Tree preservation orders announcement

[Bundle 2]

":There would be no paperwork for most trees - the notification comes in, as TO you already know the area (and possibly even the tree)..."

 

This is not a realistic reflection of the situation either imo ....!

[arb culture]

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.

 

Oh, I completely forgot to mention one of the factors which would need to be included.

 

At the moment, LA land areas are already designated as built up or rural.

 

The new system would only apply to built up (ie urban and suburban) areas.

 

Rural areas wuld be controlled in a similar way as they are now -by the forestry act and the proposed new streamlined and consistent TPO legislation.

 

By the way, this idea is not mine, I'm just saying that over time I've come round the the originator's way of thinking.

 

The tree officer who suggested this was based in a mainly urban an peri urban LA, but with significant rural (but well populated) areas.

[arb culture]

":There would be no paperwork for most trees - the notification comes in, as TO you already know the area (and possibly even the tree)..."

 

This is not a realistic reflection of the situation either imo ....!

 

In my time spent as tree officer I very quickly got to know which areas had the valuable trees, and I also got to know many of the notable individual trees - it didn't take long - a few months perhaps.

 

Have you ever worked as a TO Bundle?

[arb culture]

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.

 

When I did TO work we used to get notifications for all sorts of things which don't necessarily require a site visit (although I hasten to add I did visit them because that was the rules I was working to). Judgement and guidance would of course be needed.

 

Visiting sites such as: crown lift a tree to 5m removing only branches of less than 5cm diamter and in accordance with BS3998, or remove small cherry of little value as shown in attached photo, or remove deadwood from crown, or fell dead tree as shown etc. made me feel that my time could be better spent elsewhere.

 

As for the other side of your question, that it would produce too much work; are you therefore suggesting that the felling of valuable trees is okay just because you, as tree officer, haven't got the time to check whether or not the tree is valuable before it is felled.

 

I really doubt that, so I'm not quite sure what your objection is?

[Bundle 2]

In my time spent as tree officer I very quickly got to know which areas had the valuable trees, and I also got to know many of the notable individual trees - it didn't take long - a few months perhaps.

 

Have you ever worked as a TO Bundle?

 

Point taken...It seems to go hand in hand with site visits though surely. You cannot become acquainted with a district ( to whatever degree) without in some way viewing that district?

 

"Have you ever worked as a TO Bundle?"-No. Its a job I would like to have some experience of .

[Bundle 2]

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

 

There is also a point in here I tend to agree with. Whilst replanting (& equally, new planting) is a significant issue. ( ie, we need more ) I tend also to think that canopy cover, perhaps in more general terms, needs some degree of recognition, perhaps above and beyond requiring it to meet a level that would be considered acceptable for a TPO.

This is an important point

We need to start valuing/measuring/appraising our trees as a part, inextricably, of infrastructure in the wider sense..both urban and rural.

[arb culture]

Thanks for the reply Bundle, I found that I got acqainted with the area just by doing site visits. Don't forget, I'm not suggesting the end of TPOs, just that trees in urban and peri urban ares are subject to protection similar to trees in CA areas at the moment.

 

You also get to know an area through the various development apps that come in, and throught the TPOs you are supposed to keep up to date.

 

I hope you get the opportunity to experience TO work Bundle, it can be very rewarding.

[Amelanchier]

As for the other side of your question, that it would produce too much work; are you therefore suggesting that the felling of valuable trees is okay just because you, as tree officer, haven't got the time to check whether or not the tree is valuable before it is felled.

 

I really doubt that, so I'm not quite sure what your objection is?

 

 

Its easy to design a system that addresses each end of the scale well. Crap trees = hack away / Nice trees = TPO. Easy right?

 

However, that's not where the majority of trees are. I'd suggest that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that the amenity value of trees is normally distributed throughout the population.

 

Therefore the majority of trees tend to be of medium amenity value - subsequently it follows that the majority of works under your proposed scheme would relate to trees of middling amenity value; requiring a site visit to determine the appropriateness of a TPO simply because its not clear cut.

 

Furthermore, lets not forget that the majority of all notifications are sub standard and typically notify of an owners intent to "prune the tree". Clarifying the notifications from across an entire district neccessarily increases workload.

 

Consider enforcement - patchily implemented at best. Just how much officer time will be needed to enforce a blanket restriction on all trees over your size criteria? How many cases will fail the test of public interest?

 

Also - how do you get from here to there? How do you overlap the systems without a spike in man hours? And how do you fund that spike with the proposed budgets?

 

Don't get me wrong - the idea has legs as Andrew says. There just happen to be a lot of hurdles for those legs to get over.

[arb culture]

There's loads of points there. Just to pick up on a couple though:

 

I'd suggest that the vast majority of trees are in fact low value, not medium value. The curve will be similar to the stem diameter curves for a natural woodland. Most CA notifications are for trees of no significant value (or they were in the LA where I worked, yours might be different Tony).

 

Under the current CA system when a tree owner sends a notification that they intend to 'prune' a tree there's nothing a TO can practicably do to stop them other than put a TPO on the tree in question. If the tree is low value and they don't put a TPO on it then the owner can prune the tree however they see fit. I'm suggesting nothing different in this respect.

 

However, if the tree in question is already known to be low value, why waste time going to look at it? It doesn't matter what the quality of the notification is like if the tree is not worthy of a TPO.

[arb culture]

Tony, just wondering, have you got a better idea?