Barcham seminar. Charles Mynors, Trees & the Law

[Gary Prentice]

 

I guess that too is a matter of "perspective." Are there any LAs conducting reviews of existing TPOs?

 

Requesting a review of existing TPOs would probably receive a response similar to requesting to sleep with their sister:biggrin: Who's going to review these anyway? Planning officers who have replaced TO's with a two day course.

 

Some boroughs locally have no resident TO. some only work 2-3 days and many decisions are reached with no arb input at all. And if consent is refused anyway, felling is going on with little risk of prosecution. It's really becoming a joke and I can't see any real chance of improvement.

 

 

I put in a 5 day notice on a dead tree monday, loads of pictures included. A telephone call requesting an early viewing so we could do the work friday met with scorn. I did get a validation email saying that we'd get a response within eight weeks!

[AHPP]

Gutted to have missed this. Only saw the thread a couple of days before and it was already overbooked by then. Can someone put a thread on here next time it's on please. I'll hopefully spot it in better time...

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Keep that one quiet with the residents, I'd say!

 

 

I'm not sure I understand why you might want to do that.

 

If there was a situation where tension existed between neighbours as a consequence of encroachment / nuisance, wouldn't it be better to facilitate a "release valve" for the tension which would surely escalate with the passing of time?

 

You could say, there's no need to "facilitate" the "release valve" since it appears there would be no requirement to seek any "approval" for abatement of nuisance from a tree subject to TPO, the person seeking the abatement could just carry on under their right in common law (23.6.5)

 

So rather than asking if, or not, it ought to be "kept quiet", I guess I'm asking what would you do if the question was asked by somebody seeking to cut back an encroaching TPO tree? Would you:

 

(A) tell them there's no need to seek approval (but there are restrictions on the nature & extent of the abatement

(B) grant a TPO work approval with conditions

© refuse a TPO application?

 

Interested to hear what you (and others) think....

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Requesting a review of existing TPOs would probably receive a response similar to requesting to sleep with their sister:biggrin: Who's going to review these anyway? Planning officers who have replaced TO's with a two day course.

 

!

 

 

I've tried the informal/ verbal approach Gary, pretty much laughed at as you forecast!

 

Guess it'll have to be a formal written submission to planning then!

[Kveldssanger]

Barchams hospitality was first class! Food & beverage on the day was spot on. The opportunity to meet the team the day before, tour the nursery and an invitation to join Dr Mynors, Keith and Stephanie for dinner was an unexpected bonus!

 

Absolutely was.

 

Was talking to Stephanie at lunch. Very clever woman - clearly cares a lot about what she does, which is always important. I think Charles hinted she may help him with the next edition of his book.

 

During the seminar I sat next to a lady from a local volunteer woodland group. At the end, after listening intently and taking many notes throughout the day, she said "He doesn't like trees does he?"

 

I can't say I felt the same way. His views are what one would expect, as you suggest. In a manner of speaking, I consider his views to align with a sort of pragmatism when it comes to trees management.

 

I thought it was a really strange observation so pressed a bit further, she had formed the view that the main thrust of the briefing was ways in which trees can "legally" be cut down / back.

 

Interesting...

 

I think she may have missed the point that legalities are important when trees and people come into conflict and, although there was much talk and many examples of cutting / felling, sometimes that course of action is entirely appropriate and we need to appreciate the restrictions and opportunities that are available within the bounds of good practice, cooperation and, ultimately, the law.

 

I believe the law needs to take the well-being of the tree into account more readly, but for the most part yes I agree with this remark.

 

Not quite sure what her expectation was but surely if you go to a seminar delivered by a legal professional, you might expect to hear examples of where trees and humans (or humans / humans with a tree as a sub text) come into conflict? Nice lady all the same and useful to consider the content of the day from her perspective, not something I would have done otherwise.

 

It's always good to pool together differing views and realign or redefine yours in response, or at least broaden your own horizons of thought.

 

It's also interesting to see people suggesting more TPOs.

 

Frankly we need them. Urban environments are sterile, carrying capacities of urban ecosystems are pretty piss poor, and the general level of respect for trees is rather low when it comes to the layman having his light blocked out by a mature oak.

 

I guess that too is a matter of "perspective." Are there any LAs conducting reviews of existing TPOs?

 

I am trying to, though finding the time is another thing...

[Kveldssanger]

I'm not sure I understand why you might want to do that.

 

If there was a situation where tension existed between neighbours as a consequence of encroachment / nuisance, wouldn't it be better to facilitate a "release valve" for the tension which would surely escalate with the passing of time?

 

You could say, there's no need to "facilitate" the "release valve" since it appears there would be no requirement to seek any "approval" for abatement of nuisance from a tree subject to TPO, the person seeking the abatement could just carry on under their right in common law (23.6.5)

 

So rather than asking if, or not, it ought to be "kept quiet", I guess I'm asking what would you do if the question was asked by somebody seeking to cut back an encroaching TPO tree? Would you:

 

(A) tell them there's no need to seek approval (but there are restrictions on the nature & extent of the abatement

(B) grant a TPO work approval with conditions

© refuse a TPO application?

 

Interested to hear what you (and others) think....

 

Legally, I'd be required to do A. Ideally, I'd do B. If reducing branches back in a linear fashion detracts from the amenity value of the tree significantly, or makes the tree structurally questionable, what then happens? I would therefore prefer a TPO application to always come in, as an extra level of safeguarding against shoddy works.

[Kveldssanger]

Gutted to have missed this. Only saw the thread a couple of days before and it was already overbooked by then. Can someone put a thread on here next time it's on please. I'll hopefully spot it in better time...

 

I did put this thread up the day it was posted by Barcham. It just booked out that fast...

[Kveldssanger]

Requesting a review of existing TPOs would probably receive a response similar to requesting to sleep with their sister:biggrin: Who's going to review these anyway? Planning officers who have replaced TO's with a two day course.

 

I'm happy to review, as long as there's no devious motive involved, or a bid to then usurp my judgement.

 

Some boroughs locally have no resident TO. some only work 2-3 days and many decisions are reached with no arb input at all. And if consent is refused anyway, felling is going on with little risk of prosecution. It's really becoming a joke and I can't see any real chance of improvement.

 

We have three arb' officers, though our jobs also involve contract monitoring of other grounds contracts. Not 100% arb', now.

 

It is unfortunate that arb' officers aren't seen as essential in some LAs. Simply highlights the level of ignorance of the industry by laymen, frankly.

 

 

I put in a 5 day notice on a dead tree monday, loads of pictures included. A telephone call requesting an early viewing so we could do the work friday met with scorn. I did get a validation email saying that we'd get a response within eight weeks!

 

Hah!

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Legally, I'd be required to do A. Ideally, I'd do B. If reducing branches back in a linear fashion detracts from the amenity value of the tree significantly, or makes the tree structurally questionable, what then happens? I would therefore prefer a TPO application to always come in, as an extra level of safeguarding against shoddy works.

 

 

Thanks for all the comments above, appreciate the feedback!

[Kveldssanger]

You're welcome.

 

Up again next week for the Glynn Percival talk. May see some of you there.