Vague TPO

[kev7937]

Can anyone tell me if species have to be mentioned on a preservation order?

 

I know they have to get the species right if they put it on but is simply putting "deciduous tree" sufficient?

 

Seems a bit shabby to me.

 

Ta

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Can anyone tell me if species have to be mentioned on a preservation order?

 

I know they have to get the species right if they put it on but is simply putting "deciduous tree" sufficient?

 

Seems a bit shabby to me.

 

Ta

 

Hi Kev, I don't think the species "has to be mentioned", albeit they usually are dependent upon what kind of TPO, i.e. individual = yes I would expect it, group = probably, area / woodland = probably not.

 

I think it probably comes down to how enforceable the order would be in the event of a breach / prosecution.

 

If the tree is clearly identifiable from the other information present I would follow normal protocols, ie. contact the TO.

 

It is disappointing not to be more specific though.

 

Cheers,

Paul

[daltontrees]

Can anyone tell me if species have to be mentioned on a preservation order?

 

I know they have to get the species right if they put it on but is simply putting "deciduous tree" sufficient?

 

Seems a bit shabby to me.

 

Ta

 

As Paul says it's not essential in all cases. The current Government guidance does say that "Where a Tree Preservation Order may be justified, the officer should gather sufficient information to enable an accurate Order to be drawn up. The officer should record the number and species (or at least the genus) of the individual trees or groups of trees to be included in the Order and their location. A general description of genera should be sufficient for areas of trees or woodlands."

 

And for groups, the TPO has to be in the form set out in the 2012 Regs and therefore 'must' record the number of eachg tree species, so arguably a group Order is technically wrong if it doesn't.

 

It's a pretyyu poor effort not to know the species. How can the Council know what amenioty it provides if they don't know it's basic growth characteristics?

 

But if there's only one tree at the location on the plan, not getting the species may not be fatal to the Order's effect. If there are two trees, either of which could be the plotted one, the TPO's potentially unenforceable.

[kev7937]

Thanks Paul

 

It's an individual tree we were due to take down today but they chucked a Tpo on it Friday.

 

It's easily identifiable from the road so I was a bit surprised it was listed as "deciduous tree" and nothing else.

 

Thanks

[kev7937]

As Paul says it's not essential in all cases. The current Government guidance does say that "Where a Tree Preservation Order may be justified, the officer should gather sufficient information to enable an accurate Order to be drawn up. The officer should record the number and species (or at least the genus) of the individual trees or groups of trees to be included in the Order and their location. A general description of genera should be sufficient for areas of trees or woodlands."

 

 

 

And for groups, the TPO has to be in the form set out in the 2012 Regs and therefore 'must' record the number of eachg tree species, so arguably a group Order is technically wrong if it doesn't.

 

 

 

It's a pretyyu poor effort not to know the species. How can the Council know what amenioty it provides if they don't know it's basic growth characteristics?

 

 

 

But if there's only one tree at the location on the plan, not getting the species may not be fatal to the Order's effect. If there are two trees, either of which could be the plotted one, the TPO's potentially unenforceable.

 

 

Thanks, it's pretty clear from the map which tree it's for and to be fair it's a nice tree but imo it's too close to the present property to reach its full potential and has certainly thrown a rather large spanner in the works for the developer.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Thanks Paul

 

It's an individual tree we were due to take down today but they chucked a Tpo on it Friday.

 

It's easily identifiable from the road so I was a bit surprised it was listed as "deciduous tree" and nothing else.

 

Thanks

 

Only option is to formally object, if there's sufficient reason, and within 28 days. Otherwise an application to remove, again with suitable reasons...but then sure you were aware of that anyway.

Cheers

Paul

[kev7937]

Only option is to formally object, if there's sufficient reason, and within 28 days. Otherwise an application to remove, again with suitable reasons...but then sure you were aware of that anyway.

 

Cheers

 

Paul

 

 

Yeah they're gonna object so will see what happens.

 

Thanks again.

[Chris at eden]

As previously stated there is no requirement to describe the tree with absolute accuracy on the plan or schedule. As long as it can be identified from the documents it should be ok. Even if the plan and schedule conflict the guidance accounts for this saying that the plan takes precedence.

 

I suspect what they will do is modify the schedule on confirmation to state the species. As this doesn't have to be for 6 months they will be able to check the tree when in leaf and the confirm subject to a modified first schedule.

 

Its not uncommon for trees to be misidentified on a TPO. Everyone comes across trees they don't know from time to time.

 

Out of interest what is the tree?

 

Cheers

[Chris at eden]

A general description of genera should be sufficient for areas of trees or woodlands."

QUOTE]

 

In my experience areas usually state 'all trees whatever their species' and don't tend to go into specifics. They should be reviewed within 5 years though.

 

I spoke with Richard Nicholson at his TPO course regarding the woodland classification and he was pretty adamant that woodlands should be described as 'mixed broadleaved', 'mixed conifer', or mixed conifer and broadleaved' and no more specific than that. Makes sense when you think about it a woodland orders cover succession.

 

Cheers

[kev7937]

As previously stated there is no requirement to describe the tree with absolute accuracy on the plan or schedule. As long as it can be identified from the documents it should be ok. Even if the plan and schedule conflict the guidance accounts for this saying that the plan takes precedence.

 

 

 

I suspect what they will do is modify the schedule on confirmation to state the species. As this doesn't have to be for 6 months they will be able to check the tree when in leaf and the confirm subject to a modified first schedule.

 

 

 

Its not uncommon for trees to be misidentified on a TPO. Everyone comes across trees they don't know from time to time.

 

 

 

Out of interest what is the tree?

 

 

 

Cheers

 

 

Thanks

 

It's a common walnut so pretty easy to Ident really, I suspect they haven't actually visited the site but have tpo'd it at the request of the neighbour who was a little bit over enthusiastic telling us how much he hated the tree and wanted it out.

 

I guess you could see it from street view to give a rough idea if it was worth protecting.