Chris at eden

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,

Not always. It depends who has the delegated powers. If the TO just does planning they will probably enforce TPO's or at least put the case together. In reality legal will enforce but the head of service over planning will give the go ahead. I know this as I have ten years experience working as TO, five of which were doing TPO's. The TO will be the first point of contact so no don't beg, but be nice would be my advice. TO's are just people, some are cool, others not so. I didn't get off on the power, in fact I didn't like it but I'm pretty sure some do but then others don't. Another point that's been kicking around is who do they prosecute. Whoever they feel is most appropriate, there is no fixed way. I've seen tree owner, contractor, registered charity and even the climber being the one to get done. Sorry IC, the last bit was not to do with your post but thought I'd chip in. Don't rely on councils not having the money either. They will have a team of legal experts who will know if they are likely to win. If they win it don't cost them anything so they won't be scared to take on a slam dunk.

Its supposed to be the same, it has the same legal heading on the letter. Cautions are destroyed for uk purposes after a few years under rehabilitation of minor offenders act but they stay on file and pop up if you go to work abroad or something like that. The council cautions don't go on the database in my experience just stay on file at the office. So not gonna pop up years later or if you do an unrelated crime that the police look into. They are the same though as if the council offer a caution and it is refused they must be in a position to prosecute. If they have a weak case which is unenforceable they cannot issue a caution as a lesser penalty as if the defendant refused they would have to prosecute. In that case they would issue a letter of warning.

No mate, its a caution. The police are not the prosecuting agency on behalf of CPS for TPO's, the council are. So they issue the caution. If you attend the interviews at the council office they are conducted under caution same as the police do in accordance with the police and criminal evidence act 1984. The PACE book will be sitting on the table, they will be recorded and you will be read your rights at they beginning.

If you can prove they were almost dead it would not be in the public interest to prosecute as the council would have given consent to fell anyway. Try Google street scene if you are lucky you may get some recent summer pics showing poor condition. Its still technically a contravention but you may get away with a slap on the wrist. The council can't prosecute for the sake of it, it has to be in the public interest. Offer to fund some replant, its better than a criminal record.

Second pic looks like the soil level may have been raised?

Why were they felled?

Probably a young Ganoderma bracket. Ultimately the stem will decay and snap during winds but this could take years, or not. Get it looked at by a consultant properly to see if it can be retained safely. Basic inspection would include sounding with a mallet to see if there is an audible change indicating cavity. If you are willing to spend you could get it checked with a Picus which uses ultrasound to determine the extent of decay. If you retain it you will need to have it monitored regularly. What would it hit if it fell?

Don't buy before you start. I just finished L6 and I probably bought 8 books at the most although I did have a few to start with. If you are doing it with tree life they will tell you where to research as you go along to an extent. Some of the books you won't need. You can get away with it. Depends how loaded you are. Me, not so much. I'm not sure what the subject content is on L4 but with L6 there is a lot of strategic stuff and you can get a lot of research material for free. For example, we had to write a risk management strategy and the main document for the is NTSG which is free to download. Also if you are not a member of the AA you should join and get access to their online database of old journals. They are pretty vital. ISA have a similar online store of old papers also. Its worth trying to find that and sticking a shortcut on your desktop. You can view every paper other than the most recent without being a member. Good luck to all.

That is strange. Hope your van is diesel!

I agree with comments made by sloth. The spec is a joke, completely ambiguous. Very unprofessional.

Hi Gary, Its still in as an exemption (or more correctly an exception now) but I don't think there is a duty to replace, certainly not under 206 but 213 isn't covered well in the online guidance. Like I said rubbish. Download the regs. They're only a few pages and really well written. Exceptions are covered by reg 14 & 15. The planning unit is really good as is the structural damage if you are doing that.

