Tree preservation orders announcement

[BatiArb]

stuff it, just TPO ALL trees, would be about time.

 

All trees over a certain diametre perhaps......?

 

Not allowed to fell without consent........

 

But with no pruning restrictions as long as the work is completed by a qualified arborists......

 

what do you think?

[arb culture]

A tree officer friend of mine suggested that he thought all trees shuld be protected in a similar way to trees in a conservation area.

 

At first I thought he was just wanting to have excessive control, but with time I've come round to his way of thinking.

 

The beauty of this system is that it would a) help clear up confusion with tree owners - if they want to do work they have to let the LPA know, b) minimise paper work for tree officers - if the trees aren't worthy of protection, just let them get on with it, and c) trees would be properly protected - all trees over a certain diameter would have the opportunity of being assessed by the LPA for a TPO when they become under threat.

[BatiArb]

A tree officer friend of mine suggested that he thought all trees shuld be protected in a similar way to trees in a conservation area.

 

At first I thought he was just wanting to have excessive control, but with time I've come round to his way of thinking.

 

 

 

 

Yes, I would agree this idea has legs......

[Bundle 2]

There's certainly alot of pressure currently on existing tree stock and I cant see that ever changing! I think there may well be the need to improve protection status....

[Amelanchier]

I think that would be a sure fire way of condemning an entire cohort of trees.

 

Quite aside from that - I doubt it would be simpler, the man hours requred to manage every notification would skyrocket. Not gonna happen with 25% cuts in the public sector.

 

I think we need to consider what our statutory protection is for? There's too much focus on keeping existing trees and whilst this is obviously important IMO we should be looking to strengthen the replacement and replanting of new trees.

 

Conservation Areas aim to protect the character of an area but fail to secure replanting. Fine, we can enforce replacements for trees removed under exemptions but a canny punter won't ask for an exemption, he'll simply give 6 weeks notice. You need planning consent to put up a sky dish on your house but its fine to plant a Cordyline australis in a inland rural setting or a puny Salix caprea 'Kilmarnock' at the front of a Georgian town house. CAs do nothing to prevent the insidious dilution of character in the green landscape, they simply stall it by clinging on to the old. Every tree will become exempt one day, all trees die - if the owners simply notify of their removal when they appear to be on the way out, its nigh on impossible to TPO them and even harder to convince the owners that they should register for an exemption so you can hit them with a replacement notice. We have character statements for conservation areas, these could include a limited palette of appropriate species for planting, enforceable at the discretion of the LPA upon notification of intent to fell or remove.

 

TPOs are too complicated and too hardcore. We should be able to give a list of acceptable works with an Order without the need for an application. In fact I'm sure we probably could under the existing regs but it should be clarified and emphasised in the guidance. What is the point in requiring an application for repollarding for example? A TPO on a pollard should include an exemption for re-pollarding it on a 3/5/10 year cycle (to appropriate best practice of course and with the owner simply notifying of the date of works). Why can't we give some flexibility back where we can assess there is no harm in doing so? Proactive consent for the everyday crown lifts and clearance pruning involving the removal of branches below 50mm in diameter? The Batho report dismissed the idea of individual tree management plans but some early common sense would help tree owners.

 

And let's not forget the abortion that was Labour's draft heritage bill - the one that had the potential to give us Green Monument status for all our veterans, recognising their unique status and the ineffectiveness of TPOs in safeguarding their value. Shelved due to the war and the recession.

 

In any case, the jolly old coalition is asking for suggestions chaps, answers on a postcard to ... [email protected] not sure they want to hear requests for more legislation though!

[Bundle 2]

you make some good points Tony....

[Yorkshireman]

I would love to have a quid for every time i've been told that oaks & yew cant be cut down as they are nationally protected

 

So

As this is a common mis conception could this not be played too ?

ie set genus/DBH protections given that a tree of desired retentions should automatically get some note worthyness/ protection

 

that said I can see an attempt to mass eradicate trees by certain tree owenrs prior to an effective date of any legislation being binding just in case then get lumbered..

[Bundle 2]

I would love to have a quid for every time i've been told that oaks & yew cant be cut down as they are nationally protected

 

So

As this is a common mis conception could this not be played too ?

ie set genus/DBH protections given that a tree of desired retentions should automatically get some note worthyness/ protection

 

that said I can see an attempt to mass eradicate trees by certain tree owenrs prior to an effective date of any legislation being binding just in case then get lumbered..

 

Honestly....? I think if by the time you have actually read and absorbed the reports and research, commissioned by govt, into the need for and provision of development space, it is not atall as simple a matter as you are suggesting.

Planning policy guidance and directives are tiered as you should probably be well aware of, being passed down from central govt, to local administration.

Sure, there is always room for some degree of interpretation and this is right and proper. Locally, the situation on the ground is not going to be the same for all LPA's. Similarly, the degree to which the LA is staffed for tree care considerations , and it must be said, trained in some instances, also differs.

That said, I would reiterate the point that there exists some pressure from govt on local govt to surrender appropriate land for the needs of infrastructure development. It is unlikely that the legislation could benefit from such a prescriptive measure and defeats the point of tree care professionals in one sense.

What I should like to see is for LPA's to carry out a comprehensive survey of infrastructure to include trees. Only by knowing what there is can you make a realistic judgement as to the suitability of certain projects and demands. Otherwise all this guff about "sustainability" and the like is no more than rhetoric.

But we all know what the current coalition thinks about the consensus...

 

Whilst I dont necessarily agree that spending cuts aimed at the welfare state, and in this i include the services of local govt depts, the point highlighted above re: the onerous nature of increases to spending is pertinent!

I agree also though that tree ownership need not be made a burden. In this regard, striking the correct balance is not as simple or straightforward as it may at first seem.

Now I dont know whether "Tree Protection legislation" in the UK is the most sophisticated in Europe but Im not sure we need throw out the baby with the bathwater either!

[arb culture]

Tony, I did say 'similar', not 'the same same as' current CA legislation.

 

The ins and outs are way too complicated to go into at the moment (not enough time sorry), but there would be no major need for an increase in manhours required by the TO if the legislation is both streamlined and effective.

 

There would be no paperwork for most trees - the notification comes in, as TO you already know the area (and possibly even the tree) in question so you ask yourself -is it worthy of a TPO? - if not, just make a note and let them get on with it - if it is then you put a TPO on it and you have just complied with your legal duty to protect trees under section 147.

 

A standard statement in the council database is all that's usually required - no paperwork.

[Amelanchier]

Tony, I did say 'similar', not 'the same same as' current CA legislation.

 

The ins and outs are way too complicated to go into at the moment (not enough time sorry), but there would be no major need for an increase in manhours required by the TO if the legislation is both streamlined and effective.

 

There would be no paperwork for most trees - the notification comes in, as TO you already know the area (and possibly even the tree) in question so you ask yourself -is it worthy of a TPO? - if not, just make a note and let them get on with it - if it is then you put a TPO on it and you have just complied with your legal duty to protect trees under section 147.

 

A standard statement in the council database is all that's usually required - no paperwork.

 

197...

 

I'll wait for you to flesh this in a bit before making any detailed comments but I wonder - how do you get there from here?

 

In a rural district like the one I used to work in, the idea that you would be able to avoid site visits for even half the trees with notified works is way out IMO.