Chris at eden

And again, my original comment related to how its done, not why its done! mm is how its done, that is the only point I made. I don't really care why its done that way as it doesn't have an impact on me. If i could change anything from the standard it would be to switch the multi-stem calc back to basal diameter as working those out is time consuming.

I'll say it again. What i actually said was that tree experts in an Arb context use mm's the majority of the time for surveys when measuring stem dia's. As a result and just out of habit, after a while they start to discuss tree diameters in mm's. Not saying this is right or wrong although the imperial system is bonkers in my opinion. But, your comment was, oh no they don't. Sorry John but they do. They don't measure or discuss in inches which was the main point and that i would be concerned by someone claiming to be an Arb expert and saying this Cherry has a stem dia of 40in and it will double in the next 30 years. I know your background is forestry and knew this was where you were coming from with the comment. When I first moved off the tools in 2004 I was working out tree heights in feet and then converting them to metres in my head. I never made a conscious decision to just start doing them in metres but it just happened naturally over time. But at the end of the day we were not talking about forestry. Arb also has some well respected scientists do they not? But, they don't seem to raise the use of mm's to measure stem dia's as an issue. I can't see how using mm costs me anymore when doing Arb surveys, storing large amounts of forestry data maybe. Sorry to labour the point, but again not making a case for using mm. I have no issue with using cm's, inches would be a different matter. But it is what Arbs mainly do. Exactly. That is the reason I use them. What is bizarre to me is that the standard says to measure the stem dias to the nearest 10mm and then annex D works them out in 25mm increments. Cant argue with that. Or that. Or that.

Oh yes they do, he's behind you! Sorry thought we were back in panto season. I don't know what you are talking about to be honest. I didn't say using mm was sensible or silly or anything else. I simply said it is what Arb experts do. You actually allude to this in your first sentence when you say using mm's routinely in Arb is silly. It may be, but they do. 5837 uses mm's. As does QTRA. Planning related information must (I am told) be submitted using metric measurements which OK you could use cm's but when was the last time you saw a scale rule with cm's on it? CAD drawings from architects use mm's as do engineering drawings usually - and they know nothing about measuring I suppose? Why would we use something different? My point was that they don't use inches, and no nor do they use cm's often as far as I can see. The only Arb inspection system to my knowledge that uses cm's is the Picus software. If you measure to the nearest 10cm (100mm) rounding up then trees on development sites with a stem dia of 220mm would have RPAs increased from 2.7m to 3.6m, that isn't going to go down well with developers across the whole site. Again, i am not saying it is right or wrong, just that it is standard practice in Arb to use mm's, not inches to measure stem diameters. Your comments about multi-stem calculations (I think that is what you meant) I agree with to be fair but it still standard practice. This is actually one of the silliest things I have seen. Cheers Chris

I’m looking at it on the big screen now. 2nd pic - it looks like a big necrotic bark patch above the damage about 450mm wide and over a metre up the stem.

You could be right but as K said, a thorough examination is required probably with a Picus. You can’t really tell from the photos.

I’m not so sure it is minor. The damage looks pretty old but the is no visible wound wood formation at the edges of the cavity. The bottom pic also looks like an open cavity. How far does this extend in? cheers Chris

To be fair, 40in were your words hence the confusion. 300mm (12in)sounds more realistic. In that case you should write to the tree owner. See what happens but you may need to involve a solicitor if they won’t play ball. Cheers Chris.

Either the measurements are incorrect or the chap you spoke to isn’t a tree expert. Even if you have confused inches with cm’s, a prunus isn’t going to go from 40 - 80 in that time frame. Arb experts don’t measure stem diameters in inches either, or cm’s for that matter. Anyone who surveys trees in an Arb context will always discuss diameters in mm’s just out of habit after a while. Dan is correct, you should get someone to look at it objectively. Not someone who is quoting to fell. This is especially important if you involve a solicitor and end up going to court. Court compliant reports should be written in accordance with CPR 35. This is high end consultancy realistically.

What jules said. You could also go to appeal if the council TPO the tree and refuse an app to fell.

By the way. It was refused in the end. The neighbour objected so it was refused due to the negative impact on the neighbours land. Which was kind of what I was getting at.

Not sure what you mean. Apologies if I caused offence. Not my intention. I just don’t think the kids on Facebook is a good approach. I worked in a planning department for a long time and it’s the kind of stuff you hear all the time. I’m calling the newspaper, I’m putting it on Facebook. I pay your wages. I've had lengthy meetings with tree owners saying they can’t fell trees but advising them in detail to get a consultant and go for an appeal. They would write to the MP complaining instead. I’d tell the MP they have never applied or appealed. The Mp would tell them to follow the process. They then slag the MP off. There is a system to follow with planning and you can’t really get around it.

No need to point it out mate as that is what I was saying. I just think it is bonkers.

