Chris at eden

An old woman asked me to come and look at some trees that were shafting her greenhouse a few years ago. I lied and said I was fully booked!

Fair play to you mate for dragging your ass through the course with those conditions. That just isn't the way it is meant to be taught but I've heard similar stories before. Go to treelife, the teaching is top class.

I do mortgage reports. Not sure what the exact location is but may be something I can cover. Do you have a postcode? If its outside of my area I'm happy to have a quick chat with him to point him in the right direction. Contact details on my website. Cheers,

I see what you are saying about the amount of work but no pain no gain in my view. My son was born 3 months into my first year which made it a real challenge but if you get your head down you can do it. I still finished mine in two years. The key to completing this course within two years is simply stop watching the TV and work every night through the work. I rarely did anything on it at the weekend but i worked damn hard on the week nights. The re-subs are the strengh of this course over anything else in my view as i had to submit my 5837 work 3 times. The first time i was probably about 75% there which in academic terms would be enough for a pass. With the L6 its not. If not for the re-subs i would now be writing 5837 impact assesments which were 75% correct but missed some key issues. As it is i got the chance to improve my learning and now write the documents to a better standard. Well worth the effort in my view. If you can't complete in 2 years then dont stress would be my view, you have another 3 after that to complete all the work. I don't see the big panic about this either. ICF are not saying you can't go for chartered status just that you have to make up the points in other areas. This is a professional qualification not an academic so the point is it builds and gets built on by experience so this seems reasonable enough. I have already spoken with Dave about this and he does not beleive it will stop us becoming chartered. I'm already working toward mine and this course gave me the confidence to do that. Another point worth considering is that ICF do not set the levels for education, QCF do and they say its level 6. If you applied for a job abroad for instance the employer would look at what level the qualification is not what ICF say. If you look at job adverts over here also they say must have a degree or equivalent, not must score 4 points for the MICFor scheme. Just a thought. Sorry mate i seemd to have strayed of your post here a little. i wouldn't started panicing just yet. Anyone who has complted this qualification will know exactly how good it is and that will filter through in time. Good luck to anyone who is doing this course and stick at it the rewards are well worth it. Cheers, Cheers,

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

That would be my interpretation also. The relevant town and country planning act would be 1971 section 60, not sure about the regs though.

Spot on Jules, I did PD arb with the TO in Poole and that was pretty muc what he told me.

Collybia i think.

Definition: A specific tariff is levied as a fixed fee based on the type of item (e.g., $1,000 on any car). An ad-valorem tariff is levied based on the item’s value (e.g., 10% of the car’s value). I can see how changing the wording from standard fine to tariff significantly changes the message conveyed!!! £20k is also not the maximum in reality as was recently shown by the Borough of Poole. £150k if memory serves me correct.

Should be noted though that the situation in the original post does not seem as straight forward as the one i presented so you should speak with the TO. He/she may well update the TPO though if it meets the criteria for visual amenity.

The standard fine is £20,000 and could be unlimited in rare circumstances but i take your point, always good to keep the TO onside. Quite right. I did say that i a later post as i thought i came across a bit blunt in some of my comments. Not my intention, it was late and i had just finished writing a nightmare mortgage report so sorry about that. To be clear though, if you have a TPO from the 1960's with an area designation that has never been varied, and there is a 10 year old tree on it, i would be quite happy to say its not protected to a client. I'm not suggesting anyone else do the same, that is their decision. But, remember the level of evidence required for prosecution. 1. The LPA have to prove beyond reasonable doubt on 3 counts, one of which that the tree was protected. How could they do this in the circumstances i described above? i.e. 40 year old area order with a 10 year old tree and never varied? 2. If you had to mount a defence against a prosecution this would take place in the civil arena meaning that you would only have to show on the balance of probabilities that the tree was not protected, i.e. a 51% chance. If you could show that the tree is only 10 years old and that the TPO area only covers those trees present 40 years ago. Seems pretty straight forward to me. Basically the council would have to show that the tree was almost certainly protected and you would only have to show that it was more than likley not. These are very different levels of evidence. Not suggesting anyone takes this approach as it doesn't build good relations with the TO and you would have to be sure of your facts but the original post was quite right, areas only cover trees present on the date they were served or presumably varied. Not sure why you would vary an area order though. Cheers,

Yes they will. European legislation makes it a requirement that all spatial data is available online, that includes TPO's. Council's are allowed to charge for it though, but the TPO guidance states that the register must be available free of charge so thats a bit contradictory. It may take a while for them to get up to speed but it should happen in the nearish future. Cheers,

If in doubt, speak with the TO.

Don't see how that could ever be enforced, its not in accordance with the legislation.

