Chris at eden

9 minutes ago, Johnelle said:

Re Chris’ reply, the stump/trunk is currently horizontal - hopefully they wouldn’t maintain the TPO on this!

You would hop not. 

11 hours ago, Baldbloke said:

Seem to remember the potential failure of the tree and where it could hit (the listed building) was mentioned in the initial application to counter the TPO.

You mean the initial objection to the TPO.  Didn’t realise this was the same one as from a while ago.  Even so, the objection was made by a laymen who then obtained a report from a professional who said the tree was ok.  Seems reasonable for council to apply more weight to the experts report than the laymen’s comments.  Seems that the expert didn’t think that the lean was an issue and we haven’t seen enough to say whether or not we agree.  
 

Thing is, everyone is assuming the failure was foreseeable. It may not have been, even defect trees fail if the winds are strong enough.  The council would use this in court. They would say that their own appointed expert said the tree was ok. 
 

53 minutes ago, Johnelle said:

We did have a full tree inspection which should be an attachment to the above link.

The DC apparently read this report (and took little notice of it??)

I haven’t seen the tree report or application but if the detail on the decision notice is correct then the council have not ignored the report. They have considered your reasons, low amenity and the inconvenience of suckers and refused the application as they consider them insufficient. 
 

The decision seems to indicate that the report states that there is no foreseeable risk of tree failure. If this is correct the council is unlikely to be at fault here.  You can’t claim against the council for tree failure when your evidence submitted to the council says there is no risk.  Your application and appeal do not appear to relate to risk of failure. 
 

Like I said, this is based on limited info so don’t take it as professional advice. I haven’t looked at all the documents, the site, or the tree but based on this limited info my initial thoughts would be that the council are probably not at fault.  You should probably get it looked at prior to clearing. 
 

Re the stump. If it’s still alive then it probably is still protected, it’s a weird approach though.  It has no visual amenity, it’s a stump!   If they just let you clear the whole thing you would be required in accordance with section 206 of the town and country planning act 1990 to replace it and the new one would be automatically protected with no need to vary.  If they insist that the stump is protected and you have to submit an app to grind it out you could say no, I’ll keep the stump and trim suckers as per your previous advice, subject to app. In theory.  Like I said, weird approach. 
 

cheers. 
 

chris 

10 hours ago, richyrich said:

I thought deeper foundation regulations came in post 1976 drought.?

No. The first NHBC guidance came out in the 60s, 67 I think. It has imperial measurements which is just weird now. I have it somewhere. 
 

its irrelevant though. They only spec foundations to deal with what is there at the time of building.  If you go and plant a high water demand tree later the foundations may not be sufficient. 

Plus, lift by 4m isn’t measurable after the works. It should be lift to **m above ground level.

If they are reducing by 40% (ignoring the fact that reductions shouldn’t be specified in percentages), what exactly are they thinning?  The growing points I’m guessing!   Unless they are cleaning out the middle and lion tailing the growing points?   

 

Another possibility is Euonymous alatus. Does it turn red in autumn? 
 

35 minutes ago, Steve Bullman said:

I sometimes wonder if they even get out their car

I've seen reports with photos where you can see the windscreen wipers as they have took pics through the windscreen.  Not even joking.    

6 minutes ago, daltontrees said:

Anyway the OP seems to have wandered off without reply, so I'm not going to contribute except to say that I consider the PIT qualification to be a borderline liability if would-be surveyors think it is all that is needed to do risk survey. I say this having just taken on 2 folk that did PTI and by their own admissions found that it left them woefully ill-equipped for competent tree risk assessments.

The problem is, if you speak with Dave Dowson who is a top training  provider, he will tell you the you need L4 Arb as a pre-requisite qualification as it is just applying and polishing the L4 knowledge.  Used in this way it is OK. 
 

But, I have met people with L2 forestry that have done PTI with other trainers and they just don’t have the underpinning knowledge. PTI is an add on, not an underpinning qualification.  The same thing happens with QTRA. 
 

