Well what might those unintended consequences be, Bill, or are they in the
class of unknown unknowns?
-----Original Message-----
From: Edmund Hopkins <Edmund.Hopkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.gov.uk>
To: UK Tree Care <uktc@xxxxxx.tree-care.info>
Sent: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 11:01
Subject: RE: Trees in the News
The one I was thinking of Edmund was the removal of trees to avoid having to
plant two replacements, which I was advised to do by a TO at the other side
of the country; mind you I thought his interpretation of their policy was a
bit extreme; dead trees were counted to be included in the numbers for
replacement and there was no apparent specified size limits for what should
and shouldn't be counted. This particular job ended up with the client
claiming that a new hedge could be included in his replacement numbers......
But when you create a situation where the TO advises a (fairly altruistic)
developer to cut down trees before the planning process starts then you're on
a hiding to nothing.
It seems to me that setting out to plant two trees every time you cut one
down is a good idea, but setting up a situation where an authority can demand
it is a quick way to generate antipathy towards trees is a bad idea.
And I bet there are ways I haven't considered as well.
ATB
Bill.
--
The UK Tree Care mailing list
To unsubscribe send mailto:uktc-unsubscribe@xxxxxx.tree-care.info
The UKTC is supported by Bosky Trees
http://www.boskytrees.co.uk/
