Chris at eden

Boom! My kind of gardening. I have two choc labs that can pretty much annihilate everything within 3 mins if left unsupervised. Easier than a chainsaw mate.

Yes, I have a jungle theme garden. I have a purple leaved Catalpa which I coppice at 3ft annually. Leaves are huge as a result which was the intention. It also puts on at least 6ft growth over the summer. I do the same with a Paulownia. Same result. The downside is no flowers. Cheers

Although TPO's are not designed for council trees there is no reason why they cannot be protected by one. The tree could have been under threat from local residents for example. Additionally, if your council is split between district and county it is likely that the county would manage the tree, and district would administer TPO's. So the owner would be applying to a different authority to do works. Highways departments are not always that tree friendly as they see them as a drain on resources with the damage they cause to footways. This can sometimes force districts into a position where they feel they have to protect the trees. I arranged a training session a few years ago for a highways department at a council I worked for as TO. It was Dave Dowson delivering engineering solutions for footway repair. Real top level training. No one turned up from the highways management team, they were not interested, all they wanted to do was fell the trees. Its easier. Not saying all authorities are like this but some certainly are. Hence, highway trees get TPO'd

From your original post it sounded like pruning was done every few years and it was unclear how much was removed. Research shows that you need to remove almost all of the canopy and probably on an annual basis for it to have any chance of success. I don't quite see the point in keeping a tree like that as its pretty much destroyed. Yes the root protection area. Its a calculation based on stem diameter which shows the area in which you should not excavate on development sites. You also need to consider the size of the roots you are cutting. Its not quite as simple as that as you can enter RPA's and dig by hand in some instances and the shape has to be modified to reflect site conditions in some instances. Barriers can be effective if installed properly. They don't reduce water uptake by the tree but they create a physical barrier between the tree and the foundations so the tree does not extract water from beneath the footings. The soil will still shrink on the tree side of the barrier through. If you leave gaps though the roots will grow through, or under, or over. They also create moisture gradients which actually encourage root growth so again have to be installed properly. For subsidence they will probably need to be at least 2m deep also but this will depend on tree species, soil type, etc. Hence expensive. Please don't take this as professional advice or rely on it as I haven't seen the situation and so I am just giving general information. It needs to be investigated properly. What have you had done previously? Crack / level monitoring, soil analysis, root ID, trail pits for foundation depth?

You don't need to revoke a TPO before making an app. In fact if you did revoke then you wouldn't need to apply as the tree wouldn't be protected. More to the point, if the council tree is damaging your property and you can demonstrate that on the balance of probabilities then that would be actionable nuisance so an application may not be required anyway. Tree removal may not be the only option. There is root barrier, underpin, or pruning. Pruning is problematic though and will only work if done regularly, probably every year. Underpin and root barrier is expensive, about £1,000 per linear metre. Felling is quick and easy but the loss of trees is not always desirable to the council.

I would discuss the options. A the end of the day you could build an elevated concrete slab on plies to cross but I couldn't design that. It would need an engineer. If its light weight traffic I am happy to specify the temp protection as interlocking boards (or ply) and woodchip. Anything bigger I always caveat saying to check the spec with a competent person. I'm not an engineer so I am very careful in what I recommend when it comes to structures. Same with Cellweb roads. I spec footpaths and cycle ways but as soon as you start driving vehicles, I write the spec and then state that they must confirm with an engineer or the supplier and refer back to me if further guidance is required in relation to tree protection. May seem like a bit of a cop-out but my profession is trees, not structures. I see my role as making sure the structures don't damage the trees, not the design of the structures. As long as you offer to consult, I think that is acceptable. Hope that makes sense

p.s. those loads and specifications were given to me directly by Gavin via email so they should be pretty accurate. The below text is the email he sent just for future reference. I find it useful to refer to. Hi Chris As discussed please see info below regarding Cellweb depths. 75mm - Pedestrian and cyclepaths 100mm – Cars and light vans (up to approx. 6 tonne GVW) 150mm – Fire engines, Deliver vans etc (up to approx. 30 tonne GVW) 200mm – HGV / Construction traffic (approx. 30 – 60 tonne GVW) Hope this helps – I must stress these figures are approximate – other site factors have to be taken into consideration to assess properly the build up required. I have attached a questionnaire which you can send us if required, and our engineering department can produce this. If you need any further help please don’t hesitate to contact me. Cheers

Not sure mate. I usually point the client in the right direction, and let them sort it directly rather than paying me an arrangement fee.

200mm Cellweb is ok for traffic between 30 and 60 tonnes depending on ground conditions. You may get away with 150mm if ground conditions are right. Speak with Gavin Proud from Geosynthetics. He is one of their technical specifiers so should be able to help. email - [email protected] Hope this helps

Subs course is good also. Again its a quick skim over. You cant learn this stuff in a day but you have to start somewhere. Cheers

The AA do a course on categorising trees for 5837 surveys but nothing on the site at the moment. I think they ran one a couple of weeks ago. The Treelife course will cover all aspects, tree survey, tree constraints, AIA, TPP, and AMS. I did it about 10 years ago. Remember though it's a one day course so it will be skimmed over pretty quickly. I covered it again a couple of years ago as part of the L6 in which it is covered in much more detail. Cheers

Pretty well covered I would say although I got the impression that the tree was TPO'd not within a CA and so an application required, not a notice. Doesn't sound like an exemption to me although the info is limited.

