cherry laurel in woodland tpo

[Amelanchier]

If the TPO is new, put in an objction as said recent case law makes the application of woodland TPO's indefensible as in theory anybody walking through/using the woodland will be breaking the order.

 

There is a large list of woodland TPO's being wiped out due to this very reason.

 

I don't think the OPs TPO is recent.

 

The theoretical offence caused by people stepping on seedlings forms a very weak objection. Wouldn't wash round here and quite rightly so. TOs and TPO appeal panels in this neck of the woods would dismiss it in a moment given the value of future amenity and the self sustaining nature of a woodland Order. The Palm Developments ruling wasn't anything new - it simply stated the obvious regarding woodland orders (i.e., that everything is protected, because little trees make big trees).

 

To follow your logic ad absurdum to its conclusion, a conservation area prevents you from walking within RPAs because of the compaction damage that may be caused and no protected trees may be climbed (even to undertake exempt works) because ropes can abrade the bark.

[Colin Bashford]

If the TPO is new, put in an objction as said recent case law makes the application of woodland TPO's indefensible as in theory anybody walking through/using the woodland will be breaking the order.

 

There is a large list of woodland TPO's being wiped out due to this very reason.

 

Arborist Sites, where doyou find the information to support the above statements.

[Arborist Sites]

Arborist Sites, where doyou find the information to support the above statements.

 

To be honest the TPO's we have sorted out have had other reasons as well, but i am aware of certain sites that have used this defence successfully. I will see if i can get any details and post, but as they are recent it may be a while till i can do this.

[Arborist Sites]

I don't think the OPs TPO is recent.

 

To follow your logic ad absurdum to its conclusion, a conservation area prevents you from walking within RPAs because of the compaction damage that may be caused and no protected trees may be climbed (even to undertake exempt works) because ropes can abrade the bark.

 

The problem as i see it lies with the TO's, surely they are not doing there job efficently if not putting a clause in the TPO to exclude saplings etc, afterall most TPO's that are quashed is due to simple clerical mistakes by the TO's.

 

Unfortunately TO's ofeten make mistakes when applying TPO's mostly due to pressure to apply them by third parties. A woodland TPO does absoultly no good for anybody apart from contributing to the rapid decline in the quality of britains woodlands.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

sorry if this post should be in the forestry/ woodland management section.

 

i'm looking at a very small patch of wood for a client.

it has a tpo covering the "woodland" listed among the protected species list are the obvious species found in this wood - ie oak beech syc, birch with holly understory. but also cherry laurel.

 

Ive always been under the impresion that cherry laurel was wasnt the best thing to have in a woodland environment for various reasons - and in this patch it is doing what it does best and is dominating the understory and preventing regeneration.

not a sapling to be seen.

 

ive put in an application to remove the laurel (theres also conifer and rhodi being removed but these aren't protected)

 

had a meeting on site by one of the planning guys who says it will not go through as he cannot see any reason to remove it as removing it will decrease the woodlands amenity value (woodland with no right of way through it in a private gated "garden").

 

so in your guys views what would be the arguments for retaining or removing this species from the woodland.

 

Hi Dean,

 

Back to your oiginal point. IMHO unless specifically excluded, and written as such, anything 'woody', and whatever size, can be included in a Woodland TPO...unlike the 'Area' TPO of course. Hence the Laurel is clearly included and the time to object to this has probably passed.

 

Hence I would suggest your best bet is to produce a 'woodland management plan', whihc includes phased removal of the Laurel and replacement planting (or natural regen if it happens) with more suitable species.

 

Good luck..!

Paul

[Amelanchier]

The problem as i see it lies with the TO's, surely they are not doing there job efficently if not putting a clause in the TPO to exclude saplings etc, afterall most TPO's that are quashed is due to simple clerical mistakes by the TO's.

 

Unfortunately TO's ofeten make mistakes when applying TPO's mostly due to pressure to apply them by third parties. A woodland TPO does absoultly no good for anybody apart from contributing to the rapid decline in the quality of britains woodlands.

 

I predictably disagree. Why would you want to exclude saplings? Are they not the future of the woodland? The whole point of the woodland Order is to secure a self sustaining unit - if you exclude saplings from the Order you have no control over their removal. I've seen woodland Orders remade/revoked because landowners have mown the seedlings away year in year out. What was once a nice stratified ecosystem is now a bunch of declining equally aged trees with a tight clipped lawn underneath.

 

How do woodland TPOs lead to declining woodland?

 

Just to clarify - TPOs do not get quashed (except by the High Court) or lifted they lapse or are revoked. Errors tend to get rectified before confirmation.

[Arborist Sites]

I predictably disagree. Why would you want to exclude saplings? Are they not the future of the woodland? The whole point of the woodland Order is to secure a self sustaining unit - if you exclude saplings from the Order you have no control over their removal. I've seen woodland Orders remade/revoked because landowners have mown the seedlings away year in year out. What was once a nice stratified ecosystem is now a bunch of declining equally aged trees with a tight clipped lawn underneath.

 

How do woodland TPOs lead to declining woodland?

 

Just to clarify - TPOs do not get quashed (except by the High Court) or lifted they lapse or are revoked. Errors tend to get rectified before confirmation.

 

Not going to argue with you tony. However, i could rattle off a number of woodlands within my local area that have been well managed etc until a woodland tpo was placed they are now overgrown with laurel (no saplings anymore and affecting established trees) pathways overgrown and in many cases as they have to apply to do management works (extra costs) they are financially unviable and closed to the public as they are seen as hazard areas by worried land owners.

 

What do the general public get now due to the LA placing a tpo, a closed off green mass that they cant enjoy

[Amelanchier]

Hey, who's argueing...

 

Dunno why it costs extra to apply to do management works. Even a simple management plan can be acceptable. (Year 1 - Fell all Cherry Laurel within compartment A as shown on the plan to ground level and poison stumps. Replant with 2 million dwarf Lawson Cypress. Year 2 - Remove all Cherry Laurel regrowth that ignored the poison... ).

 

Now if the woodland was already under good management prior to the serving of the Order - that's a valid reason to object.

[common lime]

Evening All,

 

I was trying to find the 'Blue Book' on line but came across the following document;

 

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk/pins/advice_for_insp/tree_preservation_ct14.pdf

 

I suggest reading section 5 and 48.

 

In my humble opinion woodlands should protected within the Forestry Commission grant scheme be it Wales, England or Scotland. I have only ever severed Woodland Orders as a last resort. This is due to them being wrongly severed on domestic gardens when someone was not ass to count all the trees to place them in a group order.