No TPO/CA/SSSI Council Refusal of Reduction for Planning Conditions.

[Puffingbilly413]

4 hours ago, daltontrees said:

In such situations it is appropriate I think to point out that the written government guidance is that planning conditions should not be used for the long term protection of trees.

You're right. My local council ignores this as a matter of routine.

[Puffingbilly413]

4 hours ago, daltontrees said:

I dpn't know what it's liek in England, but up here Councils are using conditions to protect trees under the justification of habitat protection. Currently I have one where the tree removal is not being allowed because the tree is contributing to climate stabilisation. Recently I had a TPO imposed to protect habitat, which is not a lawful use of TPO. The overall sense is that it's all a bit out of control. A bit more than usual, that is.

 

How does the legislation define amenity? I can't remember now off hand. But semantically it could mean a pretty wide interpretation maybe?

[daltontrees]

10 hours ago, Puffingbilly413 said:

How does the legislation define amenity? I can't remember now off hand. But semantically it could mean a pretty wide interpretation maybe?

It doesn't even try to define amenity.

In FFF Estates v Hackney LBC the Court of Appeal suggested it meant "pleasant circumstances or features, advantages".

In Cartwright v Post Office a definition was decided upon as "[its] visual appearance and the pleasure of its enjoyment".

[Puffingbilly413]

8 minutes ago, daltontrees said:

pleasant circumstances or features, advantages"

Which could I suppose include habitat?

[daltontrees]

45 minutes ago, Puffingbilly413 said:

Which could I suppose include habitat?

In England the guidance says that "other factors, such as the importance as a wildlife habitat, may be taken into account which alone would not be sufficient to warrant a TPO".

At this point it starts to go all fuzzy. Habitat can be a factor if it is there to be enjoyed. Conservation of habitat in its own right, in the interests of science or for the benefit of special audiences for example, is not I think a logical part of amenity.

If you want to get into this aspect up to your ears, see what Dr. Mynors the author of the only book on tree law had to say in the current review of welsh planning law. He was suggesting that for scientific interest to be preservable by TPO the definition of amenity should be changed (yes, I know that's as ridiculous as it sounds) to include scientific interest. Personally I suggested to him that instead of trying to distort the engish laguage as a contrived means of achieving sonething he should add a separate habitat criterion for TPOs. And there it really gets farcical. Trees create the environment for other habitats but they are not necessarily the habitat itself. Ancient oaks with fragile irreplaceable deadwood habitats might well be a case for preservation on scientific interest grounds but it hardly comes under the heading of pleasant amenity. But is it right to preserve trees because they have nesting birds? Or bluebells beneath them in spring? The bluebells are pleasant, but they're not trees.

I see Woodland TPOs being promoted on the basis of habitat, in places where the public cannot see or visit them. I personally think this is ultra vires.

Meantime the government is happily blitzing ancient woodland for railways.

The system is increasingly incoherent.

Edited August 25, 2022 by daltontrees

[daltontrees]

15 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Crazy times indeed±

It's going to get worse.