Trees and planning - TDAG consultation

[Paul Barton]

Given the various interesting discussions that have cropped up on here over the years, I thought some of you may be interested in providing some input to a consultation the Trees and Design Action Group are running at the moment: http://www.tdag.org.uk/uploads/4/2/8/0/4280686/tdagsw_-_trees_and_the_planning_process_consultation_01-05-15.pdf

[Andy Clark]

Would love to be a fly on the wall and read the responses that they get to this. My spider sense tells me that they are more likely to receive examples of bad practice than of good. Hopefully I'm wrong.

[Gary Prentice]

The biggest weakness in the plannimg process is 1) lack of tree officer involvement and 2) lack of policing i.e. TO's regularly visiting the site duting the construction phase.

 

From the news I've been hearing over on UKTC more LA's are getting rid of TO's and replacing their duties by planning officers who have taken a one day course.

[Paul Barton]

The biggest weakness in the plannimg process is 1) lack of tree officer involvement and 2) lack of policing i.e. TO's regularly visiting the site duting the construction phase.

 

From the news I've been hearing over on UKTC more LA's are getting rid of TO's and replacing their duties by planning officers who have taken a one day course.

 

Yep, that's happening alot.

 

And the wages are now so bad that some tree officers reflect the peanuts salary they are paid.

[Andy Clark]

The biggest weakness in the plannimg process is 1) lack of tree officer involvement and 2) lack of policing i.e. TO's regularly visiting the site duting the construction phase.

 

From the news I've been hearing over on UKTC more LA's are getting rid of TO's and replacing their duties by planning officers who have taken a one day course.

 

Not sure if it's the "biggest", but it's certainly a major factor.

 

A lot of architects, developers, even home and land owners, still don't even realise that 5837 exists, or that general trees, not just those with tpos or under cons area constraints, come under general planning policy protection.

 

You often find, still, that no matter how strong your survey is, if one is even done, and how much detail your method statement contains about site supervision and tree protection etc, you get very little more than a "ok, we'll be in touch" when you submit the final copy, and then never hear from the client again.

[daltontrees]

Would love to be a fly on the wall and read the responses that they get to this. My spider sense tells me that they are more likely to receive examples of bad practice than of good. Hopefully I'm wrong.

 

Or hoefully you're right and then maybe TDAG will get government to do something about it. We all know already whats going on. endless cots means endless bleeding.

[Jesse]

Just off on one, i still can not believe the number of cat R trees in my area, that were not protected , why would they be , and are still standing , 6, 7 years on now in established settings and most doing very well.

[Gary Prentice]

I went to the TDAG book launch event in Manchester earlier this year.Having gone straight from site and wearing high-viz clothing I stuck out like a sore thumb with all the 'suits' there. Maybe that, in itself, is an issue - preaching to the converted and not to the people working with and around trees that are meant to be protected on sites.

 

I sat and listened to a speaker from one of the large civil engineering companies, I can't remember which one, whilst he extolled a landmark highways scheme at Poynton, Cheshire. A nice powerpoint ran in the background showing mature roadside trees that had been protected and incorporated into the scheme. Looked lovely.

 

Well I may or may not have been involved in part of that scheme, but I do know that what we saw wasn't the whole story. It would be interesting to see the same trees in another five years, because after the wearing coat is installed a lot lies hidden beneath. The planning officers and Project Managers sit in an office, visiting site for a meeting or short walk around now and again blissfully unaware of what is really occurring. They think the system is working and have a nice warm feeling about saving the environment.

 

On the ground, not unlike putting the CDM regs into practice, the people who matter, the ones who can really do the damage just don't understand the application properly. I'm not trying to say it's every site but it's certainly a large percentage in my experience. I see numerous examples on every site I go to, to be honest I'm giving up trying to educate people about the RPA because generally I don't think people on site give a toss about them, they're just another barrier to completing the project. As long as there's no visible damage - there's no problem.

[daltontrees]

Get your consultation response in, Gaz. Don't educate, put up barriers. That's the only way that really works.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Given the various interesting discussions that have cropped up on here over the years, I thought some of you may be interested in providing some input to a consultation the Trees and Design Action Group are running at the moment: http://www.tdag.org.uk/uploads/4/2/8/0/4280686/tdagsw_-_trees_and_the_planning_process_consultation_01-05-15.pdf

 

Paul,

 

I was reading the thread http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/general-chat/87995-5-day-notice.html a while back.

 

It seemed to me that it could be the case that a dead tree with a TPO might not be considered as "valuable', or perhaps to put it another way "worthy of protection" as a living tree since a full TPO app would be required for a living tree but only a 5 day exemption if it were dead (notwithstanding there may be circumstances where a dead tree might present unacceptable levels of 'risk' or management burden, but surely it could also offer enhanced habitat and aesthetic / amenity worth also?)

 

It struck me that it appeared to be "assumed" within the current construct of regulation that since the tree was dead it automatically receives less attention than if it were living.

 

Appreciate your view on wether this is something that might be considered.

 

Equally, if there's a well argued reason why dead = 5 day exemption, living = TPO app I'd appreciate an insight to that if you know of it.

 

Another point that I have not been able to get a satisfactory answer (from nearby LA's) is the question of review, variation and revocation of existing TPOs.

 

To summarise the responses I've received locally, it's pretty much a case of "we don't do that, insufficient resources."

 

I can example where this has led to frustration, expense and antipathy from a land owner towards both the LA and the prospect of having TPO's applied in the future.

 

Not sure if these would be the type of question / feedback that might be welcome but if you think they are, I'll get on and get some detail together and send it on to the address in the link.