Chris at eden

I would agree with both of Ben's statements. I can't see why you would use subcategory 3 either for a Eucalyptus as its never likely to fit. C1 or C2 is more likely in my opinion. Eucalyptus bend and sway a lot in the wind which is a process known as mass damping. This effectively dissipates dynamic energy gradually over the whole tree rather than point loading a specific area. This would be more likely to reduce the risk of windthrow as long as there are no associated defects.

Yeah did logo as well. I'm not sure about it, seems a bit stretched. I picked the colours as I wanted it to be quite chilled. Buying a house or getting planning is stressful enough so I wanted to inject a bit of calm so not all in your face when you look at it. Not sure it works but that was the thinking. Same here about tweaking the content.

Hi Mate, Nice looking site. Thought it look familiar, you use the same company as me. How did you find them? I quite like mine but any comments obviously welcome. I'm not keen on some of the content. The web designer wrote it so I'll look at tweaking it when I get the chance. Cheers,

I wouldn't bother appealing unless you have got the application right in the first place. You cant just say I want to fell the tree because it is damaging the drive. That is only one solution. You would need to identify a number of engineering and arboricultural solutions, evaluate each and select and justify the best option. That may or may not be felling.

You're probably right. I wouldn't vary an existing order for a replacement tree either. I would just make a new one. Its cleaner. The only problem I can see with your approach is that the objectors would have to submit objections all over again which probably wouldn't go down well. That said, that's not necessarily a reason not to do it. The thing about varying the area orders comes from the CAS course run by Richard Nicholson. Not something I ever considered as all the TPO's I ever served were sealed. I know they don't need to be but for some reason it was in the constitution! That would mean if you vary you would physically have to write the numbers onto the plan rather than produce a new GIS plan. Looks a bit amateurish if you ask me. Cheers,

The review of TPO's is the biggest problem TPO officers face, they simply don't have the time. Some obtain extra funding to bring in a consultant to do it on a fixed term contract when they get really out of hand. TPO's are varied in the situations discussed here not modified. TPO's are only modified at the time of confirmation if the planning control committee decide to change things before confirming. An example would be, a TPO is served quickly as an area order in an emergency. It should then be modified at confirmation as groups or individuals once the amenity has been assessed properly. I could also be that the committee also decide to exclude certain trees. TO's can make this call also. When TPO's are confirmed they are done so either 'without modification' or 'subject to modification'.

If you fell a TPO tree and replace subject to condition the cover does not automatically transfer so the new tree wont be covered. The only way the new tree will be covered is if: 1. The tree is felled in contravention. 2. The tree has been felled under exemption as it is dead. 3. The tree has been felled under exemption due to an immediate risk of serious harm. All other reasons you will need to vary, even if its the same species and in the same position. Hope this helps,

I had this conversation with a solicitor about a year ago and he explained it to me in laymen's terms. Apparently there are two elements that have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. 1. The criminal act. That you did it. 2. The criminal mind. He described this as blameworthiness, i.e. was it intentional, reckless, etc. With a strict liability offence there is no need to prove the criminal mind part. Its pretty controversial apparently, I can see why. When I probed on it he said, if you fell a TPO tree without consent and then say you didn't know it was protected you can still be prosecuted. Its not the same with all prosecutions apparently. There are fancy Latin names for it but I forget. I think the criminal mind bit is referred to a mens rea or something like that. I take your point though about the wilful bit, bit contradictory isn't it. I'll ask him next time I see him.

Hi Jules, Not that I am doubting you but why? It is my understanding the TPO contravention is strict liability? Cheers,

One other thing. If the incursion into the RPA is very minor you may (and I stress the word may) be able to justify some hand digging and root pruning.

Hi Roy, You will need to provide detail to the LPA if a planning application is needed. If the patio is to the rear then it should be permitted development, if its at the front and it exceeds 5.5 square metres it may need planning. If at the front but leading to a soakaway then again should be PD. As Ed said, any pruning to the tree would require a TPO app (and consent) including the roots. If you build it as a proper no dig surface then you may get away with just keeping the TO informed but you can't prune or damage any part of the tree. There are a few people on here (myself included) who could help you with a written specification for the on dig patio if you wish. As Ed said the key would be to support the kerbs with stakes so they sit on the existing ground level. Hope this helps,

This is one I have recently mastered, only took me about 15 years!!! I remember it as: My corr hizal Then just remember the h is silent. Its the same way that my two year old teaches me to speak.

Not saying I am right just my opinion. If you took a tree out in your own garden and there was a PSMD that you didn't know about then would you be liable for any damage to your neighbours property. Doesn't make sense to me. What if your tree died? Isn't the fault in that situation with the builder for not taking account of the underlying soil conditions when installing the foundations? Its also the rain that causes the damage as rehydration occurs. I attended a subs seminar a couple of years ago with Giles Biddle and Martin Dobson. One of the other attendees mentioned they had been instructed to fell trees causing subsidence but at the same time been put on notice for heave. Giles went as far as to say you cant be sued for heave if I remember correctly. I asked about a case (I forget the ref) where an engineer was sued after he recommended felling but failed to identify the risk of heave that then happened. Giles view was, that this was more to do with the inappropriate investigation than the heave itself. Not sure, be interested to hear the views of others.

Box elder. (Acer negundo) I think.

