Pruning a tree with a TPO

[john87]

Hi All..

 

What you all think about this..

First off, i thought a tpo was to protect the "amenity" of an area.. How can a tree have earned a TPO, if it cannot be seen unless you are trespassing on the land?? Anyway, leaving that aside..

 

I work in a hospital, there is a smallish oak tree one branch of which overhangs a secure compound that forms the perimeter fence of the garden area of a locked secure psychiatric ward. I have been asked to remove part of said branch as it is a ligature risk for the patients.

Do we just do it??

Do we have to tell the council??

Can the council say no??

If the council refuse and a patient hangs them self, then what??

 

I would imagine the safety of sectioned hospital patients trumps anything the council might like to think??

 

What do you all think??

[Doug Tait]

Presumably it can be seen by staff, patients and visitors so is deemed to add amenity to the area?

 

To answer your questions directly...

I wouldn't just do it, it's unprofessional.

You don't tell the Council, you apply for permission.

They can say no.

I don't know what happens if someone hangs themself after refusal for works.

 

I wouldn't dwell on the rights and wrongs of the TPO existing John, speak to the Tree Officer and ask their opinion on the proposed work, it might not be an onerous task to get permission.

[Sutton]

I'da thought you've been long enough to know the answer 🤣

 

as Doug says "speak" before form filling etc

 

[john87]

Yes, i will do as you say and go and see one of the estate officers in a bit..

 

Secretly [Shhhhh] we like TPO's as it makes it a LOT more difficult for the health board to knock it all down and sell the lot for housing..

 

john..

[Jon Heuch]

Well John:

 

a) I don't know the branch, but perhaps the beauty of the tree might be discouraging your patients to harm themselves?

b) you will need to consult the judgment of WILKSON PROPERTIES LIMITED  v ROYAL BOROUGH OF KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA to see what a judge had to say about TPOs and trees that might only be visible from private properties. Private does not always mean that there is no public amenity and if the TPO has been served & confirmed it's an irrelvant point. Part Xii and particularly s.284  of the Town and County Planning Act applies: "the validiity... shall not be questioned in any legal proceedings whatsoever". So hard luck!

c) as for TPOs hindering development by the health board, something tells me they are only small impediments which can be easily ignored if the powers that be want housing.

[john87]

Hi There,

I looked up the case you mentioned and very interesting it was too.. Could not find any references to  "amenity" at all, just the tale of how someone got a TPO quashed..

 

Anyway, I can assure you that looking at a tree will not stop the patients doing anything, more likely to give them ideas..

 

These are SERIOUSLY ill people, that will do away with themselves in seconds and make persistant attempts to do this too.

 

They are not "down a bit" because their car had a flat tyre etc.. One problem, is that many people that kill themselves, SEEM to be better.. But, do not be fooled, this is because once they have made their mind up to do it, they are often more "settled" in themselves and seem happier..

 

Nobody in the health board wants to be arrested for manslaughter, or to have to explain to a coroner, that, despite having been told by a mental health professional that the branch posed a serious danger to patients, did nothing.

 

If the council wanted to assume that risk, [by preventing removal] then that is a matter for them. It would never happen.. Could this be the reason that this particular tree has not been TPO'ed??

 

Trust me, it is not everyday that someone on a ward kills themselves, but it is not rare either.. It is very difficult to prevent too, as hanging for example, is very quick, and very final.. You would not believe the lengths the health board have gone to to try to prevent this sort of thing. These patients are not stupid though, and can be very inventive.

 

Someone can take off their jacket say, throw it over the top of a door, close the door and seconds later it is all over. Now, you cannot ban jackets and doors... Latest thing is to install doors that have built in accellerometers and strain gauges to try to prevent this sort of thing.

 

Even fire alarm call points, you know, the red things where you let the alarm off, even though these only protrude from the wall about half an inch, they have had to install a type of tapered surround to make them flush...

