Council tree officer ignoring trees in TPO

[ArthurJob]

Hi all, thanks for all the feedback and comments. I have put forward the situation to the council that if the TPO wasn't to preserve the trees for visual amenity then there would have been no logical reason to apply the TPO over that area as if it was working off the basis that the trees are 'low value' and easily replaced then that would apply to the whole area covered by W2 in the TPO and it may as well be a TPO on a football field. All the trees were planted at the same time so will all be much the same size and in 20 years not many are likely to have a trunk greater than 15cm in diameter.

The attached image shows the black region top left where trees were planted for the urban forest along with the species used and the right side is the TPO showing it as W2. My point made was if the trees in the red squared area of the TPO are disregarded then it paves the way to the whole of the black area and W2 being built on in the same respect as they would be of equal value. The tree officer comments were to protect the 'shelter belt' of trees to the East but those are mostly Birch trees of the same age as those in the red square so why aren't they considered low value?

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Only skim read OP and some replies but a couple of things spring to mind - and have already been pointed out. 
 

there is a “technical disconnect” between that which is categorised under a BS 5837 Arb survey for a planning app and that which qualifies under a TPO. 
 

Question - is the area covered by the woodland TPO all new planting or was the new planting ‘in-fill’ within something that might (even loosely) already have been classified as a woodland in its own right?

 

If it was all new planting in a previous pasture (for example), it may be a dubious application of a woodland designation. 
 

From what I’ve read, and that’s not to say that is what you intended to portray, it sounds like you are dissatisfied with the TOs approach to it?  It’s difficult to properly interpret if that’s what you mean - but it comes as a bit of a surprise and leaves me thinking there may be a part of the story ‘missing?’

[ArthurJob]

Hi kevinjohnsonmbe, thanks for the reply.

 

Basically the story goes that the estate was built in the early 90s but the mining history caused issues. Some houses subsided and the developers changed the land use from residential to public open space and woodland in 2000. The woodland was planted as an urban forestry project funded by the Millennium Commision with a deed of dedication for 99 years. The land went to auction (sold for just £15k) and the councillor said not to do a communal purchase and got the TPO slapped on all the land which does include some mature woodland. This area was included as a Woodland TPO where the trees were all planted in 2000 so assume on that basis it was done for visual amenity benefit. The land was backfilled basically creating a large mound as building was not seen to be possible for the 'forseeable future'

My issue is that the TO refuses to acknowledge there are any trees there as a tree report just discounted them as being of low value and he went with that. Yet I believe a woodland TPO means he should be recording all trees there regardless of size, species or their 'value' and he won't. The TPO covers a much larger area so on the basis that this small patch contains trees discounted as low value then the much wider area would be considered the same as the trees are the same age, size and species. Ultimately it would render the TPO applied to that area as being void if the basis of protection in his view is just on the 5837:2012 size situation as being less than 15cm diameter. It would mean no reason why the developer can't build over the whole of W2.

[swinny]

I'll probabilly get flack for this but this seems a not In my backyard situation.... 

 

 

The land backs onto some houses.... and most likely an existing estate. I take it roads are 30mph... Looks a small bit of waste land to me that people walk though.... Granted a few birch in there and hawthorn. 

 

If new houses are built there will be trees planted in a scheme for the amenity of the area. 

 

It's the way things are nowadays. 

 

If it was my land I'd go for houses on it too. Nothing ventured nothing gained.

 

Most likely get refused at council then passed by independent planning inspectorate.

 

They could even go for less houses and leave the road to "nowhere" then build the rest and get planning after first phase. 

 

You lot should have bought the land years ago to stop this arrising

Edited June 2, 2021 by swinny

[ArthurJob]

That's the annoyance as we were going to buy it and the landowner has already made his money back selling little bits of land off to people in the estate to expand their properties. The councillor reassured us it would never be built on and not to do a communal purchase so now we're thinking we shouldn't have listened to them and done it but too little too late.

Like you say, council refuse or goes to committee and then Bristol overturn it with the appeal. It's the third time he's made the same application, he withdrew the last two.

[swinny]

3 hours ago, ArthurJob said:

That's the annoyance as we were going to buy it and the landowner has already made his money back selling little bits of land off to people in the estate to expand their properties. The councillor reassured us it would never be built on and not to do a communal purchase so now we're thinking we shouldn't have listened to them and done it but too little too late.

Like you say, council refuse or goes to committee and then Bristol overturn it with the appeal. It's the third time he's made the same application, he withdrew the last two.

Yeah councillor buggered you up there. 

 

In fairness when it comes to stuff like this I trust no.one and go with instincts. 

 

I was just trying to give you a reply from the other side as such with my earlier reply. I like to sit on the fence and swing my legs before making decisions. 

 

You'll have to keep campaigning but will need some sort of miracle to succeed.

 

Good luck

[ArthurJob]

1 hour ago, swinny said:

Yeah councillor buggered you up there. 

 

In fairness when it comes to stuff like this I trust no.one and go with instincts. 

 

I was just trying to give you a reply from the other side as such with my earlier reply. I like to sit on the fence and swing my legs before making decisions. 

 

You'll have to keep campaigning but will need some sort of miracle to succeed.

 

Good luck

Thankyou, absolutely and it raises another arboricultural query too. The houses will look straight into the gardens and living rooms of my houses and my neighbours so serious privacy issues (in objection). I've been considering some kind of screening. Bamboo was one thought as fast growing and predictable height but may be difficult to contain and rustle in the wind. Looking at something evergreen so a line of conifers that would grow quickly to around 15 feet or something. Any more and I'd be losing light in my garden. Trying to work our what would fit the bill best.

[Dan Maynard]

Bamboo and conifers are both planted for fast results, and quite often get out of hand. If you're really determined then you can keep a conifer hedge under control though.

Lots of other options like beech, laurel which are easier to manage but just a bit slower to get established.

Conifers at least stop growing when you cut them down, bamboo I can never recommend as it's a bugger to get rid of once it's got established and spread out.

On the other hand if you want to annoy the new neighbours the bamboo sprouting all over their borders may do that for you.

[ArthurJob]

Excellent, thanks. Some good options there, I did consider if I used bamboo that it would be in some kind of really strong container but the neighbour annoyance idea is interesting 😁 Certainly not going as far as Japanese Knotweed anyway! (a criminal conviction and major devaluation of my own property wouldn't be fun to start with!) My fence is about 6 feet at the back.

[richyrich]

Have you contacted your elected district councillors- they are voted in democratically and it's their civil duty to get involved when asked. The tree officer sounds like he prefers development to trees...