Chris at eden

H mate, I faced the same dilemma (see my other post) a coupe of years ago and went L6. My initial thoughts. 1. Both are L6 on QCF and that is what makes them recognisable worldwide. 2. I know I said I was told BSc would be less work by the tutor from Warwick but I would still think it would be heavy duty. 3. The L6 is ridiculous in terms of workload but the support from TL is excellent. 4. I'm working on ICF at the moment and they haven't made any objection to L6. I know it has less points on the academic side but its not an academic qualification. Its professional so has to be supplemented by work experience. At least that's my understanding but the guidance from ICF is vague at best. My decision went like this, what do I want it for? My long term aim is AA reg consultant. Who would I like to set me on my way with my L6 qualification, a college lecturer or an actual reg consultant? i.e. Dave Dowson. That is why I went L6, I think its more aimed at consultancy and taught by a top consultant. If I wanted to be a college lecturer or to be involved in research I would have gone for the BSc. I don't think you can do the BSc in two years as you would need to do the FDSc first. If you have the L4 I think there may be some bridging modules you can do instead but essentially its not designed to bolt onto L4 while the L6 is. That was another reason for my decision. I did the old tech cert so L6 was the obvious progression. As Gary said doing L6 in two years is tough. I did mine in two years but I worked every night and weekend and through the hols. I had no social life for two years which is hard but doable once you get into the mind set. The trick is to think strategically, set yourself small goals that you can meet but that also fit into the overall two years. Get re-submissions in quickly as each tick in the box is a little incentive which really helped me. Set yourself max times for each assignment and try not to exceed them it will put you behind on the others. Its easy to go overboard with the research which is counter productive. If you want to know more about something go back after the course. Just do enough to meet the AC. Hope that helps, Good luck,

I spoke with Brian Higginson from Warwick college before I started my L6 about the options as they do BSc and L6. His exact words were 'if you don't have the time to commit to it, do the Bsc as it's less work, the workload for L6 is not to be underestimated'. I would imagine the BSc is no walk in the park either though. The only reason I went with L6 is because it was Tree Life. I do a lot of training with them and have always found the courses to be excellent.

It may have unfortunately. If they have already dug the footings and damaged the tree then it may need to be felled on safety grounds. I doubt that the council will see this as a planning consideration (unless its protected) so any loss you experience is likely to only be addressed as a civil claim. Even then they have a common law right to cut back the over hang which includes the roots so not straight forward.

There is no height of first branch and direction or canopy clearance which are very important. The P and S condition fields are more in accordance with the 2005 standard, they tend to be grouped together under general observations now. Not a big deal though. Writing satisfactory for structural condition is a cop out as it would indicate that the tree has some defects that can be remediated but give no details. These should be identified in detail in my opinion. e.g. cavity, fungal fruiting bodies, deadwood, over extended branches, weak forks, etc. It would be interesting to see what was written for the impact assessment. In my experience most of these 5837 reports make no attempt to even identify impacts never mind evaluate or mitigate them.

Picky but good point. I doubt it would get you far with the PINS inspector. Eucalyptus gunnii or cider gum is the species. i.e. the full name. What people usually refer to as the species (i.e. gunnii) is actually correctly termed the specific epithet. Windthrow is failure from the rootplate during storms. Cheers

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,