Chris at eden

I agree with Ed, the regs are clear on this and its not a courtesy. The only exception to the five day notice would be where the risk of serious harm is immediate. An example would be a large hanger over the road at the weekend. In that case you could do retrospective but you better be sure and have the evidence. Dead trees in the woods, five day would be my advice.

Its borderline maladministration. If the validated the application there must be a plan otherwise they should not have. If its vague, they should refer back to you asking for clarification within the 8 weeks. At that I would go back to the surveyor and ask him to clarify, that is what he is paid for. I rarely get anything back from planning for my reports but if I do I clarify at no cost to the client. It would be my oversight. If they don't I wouldn't use them again. There is no duty to replace protected trees in woodlands when they die so don't do that part as an application. Do it as Gary says as a 5 day notice. If you do it as an application they could condition it. It would probably be overturned under appeal but why go there. Remember your 5 day notice has to be in writing and contain enough information to ID the trees. Cheers,

When I did L4 it was on the old tech cert version which was exam based. Workload was fine and didn't have a problem with the step up. I had already done national certificate a few years earlier as a full time course. That is L2 and similar format to RFS. I didn't think there was any difference between ISA and NC really. ISA is already recognised in the UK as it is on the QCF. The new L4 and L6 are formatively assessed by portfolio production. You have to hit 100% of the assessment criteria. I can't comment on L4 but the workload for L6 is horrendous. I did choose to complete in 2 years though and in reality you can take up to five so don't be scared by that. On the up side the learning is unbelievable and well worth the effort. You get so much more from it than exam based. There is also a L2 version of the above which is run by ABC same as the other two by portfolio. Worth considering as it bolts on to L4 & 6. Speak with Dave at tree life. Tell him you are looking at L4 with him at some point and ask his advice on the best route. That would be my advice.

I did ISA then went through L4 (the old tech cert version) and then on to L6. L2 will not teach you to write tree reports to a high standard. Its more aimed at being a knowledgeable tree surgeon. L4 will equip you for doing mortgage reports and risk surveys. L6 is more targeted at bs5837, subsidence, and writing strategic documents although you will touch on 5837 and subs at L4. I would go this route and do it with tree life. They are top class.

I kind of agree but its not a fair comparison. If you are going to do any kind of pruning it should be done properly where possible. You can't really compare a well done reduction with a lift which is way too high and with huge cuts. That is just not crown lifting. IMO reduction has far more impact on the tree visually. I know some folk like that trimmed and manicured look but I'm just not a fan. I'm also not a fan of the vertical regrowth that always results. My original post was about a councils position on reducing TPO trees in that they don't support it. I agree with that view, and in my opinion there is a good chance they would win on appeal if refusal was worded properly. I don't see that you could refuse a 15% thin based on detrimental impact on visual amenity and have any chance of winning on appeal as there wouldn't be any.

Who said anything about thinning badly or lion tailing? That's not crown thinning. Same as making internodal cuts isn't a reduction. I was only talking about pruning to BS spec. Reduction exposes more cross sectional branch material and takes longer to occluded. When they do occlude it is usually via bark inclusions due to a loss of apical control, these then are structural weak points. Visually they don't look natural, you can see they have been pruned. I don't get the logic that trees thin when they die either. They thin when stressed but when they die they tend to reduce. As in retrenchment.

No mate, I'm not saying it shouldn't be done. Just that there should be a genuine reason for it. For example to reduce the load on a compression fork. Lifting and thinning have less impact on the tree visually and the tree responds better in my opinion. I agree with it being in both those areas cos if its gonna be done it should be done properly.

I just don't think they look as good once reduced. No matter how well they are done, I can't see the point. Reduce only if there is a need. Lateral reductions to clear buildings but why height? equally I don't see the point in reducing laterally for the sake of it. I processed an application to reduce lateral branch growth to clear an adjacent building by 10m a few years ago. It already had about 5m so I refused it. It went to PINS and they also refused it. It would have looked ridiculous. I know TO's who don't even allow thinning. I think that is well over the top to be fair. Not damaging to the tree so why refuse.

Interesting points Jules. One thing I would say though is that TPO contravention is a strict liability offence so as far as I am aware saying they did not know they were doing wrong does not make them blameless.

Sent before finished typing. I agree reduction is bad as in my view it spoils the natural shape of the tree no matter how well done. As visual amenity is the driving force of TPO's that's a no brainer. The would be my reason for refusal. To call it topping though is a bit misguided. We have a BS which details the difference. I doubt the PINS inspector would support the LPA on that alone.

I actually agree

S201 went with the 2012 regs. All tpos now take provisional effect under s197 or s198 whichever is appropriate. there are other sections you can serve under. As far as I am aware if a TPO is objected to it has to go to committee, it can't be delegated. That wouldn't be democratic. Some LPA's send all their apps to committee with no delegated decision at all. That must be a right pain. As far as i can see the officers decision to prevent felling has been overruled, democracy at work.

That would make sense wouldn't it. It would also have made sense for it to be covered either in the regs or the guidance but as far as I can see it hasn't. Helpful!!! It would be pretty difficult to prosecute for the felling of something that the planning committee had already decided did not merit protection. Bit of a farce that would be.

That's about what I heard. Apparently the chap is in prison now as he refused to pay, or so I am told. With the replacement tree the courts also went like for like so he has to plant huge thing that will be brought in by crane so another 50k there then. Ouch!!!

Spot on mate which is why I don't think you can or should prosecute just for the sake of it. Lawyers aren't stupid and would pick apart your case in no time.

Hi Jules, Can councils not prosecute contractors up your way then? down here yes. They was a fairly high profile one last year in Poole. House owner got hit for 150k ish, tree surgeon for about 2k. That was basically cos the house owner had made the bigger gain or so I am told.

Or conditions. But yes, sounds about right to me.

I think Bob means object. Never came across that one but would assume you could carry out the work detailed on the notice. I would check with the councils legal section.

The council would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you had took off an extra half metre and by doing so damaged the tree. Good luck with that. What if you applied to reduce by 30% of the extension and you reduced by 35, could the council prove that. As long as you haven't mullered the tree you should be fine. The reason you can't use percentage is that it is ambiguous. Do you mean 30% extension or 30% leaf area? They are very different. That is what 3998 says. You can make it easier by specifying to what is left rather than what you remove. That would solve the issues of pruning unbalanced canopies. For example, reduce tree to a height which is no lower than 15m and reduce radial crown spread to 8m all around.

Not in my experience. They will most likely be checked and only mentioned if there is a problem. They are not monitored by the TO though so you would probably get referred on if any were live.

They should check anyway in my opinion, I always would. But yes I have heard people ask to carry out statutory tree protection checks before, or for checks on planning restrictions. PC's are pretty rubbish to be fair as you only have to replace the tree, there is no fine so not a huge deterrent. The big deterrent is that it can cause problems with selling your house if you have undischarged or problematic PC's. I heard a story a while ago about a developer who never discharges conditions which basically means he couldn't sell the houses. Doesn't matter though as he build rentals and avoids the planning fee by not discharging. Smart move I suppose.

I don't agree. You have to meet both the evidential and public interest tests or legal won't touch it.

No bob you are quite right. Planning conditions are useless. There is no prosecution, worst case scenario you would be instructed to replant.

Not really, councils will most likely store all their TPO data on a computer, in my experience on GIS. CA's and planning conditions will be stored in the same place. Its the click of a button to check. 10 seconds. The planning condition is a land charge as is a TPO, so the duty to replace would sit with the land owner. The standard condition is 5 years which starts from the day the development is signed off by building control. Hope this helps,