Tpo area

[daltontrees]

If an area is covered by a tpo does each tree have to be listed on the docs?

I have been asked to remove a well trimmed copper beech which falls within this area. On the docs there are species stated but not beech.

The tpo was made in 1977 and I've been told if I am able to prove the tree was planted after this time it is not covered.

What is the most accurate way to determine the age of a tree without any records?

 

Thanks for any help.

 

Many enthusiastic responses, but no-one yet has tried to answer the question.

 

Firstly I note that the oldest the tree can be is 2014 -1977 = 37, plus the age it was when the TPO was made. The age it was then must have been low enough for it not to have been included in the Order. Although the Conservation Area rule of 75mm diameter doesn't apply to area TPOs, you could argue that any tree that small couldn't have entered the COuncil's thinking when making the TPO.

 

OK, so the Forestry Commission a few years ago published data for ageing trees. Basically, until 'mature state' trees are in 'core development' and put on the same amount (subject to weather fluctuations) of diameter every year. For Beech the lowest 'first mature state' ring is at 60 years.

 

The next thing is, the amount of diameter depends on situation. The annual increase in diameter in milllimetres is -

 

Champion tree potential (ideal site conditions) 12

Good site, open grown, sheltered 10

Average site, garden, parkland 8

Churchyard 8

Poor ground and/or some exposure 8

Inside woodland 6

 

So you could decide which of these categories represents the conditions of your tree for most of its life. Then measure the diameter of your tree and divide by the relevant number. That should be the age. Then take the category number again and divide it into 75mm. That will be the age that should be deducted for the early years cut-off assumption.

 

Here's an example (I'm confusing myself so this will help me too). You have a Beech on an average site, it measures 400mm in diameter. The data suggests it will have put on 8mm diameter a year. 400 divided by 8 is 50 years. But it was not TPOable until it was 75mm/8mm = about 9 years old. So its TPOable age is 50 - 9 = 41 years.

 

In your case the TPOable cut-off would have been 2014 - 1977 = 37 years. So the tree in this example would have been just big enough in 1977 to be TPOable (it would have been 50 - 37 = 13 years old and would have been 13 x 8mm = 104mm in diameter).

 

Further advice - check that Copper Beech and Common Beech have the same growth rate, or else the FC figures are useless to you. Also, assume self-seeding rather than planting. Check that site conditions haven't changed markedly since 1977, including whether the surrounding trees were big enough back then to suppress the Beech. Don't use these figures if the age seems to exceed 60 years. And most importantly, don't blame me if it doesn't work out, I can only advise on generalities and am quoting the Forestry Commission.

 

As ever [sigh] I have had to assume you are in England/Wales. If you're not, the rules are different.

[daltontrees]

Best way of finding out if it was planted before a certain date is cut it down and count the rings.

 

You're shafted if you're wrong though!

 

Yeah, and so is the tree.

[Chris at eden]

Would you take the chance? Considering there could be a £10,000 fine if you're wrong!

 

The standard fine is £20,000 and could be unlimited in rare circumstances but i take your point, always good to keep the TO onside. Quite right. I did say that i a later post as i thought i came across a bit blunt in some of my comments. Not my intention, it was late and i had just finished writing a nightmare mortgage report so sorry about that.

 

To be clear though, if you have a TPO from the 1960's with an area designation that has never been varied, and there is a 10 year old tree on it, i would be quite happy to say its not protected to a client. I'm not suggesting anyone else do the same, that is their decision. But, remember the level of evidence required for prosecution.

 

1. The LPA have to prove beyond reasonable doubt on 3 counts, one of which that the tree was protected. How could they do this in the circumstances i described above? i.e. 40 year old area order with a 10 year old tree and never varied?

 

2. If you had to mount a defence against a prosecution this would take place in the civil arena meaning that you would only have to show on the balance of probabilities that the tree was not protected, i.e. a 51% chance. If you could show that the tree is only 10 years old and that the TPO area only covers those trees present 40 years ago. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

 

Basically the council would have to show that the tree was almost certainly protected and you would only have to show that it was more than likley not. These are very different levels of evidence.

 

Not suggesting anyone takes this approach as it doesn't build good relations with the TO and you would have to be sure of your facts but the original post was quite right, areas only cover trees present on the date they were served or presumably varied. Not sure why you would vary an area order though.

 

Cheers,

[treequip]

I have also dealt with area tpo's made back in the 70's & some contain a covenant whereby any future trees that grow within the area are covered.

 

As said, speak to the tree officer, don't risk it.

 

There are no covenants in TPO legislation, you might want to look up the difference between an are a order and a woodland order though.

[Chris at eden]

Should be noted though that the situation in the original post does not seem as straight forward as the one i presented so you should speak with the TO. He/she may well update the TPO though if it meets the criteria for visual amenity.

[treequip]

The standard fine is £20,000 and could be unlimited in rare circumstances......

Cheers,

 

There is no standard fine, there is a tariff, of which 20k is the maximum. It's up to sentencing what sum the fine lands at.

[daltontrees]

There is no standard fine, there is a tariff, of which 20k is the maximum. It's up to sentencing what sum the fine lands at.

 

Not quite correct, fines are unlimited on indictment. Not that indictment is likely in this case.

[Chris at eden]

There is no standard fine, there is a tariff, of which 20k is the maximum. It's up to sentencing what sum the fine lands at.

 

Definition:

 

A specific tariff is levied as a fixed fee based on the type of item (e.g., $1,000 on any car). An ad-valorem tariff is levied based on the item’s value (e.g., 10% of the car’s value).

 

I can see how changing the wording from standard fine to tariff significantly changes the message conveyed!!! £20k is also not the maximum in reality as was recently shown by the Borough of Poole. £150k if memory serves me correct.

[treequip]

Definition:

 

A specific tariff is levied as a fixed fee based on the type of item (e.g., $1,000 on any car). An ad-valorem tariff is levied based on the item’s value (e.g., 10% of the car’s value).

 

I can see how changing the wording from standard fine to tariff significantly changes the message conveyed!!! £20k is also not the maximum in reality as was recently shown by the Borough of Poole. £150k if memory serves me correct.

 

I didn't say the word should be changed to tariff the point was that there isn't a standard fine, it's what ever the beak decides it is, up to the maximum.

 

I used the word tariff because that is what the legal world uses despite whatever other definitions you might want to trawl up.

[treequip]

Not quite correct, fines are unlimited on indictment. Not that indictment is likely in this case.

 

The point was the non existent standard fine.

The unlimited had been satisfactorily addressed