Council tree officer ignoring trees in TPO

[ArthurJob]

Hi all,

 

I'm currently contesting a planning application and would like some help please.

The land subject to the application has a number of trees on it that were planted as part of an urban forestry scheme 20 years ago. The Silver Birches are far taller than other species as expected, around 10 metres or so but there are others such as Oak, Ash and Alder that range from a metre or so to about 5 metres as expected for the length of time. Some are saplings that have propagated since the TPO was applied 10 years ago. The TPO is a woodland one that covers the whole area. A tree report was done which said there were no trees present as they were under a certain diameter trunk and therefore easily replaceable and low value.

From what I understand being a woodland TPO all trees should be acknowledged regardless of size and age etc. The local council tree officer goes with the tree report and says there are no trees there at all and saplings are low value and easily replaced. Shouldn't the presence and location of the trees be recognised and mapped as under the TPO they are to be replaced if lost if the application goes ahead? None of them are showing on any of the plans at all so can't see them being retained or replaced. A tree report for the same site for an application made in 2017 shows the presence of the Birch trees in respect of the new house locations.

 

What are your views? If it is a woodland TPO fully covering the area should it not be the tree officers responsibility to identify and map all trees present?

[Chris at eden]

If the trees are less than 150mm diameter then they are automatically category C. I’m guessing this is what is meant.  They should then not be allowed to impose an unreasonable constraint on development as they are easily replaced. 
 

But TPOs can be made on small trees based on future amenity.  So this could also be the situation. TPO protected cat C trees. Not exactly joined up thinking is it. 

 

 

[ArthurJob]

Thanks Chris, I tried to measure the bigger trees and they were about 15cm in diameter. It was done on a visual amenity basis to protect the Urban forest. I can see what you mean about it being a bit disjointed in intention. The TPO was applied by a previous officer who made a record when small saplings of less than a few metres in height got damaged when they were doing digging there prior to the application. He actually notified them of the TPO as well. It just seems like the new tree officer is completely disinterested. When I said there were some young trees and saplings of up to around 5 metres he practically laughed it off saying no-one would care but initially dismissed the idea there were any trees there at all. If counting of any size there would probably be about 15-20 or so there in total.

[Dan Maynard]

The definition of tree for conservation area notification is 75mm at 1.5m height, which would mean they are well into the tree category.

That's not TPO though, those rules are different. Not joined up as you say.

[ArthurJob]

Thanks Dan, the TPO description includes Hawthorn as attached (W2) Unsure if that is just descriptive of the land or it would suggestion it is included?

[Khriss]

Arthur, is this your land now, and are you developing it. K

Edited May 28, 2021 by Khriss
KEV.... stop it.... 😊

[ArthurJob]

Hi Khriss, unfortunately not. It's adjacent to my land.

[eggsarascal]

1 minute ago, ArthurJob said:

Hi Khriss, unfortunately not. It's adjacent to my land.

And someone has bought it and wants to build on it?

[ArthurJob]

Hi eggsarascal, they bought it 10 years ago and at the time the councillor got the TPO put in place to prevent development and told people it couldn't be built on so not to buy the land when it went up for auction.

Neighbouring residents are reeling that the application to build there has been made now.

[Khriss]

Because you dont have to be the landowner to apply for a consent.. K