TPO consent - varying the two year standard

[Kveldssanger]

With regards to giving consent for works to a TPOd tree, whilst the standard time within which the approved works can be done is two years, scope exists to vary this norm and does certainly help when it comes to facilitating woodland management (such as coppicing). Hypothetically, for veteran trees, can a Local Authority require the applicant undertake works within, lt's say, a three month period?

 

My thinking behind this is that veteran trees are often fragile and guidance suggests we prune them only during certain months of the year. Therefore, if an application to reduce a lapsed veteran oak pollard by 1.5m in the middle of autumn, can the LA give consent and require the works be completed by 15th March of the following year? I have plucked dates from my head so they don't relate to anything specific, though hopefully illustrate my question.

 

Moreover, can an LA refuse works to prune a veteran tree if the previous growing year was a significant drought year, thereby inferring the veteran is likely to be under physiological stress from the prior lack of rainfall?

 

I admit, during my time as a TO I never considered this and have not met anyone that has done this, though going through the Regs this afternoon and I'm wondering how much room there is to 'innovate', with reference to altering the standard two year consent period and the use of conditions.

 

Ta.

[Andy Clark]

I would think it likely that a time constraint could possibly be built in as a condition of consent, but with the over arching umbrella still aplying that the consent itself would still last for two years.

 

Which does seem a completely pointless exercise, as the consent would by default already have fallen into breach if the 3 month condition was not met.

 

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Arbtalk mobile app

[Gary Prentice]

Well, conditions have to fulfil the six requirements (all of which I can't remember)

 

Think it would be reasonable to refuse if the trees health/vitality was low or poor. Ultimately an inspector (who used to be an Arb consultant) would decide if the refusal was reasonable.

 

Not so sure about making a short consent period, would it be seen as an unreasonable condition?

[Kveldssanger]

From the Planning Act 2002 Section 192 (7).

 

 

202D Tree preservation regulations: consent for prohibited activities

 

(1)This section applies if tree preservation regulations make provision under section 202C(4).

 

(2)Tree preservation regulations may make provision—

(a)about who may give consent;

(b)for the giving of consent subject to conditions;

©about the procedure to be followed in connection with obtaining consent.

 

(3)The conditions for which provision may be made under subsection (2)(b) include—

(a)conditions as to planting of trees;

(b)conditions requiring approvals to be obtained from the person giving the consent;

©conditions limiting the duration of the consent.

 

(4)The conditions mentioned in subsection (3)(a) include—

 

(a)conditions requiring trees to be planted;

(b)conditions about the planting of any trees required to be planted by conditions within paragraph (a), including conditions about how, where or when planting is to be done;

©conditions requiring things to be done, or installed, for the protection of any trees planted in pursuance of conditions within paragraph (a).

 

(5)In relation to any tree planted in pursuance of a condition within subsection (4)(a), tree preservation regulations may make provision —

(a)for the tree preservation order concerned to apply to the tree;

(b)authorising the person imposing the condition to specify that the tree preservation order concerned is not to apply to the tree.

 

(6)“The tree preservation order concerned” is the order in force in relation to the tree in respect of which consent is given under tree preservation regulations.

 

(7)The provision that may be made under subsection (2)© includes provision about applications for consent, including provision as to—

(a)the form or manner in which an application is to be made;

(b)what is to be in, or is to accompany, an application.

 

(8)Tree preservation regulations may make provision for appeals—

(a)against refusal of consent;

(b)where there is a failure to decide an application for consent;

©against conditions subject to which consent is given;

(d)against refusal of an approval required by a condition;

(e)where there is a failure to decide an application for such an approval.

 

(9)Tree preservation regulations may make provision in connection with appeals under provision made under subsection (8), including—

(a)provision imposing time limits;

(b)provision for further appeals;

©provision in connection with the procedure to be followed on an appeal (or further appeal);

(d)provision about who is to decide an appeal (or further appeal);

(e)provision imposing duties, or conferring powers, on a person deciding an appeal (or further appeal).

[Kveldssanger]

Thanks for the input thus far, Andy and Gary.

 

With regards to low / poor vitality, I'd throw a spanner in the works and clarify my original hypothetical: the veteran tree could be in entirely acceptable condition, though following David Lonsdale's and Helen Read's guidance on managing such trees, the LA could refuse works to prune the tree (even lightly) on the basis that the works could cause a potentially unacceptable degree of harm (due to the preceding drought year) to the tree over the following years, and therefore works would be approved only when the previous year was not a drought year (or growing season, if one applied during autumn).

[Gary Prentice]

Thanks for the input thus far, Andy and Gary.

 

With regards to low / poor vitality, I'd throw a spanner in the works and clarify my original hypothetical: the veteran tree could be in entirely acceptable condition, though following David Lonsdale's and Helen Read's guidance on managing such trees, the LA could refuse works to prune the tree (even lightly) on the basis that the works could cause a potentially unacceptable degree of harm (due to the preceding drought year) to the tree over the following years, and therefore works would be approved only when the previous year was not a drought year (or growing season, if one applied during autumn).

 

I'd say yes, but I'm not confident that the refusal would be upheld at appeal, as Arb consultants won't be used as inspectors AFAIK

[Kveldssanger]

I have heard similarly, which is a shame.

[Gary Prentice]

It's not a shame, it's ridiculous. It's a backwards step in the management of the planning system with regard to trees. Where's the justification in using inexperienced and unqualified planning inspectors in the decision making process?

[Kveldssanger]

I agree. For once, my choice of words was watered-down! Must be something in the water...

 

On a serious note, it is absolutely a sorry state of affairs. Complete with the government looking to streamline the planning process, one wonders exactly how trees will feature in the coming years.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Housing minister targets 1 million new homes by 2020....

 

So there's a conflict waiting in the wings!

 

https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/housing-minister-targets-1-million-new-homes-by-2020/8689157.fullarticle