRN's are not conditioned. To do so would be maladministration. TRN's are served in accordance with section 207 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 when it appears that: a replacement condition has been ignored the duty to replace in accordance with section 206 has been ignored. the duty to replace in accordance with section 213 has been ignored Sorry to be picky.

If they ignore the TRN them the LPA has the right to enter the land and plant the tree, then recover reasonable costs. Yes they need to be water tight but they are prepared by legal, not the TO in my experience so should not be an issue. Tree replacement is a pain to be honest, as is TPO enforcement of any kind. The main problem in my opinion is that non compliance with a TRN is not an offence. If it was and had a fine I'm guessing they would be ignored less often.

I don't see it. If you apply to fell and get consent based on tree replacement that continues the amenity on the site. If you then hack the tree to pieces and leave it looking a mess that destroys amenity. Risky move that one if you ask me. I still think you could serve a TRN and if they defend by saying they are not going to fell you could start looking at it as wilful destruction. The two years is the default period as written into the regulations from 2012. They shouldn't be securing this through condition anymore. They can reduce or extend the period if they see fit though. I administer TPOs for an LPA as part of my working life and I've only changed the validity period once since the new regs came in.

That's a cop out by the TO. Is anyone really suggesting that for the purpose of the legislation which is all about visual amenity that the tree is still standing? its clearly not. Serve a TRN and if the owner has an issue with that he can appeal. I'm fairly confident that the PINS inspector would have little sympathy for the tree owner. They are abusing the regulations.

Budget CAD - an oxymoron if ever I heard one!!! I use pear tech which is quick and easy to use, don't need a lot of training. It does have its limitations though. It cost me £1,200 but I use it all the time so worth the spend and cheaper than full CAD packages. Don't think I would bother for 2 or 3 a year. Cheers

I came across one a couple of years ago where the LPA were actually going after the chap who climbed and cut the tree. Not the contractor, or the land owner. That was a new one on me.

It could be worse than that I am afraid. £2.5k is for wilful damage only. If they decide that the works you have carried out have destroyed the a TPO'd tree as a visual amenity they may go for wilful destruction. This used to carry a max fine of £20k on summary conviction but that change earlier this year. Unlimited fines can now be given by the magistrates court for wilful destruction of a TPO tree. So in answer, no don't just go for it. The smart move would also be for the owner and contractor to take on responsibility.

The ABC L2, L4, and L6 are recognised by QCF which is the UK framework for qualifications. This means they are recognised internationally or at least in developed countries. I was looking at going out to the USA a few years ago when I was working as a tree surgeon. There were a lot of opportunities for tree surgeons particularly in New York area but I am not sure about surveying and consultancy. I believe utility surveying is pretty big out there. Speak with IET or Arbjobs, that would be a good starting point. Not sure if the former is still going but they did have a lot of contacts all over the world. Cheers

Hi Level 3 will cover you for risk surveys and get you an interview as a local authority junior tree officer, possibly junior consultant. For planning and mortgage reports you will really need L4 or L6, you may get away with the old tech cert which was accredited at L3 but in reality was pitched at a higher level in my opinion. For info, mortgage and planning reports account for probably 90% of my work so you need to work toward that if you are serious. Level 6 diploma through treelife would be my advice as that is what I did and its life changing when it comes to doing consultancy. If you wish to kick on an do expert witness work which is the natural progression you will be pitching yourself against others with L6 dip or degrees anyway so its worth doing. You can do the L4 and L6 as you work which is a bonus. Have you had a look on arbjobs.com? There are a dozen or so consultant / surveyor jobs on there at the moment. Most asking for L3. Hope this helps but if you have any more questions feel free to ask. Cheers and good luck

Yes I agree. The foliage tends to look kind of curled in on itself as well with Parrotia. Not a great description I know. Thanks all for your input so far. Any additional thoughts welcome. Cheers

Witch hazel was one of my thoughts as well as Persian Ironwood but I've never seen either grown as a standard tree though. Good shout though. Stumped me.

Hi Folks Anyone have any thoughts on the attached? Its a small tree I looked at a couple of days ago. Looks kind of hazel-esque I've definitely seen it before but can't think what it is. Thanks in advance.

Pholiota

You would need to install the path using a no-dig method to prevent damage to the roots. Its a bit complicated so best to get a specification from a tree consultant. Its pretty standard stuff though with several people on here able to assist depending on your location. Have a look at the Geosynthetics website, they supply the materials and can assist with the specification. If you get stuck send me an email (address on my website - see below) and I will send you a hyperlink.

I would go as far as to say beyond reasonable doubt mate.

You're being paid to provide expert advice not just to say fell. Anyone can do that. What if the client likes the tree and wants options? What if the tree is TPO'd and the TO disagrees with the content and it goes to appeal? What if its a third party tree and the owner gets a second opinion that disagrees with your assessment? What if there are issues with ground heave as a result of felling and you haven't excluded this in your limitations and/or scoping? At some point you may have to justify what you have said, maybe to the client or possibly in a court setting.

I just watched it twice in case I missed something (mainly the streaker if I'm honest) and I can only conclude that its right what they say. You get what you pay for.