Although the TPO does not transfer liability it could in that situation due to the LPA refusing consent. Slightly different but there was a case a few years back where a resident submitted an application to fell a tree due to subsidence. The LPA refused the application due to a lack of supporting evidence. From what I remember they had skipped some of the investigation and just got root ID and level monitoring, maybe soils, not sure now. Anyway instead of appealing the decision the tree owner put a claim in for the damage. The council had to fund all repairs as the court felt that the upward movement on the level monitoring was enough to implicate the tree on the balance of probabilities. Probably fair, what else is likely to make buildings move up. The LA tried to rely on the fact that the applicant could appeal to the PINS but the judge was having none of it. Cheers

Hi Paul Not disagreeing with you but I used to work as TO at Dudley a few years ago and we did this on several occasions. Tree that was an imminent danger felled by the council's in house team. Funds recovered in one of two ways. 1. The tree owner paid back in instalments. 2. If option 1 not possible due to lack of funds then a charge was placed against the property to be settled on sale of said property. We did this on several occasions all through legal. No problems. Funny how solicitors opinions differ. I believe the TPO case in Poole a couple of years ago took the same approach. The offender could not settle the full fine (circa. £150k) and so a charge was placed on the property to be settled upon sale. Another LA I worked for as TO wouldn't even look at private trees. Their view is they are private and so not our responsibility. The powers are discretionary and we do not wish to or have the resources to take on liability by looking and serving notices. Cheers

The powers that the council have to serve either a highways or LGMP notice are discretionary and in my experience (working as a tree officer) they will try to avoid it. The duty of care sits with the tree owner but once the council start serving notices they cannot simply ignore it if the owner doesn't respond. Guidance I always had from LG solicitors was that there would then be a potential for liability or at least criticism. That's not to say that the tree owner is off the hook though.

Hi Ed I realise all that and I kind of agree. I was quite surprised when Richard was talking about modifying the areas before confirmation. As I said, I don't know why you would just not make a new one and allow the other to expire. Just that it may be possible. The unreasonable bit. The way I interpreted the OP was that the trees didn't merit protection, full stop. i.e. not good examples and no future potential, maybe they had no visibility. Not sure what the reasons were. My point was that I don't think the LPA should be protecting low quality trees simply so they can force the land owner to plant something better. I personally think that is asking for trouble. Cheers

Q2 - that's not what Richard Nicholson is selling in his TPO course run through CAS. He actually states that you should not confirm as an area but should modify to groups and individuals before confirmation and confirm the new plan and schedule. Goes as far as to say extend the areas across the boundaries so as boundary trees can be included without the risk of being accused of including new trees and therefore avoid the need to consult again. I do agree though that you would be better just making a new order and re-serving, and allowing the old to expire.

Its probably slightly unreasonable to put a replacement condition on trees that did not merit protection in the first place. There is a government circular which stats what planning conditions must be. e.g. Fair, reasonable, etc. TPO's are only supposed to be served if the removal of the trees would have a significant impact on the local environment. Sounds like these did not meet the criteria. I would appeal the TRN. First thing the PINS will ask for is the TPO and evidence that it has been confirmed. That's not going to happen by the sound of it. Even if they had confirmed the order I would still appeal as the way in which the legislation has been administered is not appropriate. You cant TPO rubbish trees just so that you can get land owners to plant better ones.

Me too. I ignored them for a couple of months and they went away. Tell you what I do get which really winds me up. I get these so called SEO experts emailing me most days saying my website is not optimised, has a lot of mistakes, and doesn't rank on Google! Tell me this, if I don't rank on Google, then how do they get my details? Idiots! Sorry, seemed to have derailed the thread.

Its easy. You create your campaign and choose your keywords. You then set a maximum daily budget, and a maximum fee per click for your keywords. You will never be charged more than your budgets although the daily budget is averaged over the month. You shouldn't be paying £12 per click though.

Hi Ti It's difficult to make TPO's proactively in that way as unless the trees are under threat it would not be considered to be expedient to make a TPO. So no they don't have to survey and make TPO's proactively or more to the point, they can't. Its not all the LPA's fault to be fair. A lot of tree surgeons will phone the LPA on the morning they are going to do the work to check as that way the LPA do not have time to make the orders. Remember they are duty bound to protect trees under threat if there removal would have a significant impact on the local environment. By phoning the LPA when they are up the tree the contractors deny them of the opportunity to do this. I don't personally think it is too much to ask that the LPA get a couple of days notice before works are carried out. Its the only way the system will work. Whether or not you or I agree with it, that is the way it is intended to work. That said they should be asking you to submit an application for trees that are not protected. Cheers

I also agree with what it looks like. I left an old Merip frond in the boot of my car over the weekend a couple of years ago and one thing I can say for sure is, it didn't smell sweet by Monday!!! I can see why you posted it mate. One for Tony or David this one.

I'll third it. Also wrote the L2, L4 and L6 certs and diplomas which is worth a mention. Never noticed the watch and shoes thing but I'll take your word for it. Top trainer as his his mate Andy.