What’s the silliest tpo you have come across?

[Steve Bullman]

Hazel stump with 6ft of regrowth

 

 

[Mark Bolam]

You win.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Is that what someone might reasonably call "a tree" (the planning definition, or similar, for consideration for a TPO.)

 

I have worked with 'old' TPOs, not made by me, where Hazel has been included as a tree and they were trees at the time...perhaps this one also used to be so, "a (small) tree." I've also seen Hazel included in a woodland TPO where the under-storey is an important feature and included as such.

 

Others include Portugese Laurel, often a small tree, and Cherry Laurel, seldom a small tree...more often a big shrub.

 

An interesting post raising an interesting point.

Paul

 

[Mark Bolam]

TPO's on crap like this only serve to cheapen the 'value' of a TPO imo.

 

There is one near me on 4 birches in a line that have been 'pollarded' at about 12' and are just rotten mushbags.

[AHPP]

It’s called a preservation order and the way to preserve hazel is to cut it.

Keep paying taxes.

[Gary Prentice]

3 hours ago, Mark Bolam said:

TPO's on crap like this only serve to cheapen the 'value' of a TPO imo.

 

There is one near me on 4 birches in a line that have been 'pollarded' at about 12' and are just rotten mushbags.

But the ‘pollarding’ may have been undertaken without consent, and today’s condition is a result of that. 

 

With infinite resources the LA should review orders from time to time and revoke as necessary.

 

meanwhile, in the real world...

[Mark Bolam]

I did think that Gary, and I see where you're coming from, but this TPO was issued after the tree crime.

 

You're not wrong, there are three TPO's near me where the trees haven't been there for several years.

[Gary Prentice]

21 minutes ago, Mark Bolam said:

I did think that Gary, and I see where you're coming from, but this TPO was issued after the tree crime.

 

You're not wrong, there are three TPO's near me where the trees haven't been there for several years.

Well Mark, the only opportunity to disagree with the making of the TPO is in the first 28 days after it is made. If no one makes representation or objections, the owners are stuck with it. Saying that the last time I made an objection to a new TPO the LA didn't seem to have any process in place (that anyone I asked knew about), it didn't go before a planning committee and didn't get confirmed. 

 

We felled the tree!

[Gary Prentice]

4 hours ago, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

Is that what someone might reasonably call "a tree" (the planning definition, or similar, for consideration for a TPO.)

 

I have worked with 'old' TPOs, not made by me, where Hazel has been included as a tree and they were trees at the time...perhaps this one also used to be so, "a (small) tree." I've also seen Hazel included in a woodland TPO where the under-storey is an important feature and included as such.

 

Others include Portugese Laurel, often a small tree, and Cherry Laurel, seldom a small tree...more often a big shrub.

 

An interesting post raising an interesting point.

Paul

 

Sorry to be pedantic , but everything is included in a woodland order (as I know you know), what's there at the time the order is made and what grows after that time. So Hazel can't be 'included' per se, it would always be included. 

[Gary Prentice]

5 hours ago, Steve Bullman said:

Hazel stump with 6ft of regrowth

 

 

Individual, 'numbered on a plan & schedule' TPO? Or included in an 'Area Order'?