1 hour ago, Khriss said:

Would push the tree climb one bit more , then Bat scoping add to yr PTI , they are not long courses anyway - plus climbing keeps yr fitness up   . K

If you want to keep your hand in with climbing then yeah why not, but I don't think CS 38 is going to generate huge amounts of work.  You would be better off training to do mortgage reports and BS5837, they are bread and butter for most consultants which is where you will be aiming to be as a tree surveyor in my opinion.  Most surveyors work alone which you cant do if you are doing aerial inspections or at least you shouldn't.  

1 hour ago, woody paul said:

Should of said one tree that had massive decay in limb could of been seen with small ladder even one of those telescopic ones, and that tree was inspected by a big company which sent parish council a 28 page report on it. 

Yeah, 27 pages of generic waffle and 1 page of pretty loose detail on the tree no doubt.  Thing is though if you can't see it from the ground then you probably wouldn't be found to be at fault as a surveyor as long as you have stated within the limitations that the inspection is from ground level.  If there is some visibility from the ground then you should be investigating.   

What you cant do though is put a ladder up every tree and check just to be on the safe side.  Well you can, but you will be very expensive and it would be disproportionate to the actual level of risk associated with trees in general.  Maybe you can with a single tree but larger surveys it would be mad.  You would also need to charge extra and most folk don't want to pay for it.  If they do want to pay though then i suppose it is their call.  

2 minutes ago, woody paul said:

Massive cavities in top of limbs and splits.. 

There are some really dodgy surveyors about. You should be able to see stuff like that from the ground and then recommend an aerial inspection by a competent tree surgeon.  I’ve looked at trees in the past that have been deemed ok on the last survey and you can see immediately that there is a huge cavity on the rear of the trunk from the swelling. I assume the old surveyor hadn’t looked around the back.  That was working as a junior TO.  I visited one where a developer had cut roots off a mature beech putting in a septic tank. The resident told me the last chap that went viewed from a distance as he didn’t want to get his shoes dirty, he had gone to a building site without boots. Obviously he missed it. 
 

I used to do climbing inspections when I first started surveying in 2005 but I don’t anymore as I am too old and have lost the strength and fitness that I had when on the tools. That happens to most surveyors eventually.  Having CS 38 is ok at the start but it’s not something I would get if I didn’t already have it from being a climber. I carry binoculars and extendable ladders in the van. Anything other than that I recommend a tree surgeon goes up and looks.  

1 hour ago, woody paul said:

Climbing tickets maybe a good thing as to many tree surveys I have read and then done work on the trees the survey has missed lots of things. 

What sort of things have they missed? 
 

Level 4 and PTI is fine for general risk surveys which is probably where you should start. L6 covers planning and subsidence in a lot more detail though so long term you may want to look at that.  You will probably need L6 if you want to do CPR reports in the future as well plus the expert witness training obviously. That is all well down the road though. Some  housing associations ask for QTRA as well.  Good luck. Where are you based?  

1 hour ago, doobin said:

Would have probably flown under the radar had op just done that 🤣

Doubt it. Not a good idea. 

8 hours ago, Gajendra said:

Update: I have submitted my appeal. Let's wait and see what happens. There were 45 trees on that roan and 40 of them had dropped kerb within 1.5m from the tree. I know LA will just say that was done before the legislation got changed but how can changing something on a paper in last few years will save those 40 trees if this is wrong? Maybe I am naive but I just don't get it. The distance between two trees is 9m and I only want to build 2.4m dropped kerb in the middle of these tree. Fingers crossed LA will offer me some lifeline.

The other drop kerbs are probably historic. Installed when trees were smaller and so RPAs were smaller and root damage less significant.  
 

