How to have a TPO removed?

[Mark Bolam]

You could have completed the application in the time it takes to read this thread.

It’s not difficult.

I can do it.

[derek robinson]

The main need of TPOs is to protect the tree and environs from people with particular mind-sets.

 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

1 hour ago, derek robinson said:

The main need of TPOs is to protect the tree and environs from people with particular mind-sets.

 

Au contraire Rodney!

 

the main purpose of a TPO is to provide LA staff with a degree of authority, decision making power and sense of importance.

 

Once that power is divested from the people to “the man” it will never be willingly surrendered back to the people. 
 

There’s another broader life lesson in there - give up your freedoms and they are gone forever!

[Mick Dempsey]

3 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Au contraire Rodney!

 

the main purpose of a TPO is to provide LA staff with a degree of authority, decision making power and sense of importance.

 

Once that power is divested from the people to “the man” it will never be willingly surrendered back to the people. 
 

There’s another broader life lesson in there - give up your freedoms and they are gone forever!

Are you against TPOs? (I think you know my feelings about them)

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

1 hour ago, Mick Dempsey said:

Are you against TPOs? (I think you know my feelings about them)

No Mick, not at all - but it is by no means a flawless system. 
 

I would say my biggest gripe, if there was one, would be the perception that “amenity” in all of its non-definable vagaries is over used as a catch-all to justify TPO where there is insufficient determination, knowledge or willingness to challenge the inappropriate and that within the general assessment process, there (certainly appears to be) a complete lack of ‘weight’ added (where appropriate) to (often the applicant and / or tree owner) perception of disadvantage they are suffering - whether real or perceived. 
 

that’s going off on a bit of a tangent though. The point I was trying to highlight was that once confirmed, you won’t wrestle that authority away from the LA - regardless of any recommendations that they should review. 

[Mick Dempsey]

I don’t believe that LAs should have any say on trees in gardens.

We don’t have any here, save for a handful of trees marked as ‘classé’

 

We are led to believe this will lead to the desertification of garden trees, but it doesn’t, people like trees, they plant them, enjoy them and cut them down when they like.

[Sutton]

On 07/10/2022 at 16:53, Chris at eden said:

 

 

Its the amount of work you can do to achieve the objective while not damaging the tree.  It’s not removing entire limbs when reducing the ends would do.  Tree owners often have expectations that are not realistic when it comes to TPOs. 
 

I saw an application recently that was to reduce the height of a tree by half because the low branch were catching the roof of the cars when entering the drive. That isn’t reasonable. Lifting the low branches to 4m would be. 
 

cheers 

 

Chris 

You might be able to expand this out?

Can anyone point us to some publications that put TPOs in private gardens out into a wider context for urban planning and green spaces. Or perhaps you have your own views? We need to understand why owning property doesn't necessarily qualify you to know what's best on how to keep it. Some of our more libertarian brethren here on AT obviously stir it for affect 🤣 which we all enjoy but a sense of history might be helpful. And this is about more than blindly following rules for fear of getting fined or having injuctions ruled against us.

 

So, we know from history that reconstruction after WW2 was haphazard.

 

Crap Towns - Wikipedia

EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

 

In the later part of the 20th Century, construction firms and LAs were reported to collude on projects against the public's broader interests.

 

We all have different tastes. Personally I prefer

 

Brutalist architecture - Wikipedia

EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

 

over

 

Poundbury - Wikipedia

EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

 

In short, say you don't like conforming to bureaucracy. Then you probably don't understand why it's important. The elites ignore the rules, why shouldn't we? This could help to start it off:

 

All new developments must meet local standards of beauty, quality and design under new rules - GOV.UK

WWW.GOV.UK

---

Local communities will be at the heart of plans to make sure that new developments in their area are beautiful and well-designed.

 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

19 minutes ago, Sutton said:

, say you don't like conforming to bureaucracy. Then you probably don't understand why it's important.

Hidden within an otherwise excellent post is this little nugget ⬆️
 

I’d contest that it is more likely to be an awareness of elements of  the illogical, indefensible or unfair within existing bureaucracy, rather than a failure to understand it, which creates aversion to it. 
 

It seems to be an ever increasing tendency to dismiss a view which differs from one’s own, and to assume the other party needs to be, somehow, bent to one’s own POV, with opening phrases like - what you have to understand is….

 

 

[Mick Dempsey]

No, I dont think this needs to be expanded out.

 

Being anti TPO doesn’t mean I’m anti bureaucracy or a libertarian or whatever pigeon hole you want to put people in.

 

For instance in many French planning conditions you have to use a certain colour render or tiles on your house to match the rest of the village, and I agree with that.

 

It means I’ve seen a system of local governance without TPOs, TOs etc. and it’s ok, plenty of trees everywhere in gardens.

 

Like all English tree guys I was ‘born’ into the idea that they (TOs) are an essential part of the furniture.

 

I reckon that maybe 1% of what has TPOs on actually deserves to be conserved by law.

 

 

 

[Sutton]

2 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Hidden within an otherwise excellent post is this little nugget ⬆️
 

I’d contest that it is more likely to be an awareness of elements of  the illogical, indefensible or unfair within existing bureaucracy, rather than a failure to understand it, which creates aversion to it. 
 

It seems to be an ever increasing tendency to dismiss a view which differs from one’s own, and to assume the other party needs to be, somehow, bent to one’s own POV, with opening phrases like - what you have to understand is….

 

 

I was deliberately vague in asking my question on planning history and local character in the context of the origins behind TPOs. I phrased the above with "perhaps, probably". My hope is someone with more knowledge can say more beyond day-to-day regulation process and procedure.

 

Yes, LAs must coher to national and local policy. Yes, they must demonstrate their line of reasoning within these bounds, whether clear and straight or circular and self-serving. And Yes, they sometimes fail. But I'm not asking about psychological motivation or poor decision making, I'm asking about something different.

 

What it comes down to is simply that trees in conservation areas, urban settings etc set a tone, a theme, that give a place character. Our representatives should be above individual expressions of difference. What I'm talking about is community. It's not always true that private money instantly gives one impeccable taste and world-class judgment 🤣 just as it's not always right that one person gets to say what everyone else has to put up with.

 

@Mick Dempsey believes a free-for-all laisez-faire would work in the UK for private gardens. When private individuals apply to have TPOs put on trees, then yes, there might be a case for reviewing such things through a planning sub-committee, but with Council cutbacks, that isn't going to happen is it?