The prejudice of visual amenity?

[Amelanchier]

I have been reliably informed that an LPA near me have appointed a considerably visually impaired Councillor to sit (on rotation) within their TPO appeals panel (that adjudicate on TPO objections).

 

Given the bias towards the visual aspects of amenity contribution this seems a little 'maverick' of the LPA; although I doubt that was the intention.

 

So... can a visually impaired (or even blind) person truly appreciate the 'value' of trees in the legislative context? If they can't then do we inevitably 'devalue' their opinions?

[RobArb]

How visually impaired would one have to be? Surely assessing the amenity value in this case is a wholly visual subject?

 

If it was affecting me, I'm not sure how confident I'd be in a "blind" persons judgement on a visual matter.

 

Although unfortunately in this day and age would my view be deemed as prejudicial?

 

Is it equal rights gone mad?

 

Sent from Rob's GalaxySII

[janey]

Actual visual amenity forms only part of a tree's amenity, albeit one that is heavily weighted in Planning Legislation.

 

Sound, scent, wind flow, temperature islands etc are not dependant on an ability to see well and still form part of a tree's amenity in the landscape.

[RobArb]

I stand corrected:biggrin:

 

Sent from Rob's GalaxySII

[WeeDee]

A visually impaired person could still have functional appreciation of a tree's asthetic value, they may not see with the same resolution as someone with '20-20' vision but their ability to 'value' what they see may be no less.

(Would we take offense at an eagle's opinion of our human sight being less than required?)

 

You mention, Tony, that this person has been appointed to a panel as a councellor - to weigh the points that an appeal would highlight. Such a commitee might actually benefit from the inclusion of a broader range of people, my experience (limited as it is) of this type of group is that it tends to be self-selecting and often unable to generate an alternative solution.

I also know a particular blind person who can 'see' problems and solutions with the clarity that many would be envious of.

 

Just my twopennies' worth.

[Bundle 2]

Id agree that this may lend more consideration to the other, no less important, aspects of a tree's contribution to amenity.

There's plenty of plonkers with 20-20 vision after all !

[Graham]

Actual visual amenity forms only part of a tree's amenity, albeit one that is heavily weighted in Planning Legislation.

Sound, scent, wind flow, temperature islands etc are not dependant on an ability to see well and still form part of a tree's amenity in the landscape.

 

But they're not taken into account when assessing a tree's potential for TPO...or are they?

[janey]

Amenity

3.2 The Act does not define 'amenity', nor does it prescribe the circumstances in which it is in the interests of amenity to make a TPO. In the Secretary of State's view, TPOs should be used to protect selected trees and woodlands if their removal would have a significant impact on the local environment and its enjoyment by the public. LPAs should be able to show that a reasonable degree of public benefit would accrue before TPOs are made or confirmed. The trees, or at least part of them, should therefore normally be visible from a public place, such as a road or footpath, although, exceptionally, the inclusion of other trees may be justified. The benefit may be present or future; trees may be worthy of preservation for their intrinsic beauty or for their contribution to the landscape or because they serve to screen an eyesore or future development; the value of trees may be enhanced by their scarcity; and the value of a group of trees or woodland may be collective only. Other factors, such as importance as a wildlife habitat, may be taken into account which alone would not be sufficient to warrant a TPO. In the Secretary of State's view, it would be inappropriate to make a TPO in respect of a tree which is dead, dying or dangerous.

3.3 LPAs should be able to explain to landowners why their trees or woodlands have been protected by a TPO. They are advised to develop ways of assessing the 'amenity value' of trees in a structured and consistent way, taking into account the following key criteria:

(1) visibility: the extent to which the trees or woodlands can be seen by the general public will inform the LPA's assessment of whether its impact on the local environment is significant. If they cannot be seen or are just barely visible from a public place, a TPO might only be justified in exceptional circumstances;

(2) individual impact: the mere fact that a tree is publicly visible will not itself be sufficient to warrant a TPO. The LPA should also assess the tree's particular importance by reference to its size and form, its future potential as an amenity, taking into account any special factors such as its rarity, value as a screen or contribution to the character or appearance of a conservation area. As noted in paragraph 3.2 above, in relation to a group of trees or woodland, an assessment should be made of its collective impact;

(3) wider impact: the significance of the trees in their local surroundings should also be assessed, taking into account how suitable they are to their particular setting, as well as the presence of other trees in the vicinity.

[Paul Barton]

Would trees still fulfil an amenity function planted around a home for the blind? Yes, most definitely, for the reasons which Janey has most excellently explained.

 

I don't see why a blind or visually impaired person cannot make a judgement on the amenity value of a tree in the public domain. However, assuming that most people in the Parish concerned are not visually impaired, the opinions and judgement of the person concerned should not be the primary or most highly valued but should be used to add a breadth of opinion to the panel. Whilst that person has a valid contribution to make they do have a different take on the tree from most people who can appreciate the amenity of the tree from a visual perspective.

[Amelanchier]

I agree that more probably depends on the person than the disability (as Tim notes - perfect vision does not prevent you from being an idiot) but it does bring some difficulty into proceedings.

 

All that guidance that Janey quoted is framed around visual amenity - it even explicitly says that one of the key criteria is visibility! Whilst with regard to the non-visual amenity functions it specifically states that (as highlighted above) other factors can be involved that would not be sufficient to warrant a TPO on their own; i.e., in the secretary of states view, they are not important enough.

 

Now that may be wrong, unfair or both - but it is the current situation. How would such an individual asked to consider an objection made on the grounds of visual amenity (maybe that there is none?) make an informed decision? If you were objecting on those grounds would you consider it fair and proper that your objection be heard by someone who was markedly less able to appreciate your arguement? Tricky.

 

This particular LPA runs a parallel appeals system outside of the wider planning committee and typically has a panel of only three councillors meaning that an individuals decision can swing the result easily.