James Royston

On 19/05/2021 at 08:15, daltontrees said:

At the last meeting of the Arb Association scottish branch there was a talk by a dendrochronologist. When asked about the reliability of various girth/diameter based methods of estimating the age of trees she said it was ridiculous to try.

 

The Whyte method published by the forestry commission is a bit more scientific than Mitchell's 'rule', it gives lists for species and growing situations and is based on a fixed increase in diameter to maturity then a fixed increase in cross sectional area.

 

But clearly Leyland's Rat doesn't read books. I recall that the Collins Guide by Owen and Moore which is the successor to the Mitchell guide says if it 'Grows quickly in any soil to 30 metres then blows over'.

The problem is that this particular tree officer didn't go to that meeting.

Hi Birchbark, I don't know what's causing the browning on your trees, or whether it's a serious concern, but I've known other redwoods to have similar looking symptoms at this time of year in the past and they went on to be absolutely fine in following years. It might be worth getting them checked out though, just to be sure.

24 minutes ago, Peasgood said:

I've got leylandii that are circa 45 years old with DBH 36", may even be bigger.

 

I'm going to measure tomorrow now.

Wow! Please do measure and let us know, that'd be great.

2 minutes ago, doobin said:

We had similar the other week. So said to customer we’ll do it, but cash, and if there turn out to be more than 35 rings on the stump then we were never here 😂

 

 

32 rings. Which was more than I thought there would be!! Was a crappy leylandii which was once the end of a hedge. Bit close. 

Haha, that's funny. Do you know the rough dbh of these leylandii?

35 minutes ago, Wonky said:

Not being funny. And this is how I see it. any tree that is less than 32cm is not protected.

this leaves the other trees. 
what I think you need to work out is  how big is a 50yr old tree  it it’s surroundings  using Mitchell's rule, which I’d say is a little ambiguous and not easy to follow as not all trees behave the same, species Etc.

 

read page 2 of this link. And I think you would need to cut some to see if your measurements and calculations are in the ball park  ie cut a tree down that’s about 32cm and use the rule to calculate and count the rings, then work out what a protected tree should be .

 https://www.chilternsaonb.org/uploads/files/AboutTheChilterns/Woodlands/The_Why_and_How_of_Tree_Measurement.pdf

 

btw i,m sure you could find other links to  read about Mitchell,s rule. And as the council have been vague then I,m sure if you aired on the side of caution  you,d be on the right footings but keep good records. Because as Mitchell says there are exceptions 😉. this and  your records may be your defence.

Hi Wonky, I get what you're saying, that there is an implication in the council's comment that all trees over 32cm are protected. But this is assuming that Mitchell's rule is an appropriate method of deciding whether or not a tree is protected.

It can't really be considered as appropriate can it? It seems unlikely to me.

The tree owner doesn't want to cut anything down at the moment, so counting rings is not an option.

6 minutes ago, Stubby said:

So , If you want / need you can do your 1st thinnings on anything under 32cm .

Yeah, true, I think that the tree owner could crack on and remove anything under 32cm diameter if they wanted to, but they aren't wanting to remove anything at this stage - they just want to know which trees are protected. 

Hi Birchbirk, others may interpret it differently, but it looks like this TPO protects all species to me.

Hi all,

I'm dealing with a site which has an area order on it which is just over 50 years old. The site contains trees which range from very young to obviously older than 50 years old.

The tree owner just wants to know which trees are protected, they aren't intending on doing any work or cutting anything down, and at the initial stage they were just curious as to which trees were covered by the TPO. After 16 weeks of emails back and forth with all sorts of contradictory nonsense coming from the council, the council have now said that the only way to tell if these trees are protected is to use Mitchell's rule to estimate tree age, and that this is accurate enough to determine whether or not trees within an area order are protected.

Apart from that, the council still haven't said which trees are protected, nor have they given us any indication as to how we are supposed to tell for ourselves, but they have said that any tree under 32cm diameter is definitely not protected.

Does any one have any experience of this - how do we find out which trees are protected? Is the Mitchell rule appropriate?

Cheers,

James

4 hours ago, Johnelle said:

TPO was applied having only viewed the tree from the road. From which standpoint the lean is not visible nor the raised root plate.

Our main concern has always been who is liable is the tree falls and demolishes the grade* listed building (and obviously the safety of the people in the building). As stated we applied to fell it ( although with hindsight the tree surgeon who submitted our app didn’t stress the safety aspect other than large split branch). Our insurer has been scratching their heads over this - conclusion, get a tree survey, submit another app (can we do that if TPO has been confirmed??). The liability person said that the TPO would be overridden if the tree is dangerous.

So where are we now and what do we do? 

 

Thanks so much for all your comments and advice - a minefield for the humble tree owner!