10 hours ago, Paul in the woods said:

I can't speak for others but as one who has moaned about council behaviour in the past I'll just add the following. There are obviously some hard working and knowledgeable people in councils and money at the front end may be less than is required. I certainly appreciate any help and advice they give here.

 

However, I have had to deal with various councils over the years and I'm normally met with very unhelpful people who's first responce is to lie.

 

I'm still waiting for a responce from my highways department as to why they thought they could undermine a 60+ year old beach tree by using a JCB on my private land. Said beech tree shortly fell across the road. This is one reason why I take the comments that councils value trees with a very large pinch of salt.

Working for the council is basically doing a job where you get moaned at constantly and criticised by everyone. Rarely does anyone call the council to say you have done a good job.  You get screamed at down the phone when you won’t fell street trees. Swore at, got threatened with a spade and shot at with an air rifle working as a TO.  TPOs isn’t as bad but looking after council trees is horrendous. they assume you are some numpty that knows nothing about trees and that they know more. Not everyone, but some folk are like that. I don’t get that in the private sector. When you turn up as a consultant, you are immediately accepted as an expert. I get emails all the time from people thanking me for the work I have done.  From this perspective it’s a lot easier in the private sector and a lot nicer. It’s why a lot of TOs switch to consultancy as they get older.  I’m pretty sure this contributes toward councils not always being helpful. I always tried but I can understand why other might not have. 
 

Also re councils being pro tree. The parks department will be as will the planning TO. The rest of planning will split. Some like trees but others don’t. One planning officer told me he thought trees were an eyesore that spoiled the look of architecture. Highways though, I have never met a highways officer that liked trees. They see them as a pain and unnecessary expense usually.  
 
 

10 hours ago, nepia said:

...with uncanny insight to the Public Sector generally 😔

They really don’t.  People only ever see the bad.  I’ve worked on both sides for years and the private sector is no different. Good and bad exist in both.  You should see some of the stuff consultants try to get through planning.  As a TO you can write a consultation pointing out 20 issues for them to clarify, they will do 3 and resubmit. TO then has to go through all the new docs to point out the same issues.  Applicants then moan when decisions are late. You can end doing 6 or 7 consultations on the same thing when realistically you shouldn’t need more than 2. 
 

1 hour ago, openspaceman said:

Can the council give permission to cross the footway without a dropped kerb?

I don’t think so. When they do the crossover they have to reinforce it with a deeper sub base to protect the services.  It’s a £1k fine for crossing the pavement without a drop kerb from memory.  

2 minutes ago, daltontrees said:

2005 said it may be acceptable to offset by up to 20% for open grown trees only. What everyone took from that was "blah blah acceptable blah blah 20% blah blah".

Even worse, some took it as they can reduce the RPA.  But yes it was abused.  The key difference for me is that the 2005 offset was to benefit the layout, the 2012 is the ensure that the most likely root morphology is plotted so that trees are properly protected.      

2 minutes ago, daltontrees said:

 

As I have already said, the offsetting of a circular RPA by 20% in distance only makes a difference  of 5% of the RPA. Mathematical formula available if anyone wants it. Mathematical prioof available if anyone really really wants it.

My point was that the 20% is not relevant and hasn't been for a long time.  You cant just say i am offsetting it as it was in a previous standard and then call it a good rule of thumb.  That was my only point.     

2 minutes ago, daltontrees said:

 

Just as big a problem as I see it is the failure to offset RPAs when all the evidence is there that the tree has done this naturally due to physical constraints. This can leave the true important rooting area in the path of development where no precautions are specifed to avoid loss and damage.

This  i agree with.  I have seen RPAs plotted beyond 2m retaining walls and under high rise blocks of flats.  its ridiculous.  You raise it as a TO and they come back saying - well, 5837 is only recommendations, what do they think recommendations actually mean.  I always offset RPAs but some consultants write whatever the client wants them to.  I've seen one recently where a chartered arb has recommended protecting less than half of the RPA as well as plotting the RPA under a road and retaining wall.           

