TPO Root Damage

[daltontrees]

Thanks for the interesting reference to the case that refined the definition of 'intention'. Still sounds to me like one definition is 'wilful' and the other is more like 'reckless'. But with the penalties being so severe who wants to take a chance?

 

TPO legislation CANNOT be used to prevent a land use, it can only be used to penalise unauthorised tree work (including felling). The land use can be an old estblished one or a new one. And if the landowner protected the roots and continued the use there would be nothing the Council could do under TPO law to stop it.

 

The Council could use OTHER legislation to stop the use. If it is trying to use TPO law it is barking up the wrong tree and won't I think get very far with formal action.

 

As it stands with the roots unprotected the Council would have to prove that the landowner, purposefully for the indirect and foreseeable outcome of destroying the trees, allows your friend to have customers drive over the roots of the trees once a month. I doubt if that is the intention of the TPO laws , if the landowner was at all purposeful about getting rid of the trees there would be easier quicker and more certain ways of doing it.

[daltontrees]

Sorry, I meant to say again my understanding is based on Scottish law. And is no substitute for commissioned advice.

[treebloke]

My friend has operated a pay and play off road business at the site since 2006 (once a month, sticking to the existing tracks), with permission from the land owner. There appears to be politics at play within the local authority, but the long and the short of it is that they are now forcing my friend to stop operating as a result of the existing TPO and evidential root damage.

Does the LA have grounds to stop the current/historic use of this land as a result of the TPO?

 

I guess your friend knows he can operate the 4x4 business under the 14/28day rule without planning permission and the LPA will also know this. However, it does not allow him to damage the TPO'd trees which is a seperate issue and I would assume some thing he would want to avoid. In my experience there is often more damage than just roots, roll cages and winch strops strip bark very easily, I cannot think of any woodland we use which does not have trees affected in this way.

[monkeybusiness]

I guess your friend knows he can operate the 4x4 business under the 14/28day rule without planning permission and the LPA will also know this. However, it does not allow him to damage the TPO'd trees which is a seperate issue and I would assume some thing he would want to avoid. In my experience there is often more damage than just roots, roll cages and winch strops strip bark very easily, I cannot think of any woodland we use which does not have trees affected in this way.

 

He has permission legally to use the woods for his business no probs. The site is used primarily by relatively standard road going 4x4s (no winch challenge trucks etc) and nobody is allowed to stray off the existing tracks. I honestly didn't notice any tree damage when I went for a walk around with him (other than the exposed roots that are the subject of this thread) - there has been a TPO on the woodland as long as my friend has operated his business there and he has been very careful not to damage any trees. The root damage is only occurring in some of the old tracks that have been used for as long as my friend has based his business at the site - these tracks were already well established/used by the land owner and trespassers prior to the business being set up. I would personally argue that any root damage has been done long ago and is unlikely to get any worse through continued usage - the trees affected aren't showing any signs of stress that I could see. None of the affected trees have any other constraining factors within the root area - they are all growing within unmanaged woodland so have unlimited room to grow new roots away from the tracks. The trespassing issue has been stopped, significantly reducing the levels of traffic previously using the site.

[Tim Williams]

speak to the Local TO, i would suggest that as it is a legitimate use of the wood some common sense is required. if the damage is too roots on existing tracks then i would hope this could continue, for example a TPo could be placed on a commercial wood, would a logger be prosecuted for damage to tree roots on an existing track that is damaged as he drives the harvester or forwarder into the woods, i would doubt it.