Council tree officer issue

[ArthurJob]

Hi all,

Hoping people can advise please.

 

In 2001 an area of land was planted with trees as part of an urban forestry project. The council put a woodland TPO on the land to protect the trees for their visual amenity in 2011 due to the threat imposed by a new landowner.

 

Around 2018 a new tree officer came in who was previously a tree surgeon.

When planning applications were made on the land he initially denied the land was covered by the TPO and when asked to check saw it was and then later either stated there were no trees there or the trees were all self-seeded.

Yet the trees are all the same size as the rest of the planted area in relation to species e.g. Silver Birch being significantly taller than English Oak.

Even still I believe a woodland TPO should cover trees of any age or size including any self seeded.

 

On top of that the two planning applications had expired tree reports, one was 5 years old, the other was 8 years old. He accepted them on both occasions, visited site and declared the trees had no significant amenity value and their loss could easily be compensated for.

 

This risks the trees in the wider area of the same age and size surely.

 

Also one of the proposed developments showed the trees being planted to replace roughly the same number lost as surrounding the new houses, only 2 or 3 metres around them and next to driveways. How can it not be considered that those trees wouldn't cause issues for future occupiers? They would be native species. Surely they would block windows, cause issues with cars and leaf fall etc. And the roots near foundations. Those trees replacing the protected ones on the same site would likely be heavily pruned or cut down in future years.

 

Interesting to know peoples thoughts on this. How can things be determined and trusted based on the competency and views of this one person? Lots of people love and appreciate the trees and know they have been there for well over 20 years. How is it down to the opinion of this one person as to whether they provide visual amenity?

 

Many thanks

[Stubby]

I am no expert but on the face of what you have said it seems he is just wrong . There is at least one TO on here , maybe he could help . Also is there more to the story ?

[Mick Dempsey]

To address the last paragraph.

 

Cos thats his job.

[ArthurJob]

Thanks both.

 

That's the thing, if you don't agree with the tree officers view then how can you dispute it if the council just goes by his own view.

I measured the width of the tree trunks about 1.5m above ground and they're over 15cm across. They're quite well established trees.

I have sought opinions from other arboriculturalists and got Bluesky tree reports as well. They seem to think differently to him too.

 

He was a tree surgeon before, what degree of transition is there to become a tree officer as I believe a level of empathy is required as to public opinion of the benefit of the trees to the community?

 

The TPO was put in place to protect the visual amenity. What's the point really if a new tree officer comes in and says some of the trees are low value and easily replaced if all of them covered by the TPO were planted at the same time and of the same quality?

[ArthurJob]

He did say when I spoke to him on the phone that the landowner/developer had just shouted at him before I called as he requested amendments on the first planning application.

[Mick Dempsey]

Priorities change, councils have housing targets they have to meet.

 

 

[ArthurJob]

13 minutes ago, Mick Dempsey said:

Priorities change, councils have housing targets they have to meet.

 

 

That's fair enough although this was Spring last year before the new targets and also the land isn't allocated for housing in the local plan too. The councillors and MPs etc. Are all oppposed to it but the landowner won't give up as there is profit to be made.

[Mick Dempsey]

3 minutes ago, ArthurJob said:

That's fair enough although this was Spring last year before the new targets and also the land isn't allocated for housing in the local plan too. The councillors and MPs etc. Are all oppposed to it but the landowner won't give up as there is profit to be made.

Ok, understood.

I’m not a TO. There are some on here who post without revealing their identity (for obvious and understandable reasons) 

Maybe they’ll chime in with some informed takes on it.

All I’d say is hanging your hat on some less that 30 year old trees is a bit tenuous.

 

I have a question.

 Is your motivation the love of the trees or are you hoping to prevent a development near to your house?

[Stubby]

39 minutes ago, Mick Dempsey said:

 

 

I have a question.

 Is your motivation the love of the trees or are you hoping to prevent a development near to your house?

This is the " more to the story " bit I was alluding to .

[JLA1990]

They’re not based on just the TO’s opinion, the biodiversity metric (stat&bng) would have been applied to the site (ecologists) and unfortunately the trees you’re talking about are easily replaced to allow for development. I appreciate your woes and it is unfortunate but as another member suggested, in the grand scheme of habitat loss this is easily replicated whether you like the new locations of the trees or not.