2 minutes ago, daltontrees said:

 

If and when 5837 is reviewed the focus should shift from allowing justified offsets to requiring them.

Definitely 

On 12/12/2021 at 13:36, monkeybusiness said:

My understanding of the offset was (and still is) that it was always (2005 regs) only available where ground conditions allow (hence my bracketed ‘depending on ground conditions’ caveat). 

 

As a basic ‘turn up to quote/bounce ideas off a customer/see if there is any realistic chance of a proposal working’ and not go to the initial expense of an arboricultural consultant being employed to measure up/justify their fee/tell you ‘computer-says-no’… then 12x stem diameter and 20% offset is a good rule of thumb (as per my original post) (even though pedants will point out that there are many many more words and punctuation marks in the current guidance). 

 

It’s been a long time since I looked at the 2005 standard but from memory I think you could just do the 20% offset irrespective of ground conditions.  Could be wrong, I have slept over 3000 times since I last read it. 
 

Arb consultants don’t do the computers says no approach, or at least they shouldn’t. They should be doing a site specific assessment and then trying to resolve any issues that arise.  
 

As I said before the 20% offset is not relevant.  If it was it wouldn’t have been deleted from the current standard. I have sat on dozens of planning appeals as both a TO and consultant and if you start banding around incorrect info like the 20% offset the other side is going to point out that it was deleted for a reason and you will lose credibility with the planning inspector.  The first PINS appeal I sat on about 12 years was against a TRN. The inspector ended up telling the appellant to be quiet and accept the free advice she being given and she kept coming up with nonsense off the internet that was really easy to discredit.  
 

3 hours ago, john87 said:

All this is all very well, but where i live there are loads of conservation areas where you cannot even touch your OWN trees.. This does not stop the council from doing away with literally HUNDREDS of them when it suits THEIR purposes though.

 

One rule for one, another rule for them..

 

john..

Quite literally - the rules / laws are different for the LA. Local authorities are exempt from the requirement to submit an Section 211 notice to work on trees in a CA.  
 

Tree protection legislation exists to ensure that trees are managed responsibly. If the LA is doing their job right then they should already be managing trees responsibly.  It’s the government that sets these rules not the LA.  At least that is meant to be how it works. 
 

cheers 

Chris. 

3 minutes ago, john87 said:

Got to hear the explanation for this then... "my" tree, [assuming i had one] is protected, but the council can cut down LOADS of perfectly healthy ones, presumably because they did not like sweeping the leaves up.. How is that right?? Could i cut down a protected tree becuase i did not like leaves???

 

john..

Have you asked them why they were felled?  It’s highly unlikely that they are felling trees due to falling leaves. Most councils have tree retention policies these days.  They do come under a lot of pressure from residents, councillors, and MPs though. 
 

I used to work for a council about 15 years ago where councillors could overrule the TO (me) and get trees felled or pruned when I had recommended no works.  They are not all like that though. 
 

P.s. it can be done with root bridge most likely but the council won’t allow that as its relatively new and a bit experimental. Not to mention expensive. 
 

2 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

 

 

Potential SOLUTIONS:

 

- Shut up and enjoy your garden 

- Get a bike

- Get a 4x4 and just blast up the kerb

- Prove where / if the roots are, offer an engineering solution which protects roots, improves growing medium and provides bridging IF roots even exist within the existing metalled surface. 
 

 

 

 

Problem with is though Kev is that the first two are not solutions and the third is illegal.  The forth probably won’t work.  The council are not going to let you airspade out the footway and if they did you will probably find roots pretty shallow.  You can’t use cellweb or bridging solutions in a public footway as they don’t meet adoptable standards and will probably end up being ripped out by the utility company at some point.  Mind you, you can probably say the same about the roots.  I’m all for finding solutions but I probably wouldn’t take this on as a job as I couldn’t guarantee  it’s achievable so I wouldn’t want to waste people’s time.