You can't exacerbate subsidence by removing trees. In very rare situations you may get heave but this is only where there is a persistent moisture deficit. This relies on the trees being much older than the property and even then it is rare. The tree surgeon is not being paid to provide expert advice, someone else is and they are simply acting on that. If the investigation is flawed I don't see how that can be the tree surgeons fault.

Most subsidence is caused by trees, it's just more common on houses with naf foundations. I agree though topping isn't the answer, it's an endless and expensive cycle.

Wasn't really my point. The point was, QTRA is a scoring system but PTI is so much more than that and doesn't actually require the use of a quantified system. This is re-enforced by the fact that Cheshire Woodlands actually recommend that candidates do the VTA course the day before QTRA to cover that aspect. PTI is more about VTA and the legal system, recording data, etc, rather than scoring. I thought TRAQ was more along that line but I may be wrong? Why not do both was my point but I think Paul covered that with the answer about the lack of an exam. Interesting comments about court though.

Absolutely no way you will get a 5m reduction on that tree for blocked light. The TPO was served to stop people doing those kind of works. It's crown height is already almost 1/3rd of the overall height so you wont get much lifting either. And just to round it off it doesn't need thinning to a great degree, you may get 20% at a push but I think 10% is more realistic.

March this year mate.

Hi Ed, That would be my interpretation also. Regulation 96 of Schedule 4 also omits subsection (6) (a) from section 23 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 which again makes reference to the max £20k fine so this seems to support this. I thought I understood this until I read the comments from Jules, now I'm a bit confused. I've emailed a solicitor colleague of mine for clarification but he's away this week. I'll let you know what he comes back with. Cheers,

Great thread. I think the biggest problem is that planning departments don't really enforce conditions. I write a monitoring schedule into every AMS that I do but I never get instructed to do them one it all kicks off. I've never seen it raised by the LPA either. Its a shame. 5837 would actually work if people followed it. Jules, good point about the expert witness and I think you can apply that to reports also. They all have the potential to be to end up in court. The consultants primary responsibility is to the system. I read an article a while ago where the expert witness was thrown out of the court as the judge deemed him not to be an expert! How embarrassing!

You cant do an impact assessment before the layout. The AIA is the impact of the trees on development and vice versa, you need to know what is being build for that. The tree survey yes though, should be independent of layout. The sequence is generally or should be: 1. Tree survey and constraints assessment. Pre-app, guidance for design team. 2. AIA and draft TPP. To go in with planning app. 3. AMS and final TPP. To be conditioned usually. In my opinion the AIA is mainly prepared for the TO and LPA as they will be making the decision. Of course it should be written so the laymen can understand it as should all reports, so supported by descriptive text where required. The AMS is not just for contractors, it gives the LPA something they can condition which makes enforcement possible. I'm not saying it shouldn't have an intro to explain what it is, clearly it should but it should be much more than that. I saw one yesterday from a well respected consultant that was about 20 pages. The only thing that was specific was a survey schedule and an impact assessment which was two paragraphs. The rest of it you could apply to any site in the country. I don't think that is good enough.

Spot on. I've seen reports when working in a planning office that are 20 pages long. The first 15 generic padding explaining what the BS is, (the TO will already now this so don't go over the op, it will annoy the LPA). A brief description in the scope should be enough in my view. The next 2 are site specific (which is a joke), then the appendices also generic apart from the tree survey. I've seen impact assessments that are half a page long or even not present. Not a good approach. The report should take a few hours to write. I've heard consultants say they can write one in an hour. Not if you are doing it properly. Do a good job and you will get repeat work. And be honest. If there is an impact say so. Don't say there isn't just because that is what the client wants. You will be asked to do this from time to time. It not as if the TO wont notice so just explain that.

Hi Alan, I would second what Jules and Paul are saying and no I just wouldn't take a punt. 5837 is probably the most demanding report you will write, the only other one on that level would be for subsidence in my opinion. Tree life run a one day course on 5837 which may be useful. As a brief overview the: 1. Tree survey is pretty straight forward apart from the retention category bit. 2. The AIA is, the impact of the development on trees and vice versa. For example. The impact of tree losses, the impact of tree pruning, the impact of hard surfaces, the effect the trees will have on the finished site through shading, seasonal nuisance, the potential for direct damage, etc. 3. The AMS. Should be written as a specification. i.e. this is what we will be doing, not we recommend this. For example. Tree protection barriers shall be installed in positions as identified on the TPP and in accordance with the specification in appendix 3. Not, it is recommended that barriers are ..... Wholly specifications can be a problem for council legal departments so tree officers may object. You don't always need an AMS, only if the AIA demonstrates that you do. For this reason the AIA should conclude with issues to be addressed by the AMS and a draft TPP. That said some councils will still ask. They all seem to treat it differently in my experience. How many trees are there on the site? It would be worth getting into if you can. 5837 probably forms about 80% of my work.

Get the boat from dover. Its a great experience seeing the cliffs disappear from the back of the ship especially at sunset. Toll roads are great, no traffic. Alsace is a great part of the world, not by the sea but the weather seems to be better in my experience. Provence is nice but a trek with a Van. If you don't want to go too far Brittany is nice. About 6 hours from Calais to St Malo, roads not great. France is the most under rated place I have been to, great food and lots of history if that's your thing. Enjoy!