Yes I know. I’ve worked in a planning department for more than 10 years. I think it’s wrong in this situation. Applying to build on a piece of land you don’t yet own with a view to buying it is one thing. But, applying to build an extension the crosses your boundary into next doors garden is ridiculous. They rather have to involve a solicitor to prevent it.

The badgers and newts isn’t a bad idea but I doubt this one is a planning consideration. 😂 You’d be surprised what isn’t a planning consideration. I did a consultation for an LPA years ago and raised the point that the footprint of the building crossed the boundary into the neighbouring property. The planning manager said, not a planning consideration, it’s a civil matter. I said but you can’t build it. He said not relevant. It’s a civil matter. He works for the planning inspectorate now. Bonkers.

Dia is very important with regard to the 150mm rule. You can buy diameter tapes that have the Pi conversion on them. That is what I use. For the purpose of BS5837 dia is measured at 1.5m. DBH (1.3) is a forestry measurement. For the full set nurseries measure at 1m.

🤣 I’m going to screen shot that onto my website.

TOs are generally pro tree. Planners generally think trees and TOs are a bit of a pain. If the TO is saying they are low quality I doubt the planner will care. But what will the ombudsman say? If the trees are less than 150mm they are automatically Cat C. Low quality. Should not be used to prevent development as they are easily replaced. The TO will say that and the ombudsman can’t really argue. Same if it go’s to committee. Most of the time members go with officers recommendations. I have represented LPAs in planning committee dozens of times and I have never lost. I’ve also never lost a PINS appeal. If the TO is any good this will be a walk in the park. if they are rubbish and it’s refused the applicant will probably win the appeal. Obviously, if they are better than the OP is saying then it may be worth looking at. If they are less than 150mm though it a long shot. Unless there is some special circumstance. Green belt for example. some pics would be useful.

If the trees are less than 150mm diameter then they are automatically category C. I’m guessing this is what is meant. They should then not be allowed to impose an unreasonable constraint on development as they are easily replaced. But TPOs can be made on small trees based on future amenity. So this could also be the situation. TPO protected cat C trees. Not exactly joined up thinking is it.

It’s an old and not very well prepared TPO. I’m not sure why you would spec hardwoods but I suspect they meant deciduous trees such as oak. Remember though, unless you are in London the council probably didn’t have a TO at that time. It would have been made by a planner who probably wasn’t overly happy about it. I would personally have specified it as mixed broadleaf and coniferous if I wanted to cover everything. The holly will be protected. Spruce, not so sure. You should run it by the TO though as you will need to work with them in the future so it would be good to develop a positive relationship. I doubt they will object to your plans. Other than the holly. Holly is an important understory tree within native woodlands. It provides shelter / nesting sites and food for woodland dependent species. Having a good understory with at least some evergreens also helps maintain higher temps in the winter.

This guidance was withdrawn 9 years ago so isn’t relevant. You now need to use: Tree Preservation Orders and trees in conservation areas - GOV.UK WWW.GOV.UK Explains the legislation governing Tree Preservation Orders and tree protection in conservation areas. I know a lot of the info is the same but not all of it. You may as well use the correct document.

Based on the photo it probably meets the criteria in terms of amenity and expediency. As such you will be looking at other issues for example risk. You are probably right to be concerned re the lean and in particular lifting of the root plate. If it has moved recently it may even meets the immediate risk category. If not it will be an app or objection. Just to be clear, I wasn’t saying there is no risk. Just that you can’t just put in a five day notice saying it is dangerous anymore. It has to be justified. That is why the wording was changed, dangerous is too ambiguous. Also, if you put in an app and it is refused, you can’t appeal it until the TPO has been confirmed and they may not confirm the order for six months. Putting in an objection will almost certainly delay confirmation so there are decisions to be made. it really needs to be looked at properly so you can make those decisions. Where are you based?

You will need a report if you are applying to fell based on condition. Not for a five day notice as the risk would need to be so obvious and immediate that you wouldn’t have time and it can be assessed by a layperson. For example, a large hanging branch over the road.

There is no 5 day exemption for DDD any more, it went with the 2012 regs. It is now dead trees, dead branches within trees or where there is an immediate risk of serious harm. Note the word immediate.

The LPA doesn’t assess tree condition, only visual amenity. There is no reason that cannot be done from the road. The owner can then either object based on condition or apply to fell based on condition. The safety of the tree is the responsibility of the owner not the LPA. Although it would be a bit dodgy to TPO something that was obviously dangerous when viewed from the street. The OP just needs to follow the process with one of the above options. The owner hold the liability. Unless, they submit an app with supporting evidence and the LPA disagree and refuse and then the tree falls as a result.

Listed building and scheduled monument are not the same thing although they ca be applied to the same building. You don’t have to inform historic England for TPOing trees near listed buildings. Only scheduled monuments.