Another TPO result for Poole BC

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

2 hours ago, openspaceman said:

I was thinking more in terms of  how many neighbours overlooking the tree would be needed to make it a " public amenity" if it weren't very visible from a public highway.

 

...and if they didn't object to the tree being removed?

Exactly that was the topic of discussion in the thread I’m recalling...

 

i just have to try and remember a decent keyword to search and find it. 

[Gary Prentice]

21 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

All understood Roz, question still stands though....

 

Either PBC are presented with what appears to be the ‘simple’ cases or they have a different organisational attitude towards the issue. It ‘seems’ like there is a willingness AND a success rate more than elsewhere?  Just ‘seems’ that way from press report...

Without doubt Poole have a long history of successful prosecutions going back over a several years. Kirklees (Huddersfield) used to be similar. One particular TO always appeared in the reporting of cases, so it appeared that she was providing the impetus to prosecute. 

 

21 hours ago, Mark Bolam said:

I would have thought a result was pretty much guaranteed every time?

 

TPO'd tree gone? Guilty.

 

Case closed M'Lud.

I think that the crux of the matter is in the wording of the legislation. From memory the wording goes something 'did' and allow or allowed. Something like that. 

 

So if the owner didn't 'do/instruct' the action and can show that they'd acted as they should have done and it still occurred etc it becomes less of an open and shut case.

[Gary Prentice]

14 hours ago, Mark Bolam said:

Tbh Kev, I can understand blanket TPO’s on development sites, but I think they should be subject to review after development is complete.

 

 

You're just highlighting the problems with 'area' TPOs Mark. On development sites TPOs aren't necessarily the best method of tree protection during the development phase, planning conditions can be sufficient. 

 

A Secretary of State said years back that area TPO's should only be used a temporary means of tree protection, made when expedient and until such time as the trees can be properly assessed for (tree) specific protection. Unfortunately, once protection is in place the authorities just leave it at that and don't progress forward as the legislation intended.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

5 hours ago, Gary Prentice said:

You're just highlighting the problems with 'area' TPOs Mark. On development sites TPOs aren't necessarily the best method of tree protection during the development phase, planning conditions can be sufficient. 

 

A Secretary of State said years back that area TPO's should only be used a temporary means of tree protection, made when expedient and until such time as the trees can be properly assessed for (tree) specific protection. Unfortunately, once protection is in place the authorities just leave it at that and don't progress forward as the legislation intended.

The document at this page is a useful reference Gary:

 

https://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/environment-and-regulation/trees/06b16269