Woodland TPO.

[Gary Prentice]

Yes.

 

There's been a long debate on this elsewhere. A woodland is viewed as a continuing entity, that changes and evolves, which is why there is no lower stem diameter for protection.

 

But of course, again a good TO should show a degree of reasonableness one would hope.

[skyhuck]

All trees within forever. Not just those present at time of making the order like with area tpo's. Doubt it would cause much uproar if you were to apply and state that they were not there at the time and you wish to reinstate the access. Is the access mapped anywhere?

 

I would imagine so, its very clear on the original TPO plan, its got a 10ft gate and the first 15meters even has a kerb at one side and is stoned up.

[Wood wasp]

If the access is marked on the TPO plan then one would think you're not in breach of TPO maintaining said access.

 

Edit: that's just my opinion, however it would need to be a pretty mean spirited TO to take action on those grounds.

[toxicity2182]

A Woodland TPO protects all trees within the defined area, including natural regeneration - seedlings

and saplings ie. trees less than 3.5m in height are not excluded. - From the DOE in NI. Must surely apply to elsewhere in the UK I would imagine. Best get the proper permission first in any case.

[openspaceman]

Lets say there is a building with a woodland TPO, the building falls into disrepair, trees grow with the build, the owner then wishes to repair the building.

 

Would consent be needed to remove trees within the building??

 

not only would permission be needed to remove the trees but for that to happen the building would be derelict and planning permission would be required to re build it. If the planners allow the rebuild then the pp trumps the tpo.

[skyhuck]

not only would permission be needed to remove the trees but for that to happen the building would be derelict and planning permission would be required to re build it. If the planners allow the rebuild then the pp trumps the tpo.

 

What the legal definition of "derelict"???

[Johny Walker]

What the legal definition of "derelict"???

 

no complete wall standing rings a bell.theres probaly a termanolagy for it

[18 stoner]

Yes.

 

There's been a long debate on this elsewhere. A woodland is viewed as a continuing entity, that changes and evolves, which is why there is no lower stem diameter for protection.

 

But of course, again a good TO should show a degree of reasonableness one would hope.

 

Totally agree with the above.

 

Below is open for debate though. Maintaining access is different to reinstatement.

 

If the access is marked on the TPO plan then one would think you're not in breach of TPO maintaining said access.

 

Edit: that's just my opinion, however it would need to be a pretty mean spirited TO to take action on those grounds.

[openspaceman]

What the legal definition of "derelict"???

 

I don't know and it will be open to interpretation by the planners. The main thing is that if the structure has openly stood for more than 4 years the planners have to accept it is there lawfully. It can then be repaired and refurbished to maintain it. If it has been abandoned then it loses its "use" under planning law, enforcement notice to remove it would only happen if it became dangerous.

 

So a building that burns down and is quickly rebuilt seems ok, leave it 20 years and I suspect it becomes abandoned and derelict.

 

There is good reason to maintain substantial buildings, not sheds, in good condition because of the way planning laws have changed as if the building is in good repair the planners have to grant use of some sort under a hierarchy which eventually includes dwelling subject to all sorts of other requirements.

 

So if you have a brick built barn that is not listed with a roof with holes in it pays to re roof it with profile;e sheeting rather than allow the roof to collapse as this re roofing would be considered to be a repair.

[Wood wasp]

I can't comment on the building side.

 

Re the road I can't help but think this is a case of British mentality of gold plating regulations at expense of common sense. If there was a road in use at time of woodland TPO and this road is still there, albeit overgrown, with gate and kerbs then I don't see it being breach of either letter or spirit of TPO to cut back vegetation keep this road open.

 

And on practical note, how can any issues be raised by any party re breach of TPO when the TO document they will refer back to clearly shows a road.