What constitutes a public place

[woodyguy]

That's an interesting point. My garden is very secluded but on the flight path for an airport. So my big beech tree (that can't be seen from the ground by anybody but me) is seen by thousands per day in the air. Where does it end???

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Could you describe part or all of the rationale for the objection?? Does the land owner want to develop or do they not "like" the tree or is there a perceived risk from it? Not directly related to the original question about public view but might help (me) to understand the "why" of the appeal / objection. No worries if you think that would be indiscreet or inappropriate.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

That's an interesting point. My garden is very secluded but on the flight path for an airport. So my big beech tree (that can't be seen from the ground by anybody but me) is seen by thousands per day in the air. Where does it end???

 

 

Hubble space telescope! We're all DOOMED!

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Google street view?

[oslac]

I won't go into too much detail as my client, the Planning Inspector, LPA etc. deserve anonymity.

 

An application was made to remove a tree on various grounds (lack of visual amenity, safety etc). The tree is growing in a quite small rear garden. There are probably 20 gardens in total forming a long oblong area. This is surrounded by 5 storey terraced houses. Tree is not visible from any of the public roads (Inspectors comment). It can only be seen from the rear of the houses which abut the aforementioned gardens.

 

The Inspector states that where there are sufficient number of views from private properties, they constitute a public view. The Inspector goes on to say that there is no defining number of properties which form a public view. The Inspector concludes that as there are enough (views) from the surrounding terraces that the tree has public visibility and therefore public amenity value in terms of the TPO

 

The question therefore is how many properties overlooking a TPO tree would be required to give the tree public amenity value.

[nepia]

The question therefore is how many properties overlooking a TPO tree would be required to give the tree public amenity value.

 

Not definable: each case would have to be judged on its merits, taking all factors into account, not just the number of views. That, ultimately, could only be decided by a court I guess if all avenues of appeal were exhausted and the aggrieved party still wanted to take it further.

[oslac]

Not definable: each case would have to be judged on its merits, taking all factors into account, not just the number of views. That, ultimately, could only be decided by a court I guess if all avenues of appeal were exhausted and the aggrieved party still wanted to take it further.

 

Yep. Makes it all the harder to put together a cogent argument to remove TPO trees in relation to public visibility when trees are growing in back gardens. Might as well toss a coin because I cannot see how sound advice can be given to the tree's owner other than . . maybe/maybe not, who knows.

 

If this is how the Inspector comes to a decision in relation to TPO trees, what hope is there for removing trees as part of a BS 5837 development.

 

As for appealing to the High Court . . A partner in a law firm once said to me that he would never take a case to the High Court, would not happen. Its too expensive, too risky, too time consuming and too stressful. So de facto . . The Planning Inspector is the last stop.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Just a thought, because I'm faced with a loosely similar situation...

 

What was the date the TPO was initiated and has it been reviewed since implementation? Would the tree in its current status / form warrant a TPO today?

 

I'm working on some >100yo Mont Pine, group TPO initiated in the 60's. Little if any active "management" of dead / hanging limbs on record since TPO in 60's, several trees terminally damaged and TPO approval gained to fell. I informally asked TO if a reevaluation of appropriateness of sustaining the TPO might be an option. Response was loosely along the lines that there are insufficient resources to review existing TPOs.

[daltontrees]

The question therefore is how many properties overlooking a TPO tree would be required to give the tree public amenity value.

 

I think you've subsequently answered this yorself. It's however many the Inspector says are required. And as long as his decision is within the paramaters of 'reasonable', that may be the end of it.

[oslac]

Yes that is so. Planning Inspector is the great overlord and we all agree to be subject to his (or her's) rule. I would just like to know the rules of the game before I start playing.