Chris at eden

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. 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. 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. Definitely

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.

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.

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.

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.

I remember years ago a resident getting a ticket for obstructing her own dropped kerb. Someone had complained to the council and they issued a ticket. Apparently she used to complain to the police about people parking outside her house on the school run. I’m guessing they were getting their own back. Apparently it’s not that uncommon or so I was told by highways.

Trees are a material consideration within the planning system. That’s about as close as you will get to there being a law. Section 197 of the town and country planning act 1990 places a duty on local authorities to protect and plant trees in the face of development. Thats not the exact wording but pretty close. cheers Chris

I’m pretty sure it’s illegal to park in front of a dropped kerb even if it fronts your own drive.

It’s not a blanket decision. They have given RPA dimensions. They have clearly looked at the details. You can’t put in a crossover without lowering levels and this may damage the trees.

Soak-aways under drives are not straight forward. They can’t be in RPAs or within 5m of a house. Building regs. It’s easier to make them drive porous or grade it into a border so surface water stays onsite.

Or if you intend to discharge surface water off site by grading the drive into the street, or into a standard storm water drain.

Councils can and do make decisions in accordance with adopted policies.

Speak with your TO I agree with but don’t go in with the view that this is what you pay your taxes for, it will just alienate them as they have heard it all before. Your taxes fund the TO to represent the council. They are not required to or even permitted to provide you with technical solutions. That is for the applicant to provide and the a TO to assess.

In response to some of the comments: planning is only required on classified roads. Not on residential streets. You do need consent of highways though and they usually fit it (you pay) as you have to strengthen the footpath to protect underground services from passing vehicles. If you put a drive in and then just drive over the path without a kerb it’s a £1k fine standard. if the drive is more than 5 square metres, and it will be it will need to discharge surface water onsite. Porous, soak-away, etc. Otherwise it will need planning consent. as it’s in the RPA it will need to be no dig. The celweb sub base will need to be at least 100mm think on top of which will be the wearing course. The finished surface will probably be at least 200mm higher than the road and you will need to get it down to meet the road ideally without digging, not possible. With the level change planning may say it’s an engineering operation but I doubt they will. If they do it will need full planning. Highway may have issues with proximity to the function. you can’t claim precedence for planning because the neighbour did it. Planning apps are considered on their own merits. Situation may differ while others may be historic. Not sure about highways. some highway departments may let you pay for an investigation but there are no guarantees that the results will be favourable. I’m not saying it can’t be done but you have some hoops to jump through. Chris

The RPA can be amended with justification but the 20% bit isn’t relevant. I used to be the you could just do it but some people were offsetting RPAs in the direction of roads or other areas where there would clearly be no roots and then building right up to the RPA on the reduced side. In that instance it would be a reduction in the a RPA. When you now amend the RPA it’s to reflect ground conditions, so to move it away from a road or building. You can’t just offset it and say it will be fine and the tree can tolerate it just to get a building in. It has to be with the trees benefit in mind, not the building. Sometimes if I get an app where the building is say 5% into an RPA I will say the impact will be low as the lost roots can be replaced on the other sides. I would show it as an incursion and then recommend mitigation by hand digging and root pruning under supervision. More often than not that will be accepted. I would never try to hide it as an offset and just say no impact and I wouldn’t try it with a 20% incursion. In that instance I would recommend re-siting or engineering solutions. Cheers chris

There is no such thing as an RPZ, it should be either: RPA - root protection area or, CEZ - construction exclusion zone. RPA is as described above but there is no standard 20% offset anymore. That was from the 2005 standard. And there is a different calculation for multi stem trees. RPA should be circular unless ground conditions dictate otherwise in which case it ca be amended to reflect likely root morphology. CEZ is the area you fence off. It’s usually based on the RPA as RPAs tend to be bigger than canopy spreads. But if you have and RPA of say 10m and a canopy spread of 10 - 12m you would extend the protective barriers around the bits of the canopy that are bigger than the RPA. So the CEZ can sometimes be bigger than the RPA. Any hard surface in the RPA will need to be no dig and ideally porous and should not cover more than 20% of any part of the RPA that as previously soft landscaped. It’s too far for me but you probably need someone to write a method statement and spec for the surface. Cheers Chris.

Rioja is the only red I drink these days - Campo Viejo is a decent cheapish one. Get the orange one if you can rather than the yellow legal. Much nicer. There is a more expensive one at about £16 but I have only had it once.

I went through a wasps nest with a strimmer when I was a trainee back in the early 90s. I just thought it was bits of grit hitting me at first so carried on for a bit. it was the 90s so PPE was shorts and shades. Visor, that was about it. I then saw the wasps and legged it over a fence onto this OAP complex, you know the council bungalow areas. I ended up in the middle of these bungalows wearing just my boxer shorts with about 60 stings. Caused a bit of a raucous to be fair. lie down in the van for an hour and you’ll be fine is what the chargehand said. I had to go and get the trimmer first though. 🤣

You would have to be going some to get over that retaining wall with a car.

Based on the tree species I would say it’s possibly the desiccated manky remains of an old chicken of the woods bracket. It has a yellow tinge where you have cut into it as well. With the caveat of - fungi are really not my thing though! cheers chris

Ps. Tree wise - the Dicksonia’s are cool. When you walk through it fells kinda Jurassic. Not technically trees but still pretty cool.

The jungle garden is awesome. I hope you have caught it in time while it’s still all green and lush. I would defiantly recommend it. Enjoy.

If they dislike it that much you could try to make a case to fell and replace it with something more suitable. Birch maybe. I personally think that makes more sense than topping the thing over and over again. This was pretty much always my approach when working as a TO. There is no such thing as a heavy pollard and heavy topping will destroy the amenity and introduce decay. There is no benefit to it and the tree would be worthless. Once topped the owner could argue that it has no amenity value and the TO will know this so they may be reluctant to allow it. If you replace it with something that better suits the site and is in a better position then that will convey future amenity so meet the criteria for TPOs. You can try to sell this idea to the TO, they are not all bad. I know a few that are a nightmare but then I can say the same about consultants. A lot will depend on the individual TO but only up to the point of appeal. And, don’t be afraid to appeal if you think you have a case. Remember, the TO and planning inspector should address all concerns in your statement of reasons so make sure you set out the case well. You need to try to demonstrate that the benefit of removing the tree outweighs the loss of amenity. If you look at it now objectively and think that it doesn’t, then you don’t have a case. If it does outweigh the loss then show why on the app. Don’t just think risk, think public visibility (can you see it from the street and does it look nice or not), longevity, impact on living standards, etc. Think about the same issues for the replacement. If the current tree has low visibility then can the replacement be planted in a more visible spot. If so it will convey better amenity. Cheers Chris

I’d give that a miss, it’s unlimited now.