It can be a minefield for everyone, not just the humble tree owner. I don't know where you are based, but if I were in your situation then I would contact an arboricultural consultant and get a proper report done, and then use this as the basis for an application to do whatever works are recommended by the consultant. From experience, it might be helpful to contact your local councillors at an early stage, just to make sure things are done properly and that your concerns regarding safety are given proper consideration by the council.

In terms of liability - until you submit an application you will almost certainly be responsible for damage or harm caused by your tree. Once an application is submitted then the question of liabilities gets a lot more complicated. You will almost certainly get a different response about liabilities depending on who you talk to - I have dealt with solicitors who specialise in civil and commercial liability, and that was useful to me in explaining the liabilities of a local authority, but your situation is quite specific, so it might be worth you obtaining proper legal advice on this.

Good luck in getting it sorted.

53 minutes ago, Jon Heuch said:

There are one or possibly a few councils that have these legacy issues, know about them and indicate that you need to put in a planning application to discharge the condition. It's a planning condition and thus a fee needs to be paid. However, how the hell are you meant to find out about them if there is no means of finding out about them (short of a land charges search)?

 

Whilst it may be described as bad practice, that doesn't prevent bad practice & a planning condition is a planning condition. Breaking the condition its not the same as a TPO or CA offence because the condition needs to be seen in the context of what was allowed. Ultimately, there is quite a lot a council can do to enforce a condition. However, any damage caused needs to be put in the context of what development occurred & how valuable the vegetation was.  The condition doesn't state what the council intend to do if you do do any of the prohibited tasks. I think a lawyer would have a field day with the phrase "nor shall they be damaged or killed by fire or by the application of toxic or injurious substances". Does that mean "damaged or killed by fire" or "damaged, or killed by fire". If the former you can damage the tree anyway that you like provided you don't use fire, or toxic of injurious substances but don't fell, top or lop. i.e. nothing stopping you ring barking the trees.

 

And of course, what happens when the trees die? What are the rules then?

Thanks John, it gets even more confusing when you see the reason given for the condition - (8)  So as to ensure the protection of trees and hedges to be retained during the carrying out of 
the development, to safeguard the amenities of nearby residents and to accord with Policies NE9 
and D2 of the Unitary Development Plan.

11 minutes ago, daltontrees said:

Mynors, The Law of Trees, Forests and Hedgerows says that Government guidance is that "conditions should not be used to provide permanent protection; that is more effectively achieved using tree preservation orders..."

Thanks Jules. 

3 hours ago, monkeybusiness said:

I’d press the LPA for a definitive answer then personally. But that might force their hand into applying TPOs possibly...

Yeah, true.

Just now, monkeybusiness said:

What exactly have the LPA said to you in relation to any proposed works? Unless they give you written confirmation of their reason for preventing any works, it’s not a CA and there aren’t any TPOs then I can’t see how you could get into any trouble by cracking on tbh. The house is built/I assume was signed off so no contravention of any planning permission.

Fire up the 660 and crack on...

Haha, I like your style. But nobody is wanting to do anything at this stage, the owner just wants to know what's protected and what isn't. 

11 hours ago, Chris at eden said:

Conditions that relate to tree retention are usually limited to 5 years but in this instance they will say that.  I.e. no trees within a period of 5 years of the completion of the development shal be .........etc.  Completion is when it is signed off by building control. 
 

I have seen conditions that say for the life of the development though and this means while the site is used in accordance with this planning app.  I know of a Leyland Cypress hedge that is protected in this way as it is part of a bat mitigation strategy.  It’s used for foraging. They do say for the life of the development though. 
 

They don’t necessarily all cease when the build is finished.  But they could possibly have appealed against the six tests?  Don’t know where you would go now though, planning consultant I suppose. Also, what is the penalty?  It isn’t stated in the above text. 

 

I've seen the time limit ones before, as well as the 'for the life of the development', but this one has no timeframe. There's no mention of a penalty in the planning documents.

12 hours ago, monkeybusiness said:

What was the planning permission for?

It was for the demolition and construction of a house - all completed years ago. It seems weird that a planning condition like this could continue forever into the future.

7 minutes ago, monkeybusiness said:

As far as I’m aware the planning conditions only last until the development they are conditions of is completed. 

Yeah, that's what I thought too. But the LPA is saying otherwise, and I'm not a planning consultant.

Good evening everyone.

I'm dealing with a site at the moment which was granted planning permission back in 2002. One of the conditions is, "(8) Trees and hedges within or on the boundary of the site shall be neither felled, topped or lopped except with the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority, nor shall they be damaged or killed by fire or by the application of toxic or injurious substances."

There's no timeframe mentioned, so I was just wondering if anyone knew whether or not such a planning condition could continue in perpetuity?

Cheers,

James