In answer to the original poster, if you fell a dead tree in a CA you have a duty in accordance with section 213 of the town and country planning act to replace with an appropriate species blah blah blah. That's been covered. As I already said though it has to be reasonable. As its a duty and not a condition there is no direct route of appeal but there is a work around. You could ignore the duty and wait for the TRN to be served under section 207. Then appeal that. The planning inspectorate would then reassess. He may side with the LPA or he may reduce the size. In my opinion its better to plant smaller trees as they establish better. Plus, if you planted a 4m tree and a 2m tree and looked at them in 20 years which do you think would be bigger? Arboriculture is all about the long game, not instant results. That would be the basis of you argument. Test it, see what happens. Even if you lose its an interesting experience.

Good points well made woody. Its all about being reasonable. If it was a TPO and they conditioned a 4m replacement, I would appeal it and in my experience the planning inspectorate would either vary the condition allowing a smaller tree, or dispense with it altogether just to teach the LPA a lesson. I wouldn't condition maintenance either as it would be a nightmare to enforce. But, if the tree died they would have to replace it again so its in their interests to water it. I would always point that out. As previously stated by Roobs and the other chap you can't condition in a CA. If the tree had died asking for a 4m replacement would not be reasonable in my view. If on the other hand it was a contravention, you could possibly get away with it as it would be part of the punishment.

Sorry mate but this is cut from the old blue book, not the new online planning guidance. Obviously there is no dead, dying or dangerous anymore. This has been replaced by dead, or an immediate risk of serious harm. I think they did away with the duty to replace due to legal nuisance also, or at least I've never been able to find it. The new online guidance is rubbish, you are better off working directly from the regs.

Close but for future ref. If the LPA condition replacement of a TPO tree its not automatically protected. The protection is only transferred if the tree was removed either in contravention, because it is dead, or because it creates an immediate risk of serious harm. That last one is the new way of saying dangerous. Replacement trees via condition are only protected if the LPA either: 1. Vary the original order to show the change and re-serve. 2. Or, make a new order.

If you have detailed plans that have been approved that show the tree removed or even not on the plans there is no point putting a TPO on the tree, you could never enforce it. The developer has essentially been given consent to fell when the plan was approved. You should ideally show trees on plans and mark the RPA with a dashed outline if its to be felled. Continuous outline to retain. Not showing on the plan would be a grey area and you can't have grey areas in criminal prosecutions. You have to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. To make the case worse, the developer would only have to show that a consent to fell was in place on the balance of probabilities. That is essentially a 51% chance they have consent. What would you say not showing a tree on a proposed layout plan indicates? Its a fairly common trick I came across when working as TPO officer. Sneaky.

Just googled it. Looks nice. Can see why its CA, loads of old buildings. Fair play mate.

I see what you are saying and agree with building a good relationship with the tree officer. But, there is nothing wrong with challenging them if you think they are wrong. For the recorded, there is no such thing as a CA application, its a notice. It can't be refused or conditioned. That said, I've seen loads of CA letters with conditions. Not enforceable though. 80% in a CA must be nice. Where you based?

No mate. Dead trees and dead branches are fine. Its the dying exemption that's been removed and the dangerous one that has been re-worded in the 2012 regs. This obviously only applies for the last two years.

As Gary said you have to submit a notice in writing giving at least 5 days before felling. If the risk is so great you should fell and gather enough info to prove the exemption to the tree officer. There is no dangerous exemption for TPO's or CA's anymore. The exceptions are now, dead tree, dead branches within trees, and trees which pose an immediate risk of harm. There are others. A full list of exceptions can be viewed in the 2012 regs for TPO' and CA's, they are covered by Reg 14 and Reg 15 respectively. Also, you have a duty under section 213 of the T & C Planning Act to replace dead trees in a CA. A similar duty applies to TPO's under section 206. Hope this helps.

If you reduce the overall height of the tree by 10%, you will reduce bio-mechanical loading at the base by 20%. If you reduce by 20% it will reduce loading at the base by 50%. This was from a book on pruning that came out recently, I forget the title. If the tree is protected remember not to spec the works for reduction as a percentage, you will need to convert the quantities to linier metres or the council may not validate. If you stake low down the stem will move allowing for the production of stem taper. What it wont do is allow root plate movement so the roots wont become optimised in my opinion. I agree with Jules, if you stake a tree with an already weak root system you may make the issue worse. This is on the understanding that the trees are established and not newly planted.

Great post mate. Very informative.