 

It is all a very very sad thing

 

Just thought i would add, if anyone thinks they cannot keep themselves [or someone else] safe or if they are trying to help and advise someone, go to either the local accident and emergency department, OR the local police station. The police will arrest them under S136 and they will be taken straight to a "place of safety" [a hospital]

 

NEVER EVER, NO MATTER WHAT, tell the person not to be daft, or that they are "attention seeking" or to "pull themselves togehter" or try to but a positive spin on things or try to chivvy them up saying stuff like, "no you do not mean that" As do that, and you may as well shoot them yourself.

 

Try to get them to a hospital A&E or get the police.. In particular, if you know some one that was very down and or talking about harming themselves ove a period of time, and they suddenly have an apparent dramatic improvement, that is a very big warning sign, get the police or get them to a hospital...

 

john..

 

Edited November 10, 2022 by john87

[daltontrees]

9 hours ago, john87 said:

Hi There,

I looked up the case you mentioned and very interesting it was too.. Could not find any references to  "amenity" at all, just the tale of how someone got a TPO quashed..

 

Anyway, I can assure you that looking at a tree will not stop the patients doing anything, more likely to give them ideas..

 

These are SERIOUSLY ill people, that will do away with themselves in seconds and make persistant attempts to do this too.

 

They are not "down a bit" because their car had a flat tyre etc.. One problem, is that many people that kill themselves, SEEM to be better.. But, do not be fooled, this is because once they have made their mind up to do it, they are often more "settled" in themselves and seem happier..

 

Nobody in the health board wants to be arrested for manslaughter, or to have to explain to a coroner, that, despite having been told by a mental health professional that the branch posed a serious danger to patients, did nothing.

 

If the council wanted to assume that risk, [by preventing removal] then that is a matter for them. It would never happen.. Could this be the reason that this particular tree has not been TPO'ed??

 

Trust me, it is not everyday that someone on a ward kills themselves, but it is not rare either.. It is very difficult to prevent too, as hanging for example, is very quick, and very final.. You would not believe the lengths the health board have gone to to try to prevent this sort of thing. These patients are not stupid though, and can be very inventive.

 

Someone can take off their jacket say, throw it over the top of a door, close the door and seconds later it is all over. Now, you cannot ban jackets and doors... Latest thing is to install doors that have built in accellerometers and strain gauges to try to prevent this sort of thing.

 

Even fire alarm call points, you know, the red things where you let the alarm off, even though these only protrude from the wall about half an inch, they have had to install a type of tapered surround to make them flush...

 

It is all a very very sad thing

 

Just thought i would add, if anyone thinks they cannot keep themselves [or someone else] safe or if they are trying to help and advise someone, go to either the local accident and emergency department, OR the local police station. The police will arrest them under S136 and they will be taken straight to a "place of safety" [a hospital]

 

NEVER EVER, NO MATTER WHAT, tell the person not to be daft, or that they are "attention seeking" or to "pull themselves togehter" or try to but a positive spin on things or try to chivvy them up saying stuff like, "no you do not mean that" As do that, and you may as well shoot them yourself.

 

Try to get them to a hospital A&E or get the police.. In particular, if you know some one that was very down and or talking about harming themselves ove a period of time, and they suddenly have an apparent dramatic improvement, that is a very big warning sign, get the police or get them to a hospital...

 

john..

 

Are you sure you looked at the right case? It mentions 'amenity' 39 times!

 

The tree is not a risk to patients. The risk is giving unsupervised access to the tree. The risk can be reduced or eliminated by preventing unsupervised access. Therefore there is no risk related reason to remove part of the tree.

 

It's all very sad I know but the Council would be within its rights to refuse an application and to prosecute for unauthorised works.

[daltontrees]

20 hours ago, Jon Heuch said:

Well John:

 

a) I don't know the branch, but perhaps the beauty of the tree might be discouraging your patients to harm themselves?

b) you will need to consult the judgment of WILKSON PROPERTIES LIMITED  v ROYAL BOROUGH OF KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA to see what a judge had to say about TPOs and trees that might only be visible from private properties. Private does not always mean that there is no public amenity and if the TPO has been served & confirmed it's an irrelvant point. Part Xii and particularly s.284  of the Town and County Planning Act applies: "the validiity... shall not be questioned in any legal proceedings whatsoever". So hard luck!

c) as for TPOs hindering development by the health board, something tells me they are only small impediments which can be easily ignored if the powers that be want housing.

