Qualifying Criteria for TPO

[Chris at eden]

52 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Which part Chris?  Wait for it to die and then require a replacement?  (was typing that before the next post came in with detail of the DN)

 

 

You don't need to wait for it to die.  If it presents an immediate risk of serious harm then you would allow removal under exception and the duty to replace would apply the same as if it was dead.  Like I said though, this is still a stretch.  Does a declining tree really present and immediate risk? 

 

 

[Gary Prentice]

3 hours ago, AllTrees said:

From the decision notice in response to my notification of works in a CA

 

( 1) T2 (Birch) is a large and prominent tree within the Woburn Sands Conservation Area. However, it is noted that the tree is in decline. In order to be able to enforce replacement planting following felling of the tree, a Tree Preservation Order shall be placed on the tree. There are no objections to the proposal to fell T1 (Apple)

 

2 hours ago, AllTrees said:

Sorry I forgot to add; the decision notice was issued 1 day before 6 week period expired. So now an application to fell will be required before the TPO is confirmed? 

Saying that a TPO shall be served isn't the same as there being a TPO in place.

 

If you wanted to fell it this afternoon legally you could. Notice has been served, six weeks have elapsed and two years haven't passed and there is no TPO in place. 

 

 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

2 minutes ago, Gary Prentice said:

 

Saying that a TPO shall be served isn't the same as there being a TPO in place.

 

If you wanted to fell it this afternoon legally you could. Notice has been served, six weeks have elapsed and two years haven't passed and there is no TPO in place. 

 

 

That's part of the point I was making earlier Gary writing a letter saying "shall be" isn't quite the same as notifying a TPO as "has been."

 

 - Notification

 - Wait 6 weeks

 - There is either a TPO in effect by the end of 6 weeks or there isn't

 - If no TPO in effect notice has been served, no TPO issued, no constraints are in effect and no replant (or any other) 'condition' may apply

 

I guess if one wanted to 'play nice' (and it suited the diary) you could reply to DN and give a timescale within which you might be willing to await the TPO being presented.

 

 

[fagus]

It is prudent for an Local authority to have a TPO tree evaluation form of qualifying criteria, there are some on the web. In case of objection, and if asked by a Council Member, it is essential to be able say why a tree was considered worthy of a TPO. The answer it is a nice tree has surely long gone.

Edited April 29, 2019 by fagus
To add information.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

On 28/04/2019 at 21:57, AllTrees said:

they have put in writing that consent will be given to fell) but to ensure they have the legal position to enforce the re-planting of a similar specimen.

Moving away from the ‘technical’ back to the original (what I interpret as) ‘moral’ question - should a TPO be initiated on a tree which, by declaration, will be approved for felling so as to facilitate conditions?

 

It certainly appears (to me) to be a, perhaps well intentioned, over zealous misapplication of the spirit of the legislation. 

 

Thoughts - Objection raised to TPO, tree examined against TPO qualifying criteria, documentary evidence of LA being content to remove, TPO overruled, notice was served, 6 weeks has expired, tree is felled and no conditions may be applied....

 

I don’t think it’s a very smart (or appropriate) way of doing business not least of which because it has the potential to alienate a tree owner (who, anecdotally) might have been keen to re-plant anyway but now may be thoroughly disenchanted with petty administration overtly and unnecessarily issuing dictats and demands. 

Edited April 30, 2019 by kevinjohnsonmbe

[Mark Bolam]

2 hours ago, EdwardC said:

Just a couple more pennies worth. The TPO, when it's made, will protect the tree you are going to remove. It won't protect the replacement. The consent to remove the tree may be conditioned to ensure another  replacement is planted if the conditioned replacement dies. But the original replacement isnt formally protected, unless it's 75mm diam or greater.

 

The LPA should really TPO the replacement once it's planted, and revoke the TPO made to get it planted.

What happens if the replacement tree isn't 75mm dia or greater though? Would the conditions for the replant simply include that it would have to be?

[Chris at eden]

1 hour ago, Mark Bolam said:

What happens if the replacement tree isn't 75mm dia or greater though? Would the conditions for the replant simply include that it would have to be?

Yes, essentially the condition would usually be that the trees is replaced by a set date, and that the exact size, species and position is agree in writing prior to planting (again by a set date).   As Ed said, you would usually make a new TPO to protect the new tree, or I suppose you could vary the original to show the replacement.  If so the 75mm may not come into it. 

[Nimby]

Sorry for the resurrection of an old thread, just interested to know how this 'panned out'??!

 

To me this is not what the TPO system is to be used for, very poor of the LPA. 

[sbyorkshire]

Dying  or perhaps decling tree does not  (normally) be suitable for a TP0, its ameinty value shall be detailed (by a method) and provided at the time of the the TPO, provisonal, I would suggest contacting the LPA  legal department to ask'when ' the amienty assessmrnt was actually made as we often have them 'post' dated to the TPO, ie the tree offier trying to back track.

 

Lets just be honest not cloak and dagger, is the tree 'worthy' oF TPO, if so prove it , time stamped at the right time of issue not manilpulated to cover your ar..e,,, by an ameinty valuation method (would be brilliant if an agreed system but a system that has transprancey and detailed to allow interrogation) done with transprancey that all qualified assesors can more or less agree on would be a major step forward.

 

Lets stop the manilpulation of 'truths' and perhaps the tree owners will trust the system and 'protect' more worthy trees, if they are not worthy lets just get tree owners to 'love' trees so they will plant more 'anyway' irrelevant of whether they are are 'made' to. The manipulation just makes garden/land owners hate trees !

 

Rant over,  maniplulating the system just gives a bad taste to tree surgeons, tree surveyors, tree owners, and they will come out fighting, the result, less trees...............

 

 

[Anno]

Won't comment on the case, however the Condition for the replanting of the tree is part of UK Law, in the Legislation it states –

The Duty to Replace Trees

11.2 Under section 206(1) of the Act the landowner is under a duty to replace a tree which is removed in contravention of the TPO. Outside woodlands the duty also applies if the tree is removed because it is dead, dying or has become dangerous (for more advice on the replacement of woodlands see paragraph 11.11-11.12 below).

11.3 The duty on the landowner is:

(1) to plant another tree,

(2) of an appropriate size and species,

(3) at the same place,

(4) as soon as he or she reasonably can.