That is correct. Trees which grew after the date on which the order was served are not covered. Back in 2008 the government advised all LPA's to re-survey all of their area TPO's for this very reason, they are difficult to enforce if old. They shouldn't really list species, that is for groups and woodlands. The proper way to describe an area on the schedule was always, 'all trees growing within the area whatever the species'.

The post isn't about topping its about pollarding. The chap from Oregon seems to think they are the same thing to which you were agreeing. I just don't agree. You kind of missed the end of that paragraph also where it says 'this (topping) is not the same as pollarding'. There is nothing ambiguous there. The reason the bs uses words such as should is because its recommendations or guidance, I can't say anything else. When writing an instruction or specification the tree advisor should change the wording to must or shall. If David Lonsdale thought it was a good idea to pollard 25m trees then why is it not in the standard. I agree though that the terminology used is not helpful. The chap who first posted is asking what pollarding is. Essentially it's what the current bs says it is in the uk. If he turns up to meet a tree officer and asks if he can pollard a 25m tree he is going to look a bit daft especially as TPO officers will always condition compliance with bs3998. I'm not saying you can't top trees higher up as some times you may have to, but I just don't think that is pollarding.

When definitions are vague, misunderstanding is inevitable. BS says it's the removal of most or all of the crown of a mature tree by indiscriminately cutting through the main stem. US says it's excessive cutting, often internodal (used to say 'predetermined'), and done without regard for the the health and structure of the tree. I have no idea what the ANSI (if thats the correct name) says about pollarding but i am pretty confident the BS (British Standard) does not say that! If you can point me tho the page where it states that i will be happy to check my facts and get back to you. Sorry but i dont agree.

It seems that pollarding may be something different in the UK to the USA. We have a British standard that clearly details it as a professional pruning standard and only to be initiated on young trees with a stem diameter of less than 200mm. I dont personally think it can be done to mature trees and still called pollarding, that would be topping. The effect on the mass/energy ratio would be more severe, surely???? Additionally you have to think about the original use of this technique. I doubt whether medievil woodland owners were harvesting pollard re-growth from 25m!!! It would have been done just high enough to prevent cattle grazing of the fresh shoots.

Yes I agree, especially now all the a5 certs have gone.

Hi Paul, Yes that would be my view also. The words actionable suggest that someone is taking action and that must be against someone else so therefore two parties. Whether you could consider the taking of action against the LPA should they refuse is another consideration but i doubt this would count as its based on them refusing an application so it becomes a bit contradictory. More to the point though, its discussed in Charles Mynors book under the heading of to prevent or abate a nuisance. Page 462 of the 2002 version. I dont have the new one as i am too much of a tight wad to buy it but i'm not aware that its changed. To be fair though he doesn't seem 100% sure. I also saw a PINS appeal decision recently where the applicant wanted to fell a tree as it was damaging his own wall. The LPA refused and when it went to the PINS they upheld the decision. I think this adds weight to the assumption. Hope this help, Cheers,

Princeton elm is supposedly resistant. Ulmus Americana Princeton.

This would depend on the situation. I.e. Not if the car park is under the same ownership as the trees. You can't claim actionable nuisance against yourself. That would still be application.

It is unlikley that the LA will want to get involved in serving a notice under Mis Provisions as the powers are descretionary and the duty owner is clearly the tree owner. Addionally section 23 also makes reference to the tree being imminently danagerous but this varies with each subsection. They may be swayed by the fact that the tree is threatening a school. Its not straight forward hence many LA's not wishing to get involved. Additionally, if the owner refuses to fell the tree subject to a notice the LA would then need to go in and fell and seek to recover the costs otherwise they would take on liabillity should something happen. Whether they are successful is anyones guess! Also the powers are to make the tree safe, if the council went in and felled the owner could argue that the tree only needed to be topped so that it could not reach the school even if it fell. As i said, not straight forward. The real bizzare bit for me is those who receive a notice have the right to appeal to the county court within 21 days so that also kind of blows a whole in the imminently dangerous bit. Its a bonkers bit of legislation but worth ago. Speak with the tree officer at the relevent LA. You never know! Obviously the above is a tree consultant's take on legislation and should not be considered an expert opinion. Bit of a discalimer - sorry. If in doubt refer to a solicitor. Cheers,

I agree with Paul. Additionally, even top tree consultants such as those on the AA list will consult with other professionals. For example, if you are specifying ground protection on a development site that has to support traffic exceeding 2t, you would need to do that to an engineering specification. This means involving an engineer. Tree consultants will also discuss legal aspects up to a certain point and then say this has become a legal question and you need to ask an expert, i.e. a solicitor. How far they will go will be based on their own level of competency and experience. e.g. expert witness will be more familiar with the courts. It works the other way as well. Tree consultants will make recommendations and pass that on to a tree surgeon as they are better equiped to do it. There is no shame in it mate.