TPO law of the Dead....wood

[Jontreasure]

An interesting isuse came up the other day at the company I sub-contract for.

 

They where under the inpression that deadwood can be removed from a tree covered by a TPO with out consent, under the Dead, Dieing and Dangerous clause. I to used to beleive this, however having discussed this at collage I now know this must be incorect.

 

The example I was given was that a major part of a veteran tree is it's deadwood habitat and the removal of the deadwood would involve heavy pruning therefore seriously affecting the nature of the tree.

 

If the DDD clause can be used in such a manor surley this reduces the strengh of the Tree Prevervation Order significantly.

 

The point I'm trying to make (all be it long winded) is that if, as I belive, pemission must be granted to remove deadwood from a tree subject to a TPO. How many companies out there are inadvertantly giving poor advise to customers and breaking the law.

 

Any thoughts please.

[Amelanchier]

I'm afraid the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the most recent primary legislation) still includes dead material in the TPO exemptions regardless of any new aboricultural practices. Therefore treating dead material as exempt is not breaking the law - you would not be prosecuted under the T&CPA for removing it.

 

If it forms a habitat for protected species... that would be a different thing (singularly more complicated as well!)

[Yorkshireman]

permission does not need to be sought when using the exemptions, they are there for a purpose not for the hell of it,

it is the responsibility of the person(s) responsible for any works to support / evidence offer proof that they were right to use an exemption,

 

if the canopy of the tree is solely supported on 'dead wood' then that part 'must' then also be dead as the translocation process does not occur through dead cambial vessels

 

habitat does not = keep dead wood ,

 

risk management is a strong factor in any decision, when managing tree stock

 

Again if the % Dead wood is such that the tree is no longer viable then DDD again comes to play, whether that means complete removal of the specimen or leaving sufficent material as to sustain habit again that is a decision to be taken,

risk v perceived reward.

[Bundle 2]

The Countryside & Rights of Way Act 2000 does however introduce the notion of "reckless " as it relates to the destruction of habitat....again, the owness would it appears to be on the arborist to satisfy any query as to the legal implications....not strictly TPO but not necessarily outside of its scope....

[Jontreasure]

Thanks for the replies, I was clearly mistaken. However i find it interesting that any deadwood can be removed from trees protect by TPOs as their main purpose is to preserve amenity for the public.

[Frimsley]

I'm afraid the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the most recent primary legislation) still includes dead material in the TPO exemptions

 

Actually, it doesn't. Not in those terms anyway. The relevant part of the act (s 198 (6) (a) if you're really interested) states that a TPO does not prevent

the cutting down, uprooting, topping or lopping of trees which are dying or dead or have become dangerous

 

Note that that is dead trees, not dead wood within a tree.

 

The question of dead wood is dealt with by government guidance, in the form of a statement within the "Blue Book"

 

In the Secretary of State's view, this exemption allows the removal of dead wood from a tree or the removal of dangerous branches from an otherwise sound tree

 

But remember that this is only guidance, not the law. The SoS can, and in my view should, change their view on this. As you rightly say, this interpretation of the exemption severely weakens the power of a TPO to protect veterans. This is particularly ridiculous in the light of more recent guidance (circular 06/05) which has suggested that nature conservation value is a valid reason for making a TPO. Hardly a lot of point if the TPO is then powerless to stop the most important habitat within the tree being removed.

[Amelanchier]

Fair dinkum - cheers Chris

[scudmonster]

I would always give the LPA 3 days notice of your intention so that they can explain to alarmed members of the public and so they know what you are doing thus preventing irrate tree officers or planners.

Being an ex tree officer this would have always been appreciated.

[monkeypuzzle22]

Some good points...It is a fair comment to say that the TPO is weak when it comes to protecting vets. I have had a lot of recent discussion with the LA regarding vet's on land for development and have tried to argue their protection through any means, providing it does not conflict with H+S to members of the public, as this should be, in my opinion, a strong consideration.

 

Good to hear from you Treasure....

[Jontreasure]

Note that that is dead trees, not dead wood within a tree.

 

The question of dead wood is dealt with by government guidance, in the form of a statement within the "Blue Book"

 

Glad to know my point wasn't completely unfounded.

 

 

Good to hear from you Treasure....

 

Likewise

Hows the job going? As interesting as you'd hoped?