The case you refer to challenges the generality of your suggestion that a TPO cannot be challenged. What the judge said in the case was "the validity of a TPO cannot be challenged in any legal proceedings except by way of an application to this court (section 284(1)(e) and (2)(c) TCPA 1990). A challenge to this court is available under section 288 TCPA 1990 on the grounds either that the order is not within the powers of the Act or that any of the relevant requirements have not been complied with." And in the case referred to the TPO was quashed by such a challenge.

Although the public visibility of the tree was not one of the reasons for quashing, it took the judge 5 pages to reason why. In slightly different circumstances the public visibility argument could have succeeded.

[john87]

1 hour ago, daltontrees said:

Are you sure you looked at the right case? It mentions 'amenity' 39 times!

 

The tree is not a risk to patients. The risk is giving unsupervised access to the tree. The risk can be reduced or eliminated by preventing unsupervised access. Therefore there is no risk related reason to remove part of the tree.

 

It's all very sad I know but the Council would be within its rights to refuse an application and to prosecute for unauthorised works.

I tried to find the case. I googled the name of the thing, and i even tried a variation of the name, but nothing..

 

As for the tree not being a risk, patients do not have "unsupervised access" to the thing, it dangles over the top of a secure compound, the garden area for the ward concerned.

 

Have you ever worked in a psychiatric ward?? The patients FAR outnumber the staff.. There is a shortage of nurses [thanks to the lovely tories] so although some patients are on 1:1 non stop supervision, it is not possible most of the time.. so things do go wrong.

 

As for the council and their TPO's, not even the nuttiest treehugging "virtue signalling" loony of a TO, wants to be on the front page of the local news papers with a story on how mr such and such killed himself by hanging on a tree that the TO twonk would not let a secure hospital prune, even though they were informed of the danger to the patients.. 

 

Dare i suggest the the life of a very ill person is slightly more important than a branch on a poxy tree..

 

We have "forensic" patients too. These are what used to be known as "detained at her majesties pleasure" They are not there for parking on double yellow lines... They CANNOT be discharged by the hospital, only by order of the home office.. What if they climb out and reoffend?? What you going to do? Put them all in straight jackets or give them a ball and chain..

 

When i spoke to works, [about the tree] their immedaite reaction was "do what you have to do"

 

Do you REALLY think a secure hospital is going to care in the least if they had a £20,000 fine??? . If a patient kills themselves on a ward, what you think that costs?? What about the trail of devastation left behind??

 

Do you REALLY think a council is going to try to prosecute a hospital for seeking to ensure the safety of SEVERELY unwell people?? No legal staff would even get involved. The prosecutor would be laughed out of court, they would not find anyone daft enough to do it..

 

You need to understand, these are people that actively do not want to live anymore. They will kill themselves in an instant.. They have already made their minds up, they are just looking for the opportunity..

 

john..

 

[Terrain Aeration]

On 09/11/2022 at 11:46, john87 said:

Hi All..

 

What you all think about this..

First off, i thought a tpo was to protect the "amenity" of an area.. How can a tree have earned a TPO, if it cannot be seen unless you are trespassing on the land?? Anyway, leaving that aside..

 

I work in a hospital, there is a smallish oak tree one branch of which overhangs a secure compound that forms the perimeter fence of the garden area of a locked secure psychiatric ward. I have been asked to remove part of said branch as it is a ligature risk for the patients.

Do we just do it??

Do we have to tell the council??

Can the council say no??

If the council refuse and a patient hangs them self, then what??

 

I would imagine the safety of sectioned hospital patients trumps anything the council might like to think??

 

What do you all think??

I agree with all you have said. 
I know a lady with 5 TPO trees in her tiny garden no one sees them but they just get bigger and bigger.