Tree preservation orders announcement

[Amelanchier]

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

 

That's fine, the others aren't going anywhere when you're ready

 

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).

 

I dunno - I'd accept that it might well have a skew toward the lower end but a natural variable such as stem diameter is characteristic of a simple population biomass pyramid. Amenity doesn't play by those kind of arithmetic rules. The system still requires site visits for the middle ground whether that covers 50% of the population or 20% - its still an increase in workload.

 

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..

 

The Blue Book is clear in this respect, which is why I used it. (My emphasis in bold) -

 

9.5 It is vitally important that the section 211 notice sets out clearly what work is proposed. This should be straightforward if the proposal is to fell a tree, as long as the tree is clearly identified. But if the proposal is to prune a tree the section 211 notice should clarify exactly what work is envisaged. A proposal simply to 'top' the tree or to 'lop' or 'cut back' some branches is too vague because it fails to describe the extent of the work. People are advised not to submit a section 211 notice until they are in a position to present a clear proposal. They should consider first discussing their ideas with an arboriculturist or the tree officer of the LPA.

 

9.6 If the LPA receive a vague section 211 notice they are advised to refer back to the person who submitted it. Any clarification of the proposal should be confirmed in writing, either by modifying the original section 211 notice or withdrawing it and submitting a new one.

 

Viola! Increased workload.

 

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.

 

Yes it does. You're oversimplifying the value issue again - what about the tree that has amenity value but just not enough to TPO it? Is it OK if the owner wants to top it at 6metres because it blocks the TV signal? You suggest creating the same wrangling and informal dialouge that goes on already in conservation areas (which often takes the LPA right up to the 6 week deadline) to the whole country. That's gonna be more work.

 

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

 

No, not one that reduces workload whilst increasing protection.

 

Do I need one?

[Bundle 2]

"Yes it does. You're oversimplifying the value issue again - what about the tree that has amenity value but just not enough to TPO it? Is it OK if the owner wants to top it at 6metres because it blocks the TV signal? You suggest creating the same wrangling and informal dialogue that goes on already in conservation areas ..."

 

i would n't know about the wrangling ( ! as if..) but this is the point I was trying to make....

 

"No, not one that reduces workload whilst increasing protection. "

 

That would be good. Even one that managed to increase/improve protection without significantly increasing workload. And mostly because trees are undervalued ( its a perception thing) we need to come up with a wee bit of magic!

[Amelanchier]

Even one that managed to increase/improve protection without significantly increasing workload. And mostly because trees are undervalued ( its a perception thing) we need to come up with a wee bit of magic!

 

Its a tough one isn't it. Another issue is how to increase protection without increasing resentment. Before you designate a conservation area you have to consult with the public - if you don't want them hacking all their trees down during that period you have to serve TPOs. Which means a lot of work and normally, a lot of objections. Not much fun IME.

 

Anyway - I'm not convinced this government is looking for ways to scale up the powers of the LPA. Their focus is localism, I wonder if that can be harnessed in any meaning way?