Woodland TPO.

[spandit]

There was some TPO'd woodland sold near me recently. Spoke to one of the owners and he said they just needed to submit a management plan to the council, rather than just chopping down willy-nilly. I'm sure you'll be fine getting permission even though it's a pain submitting the forms

[skyhuck]

My reading of this situation is that the new trees in the track are covered by the TPO. The woodland TPO protects all trees within the defined area, including natural regeneration - seedlings and saplings etc.

 

Huck says the TPO map covers the area of the track - meaning that the new trees are within the defined woodland boundary area and are covered.

 

That said, an onsite visit with the TO and providing evidence of previous use of the site should hopefully lead to a successful TPO works application

 

If this is true, even using an existing track would technically be committing an offence.

[skyhuck]

There was some TPO'd woodland sold near me recently. Spoke to one of the owners and he said they just needed to submit a management plan to the council, rather than just chopping down willy-nilly. I'm sure you'll be fine getting permission even though it's a pain submitting the forms

 

Its not really a woodland.

 

The start track has just been caught by a sweep of the pen when the plan was drawn, it leads to farm land. There is no woodland to manage.

[Gary Prentice]

Re-reading your original post has made this a bit clearer.

 

If the track, or part of it, is within the woodland - shown by a continuous black line on the map, then the trees are protected now. The woodland TPOs definitions were a major element in Palm Developments Ltd V Sec. of State and collaborated recently in Distinctive Properties (Ascot) Ltd v Sec of State for Communities and Local Government 2015 (19/3/2015)

 

I'd personally hope for an understanding Planning Officer/Tree Officer, otherwise I think the only alternative is an application, giving a 'reason for works' as the re-instatement of Right of Way (if that is what it is)

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

On 23/05/2015 at 07:27, skyhuck said:

 

What the legal definition of "derelict"???

I wouldn't focus on the word derelict - its not helpful.  If a structure has a realistic potential for renovation - as opposed to a complete demo / rebuild.  If it has some original standing walls for example, it 'may' be capable of conversion.  A debate that has come alive recently with Class P and Class Q repurposing of buildings to residential use.

 

Reading this thread has been useful for a current work scenario.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

On 23/05/2015 at 10:59, Wood wasp said:

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.

That raised a wry smile ? Totally agree, it would appear unreasonably bureaucratic and mean spirited - but the potential for an offence to be committed would be tangible.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

On 24/05/2015 at 12:39, skyhuck said:

 

If this is true, even using an existing track would technically be committing an offence.

Technically, it certainly could be an offence to drive the track and squash a sapling maybe even a seed!  But there would never be sufficient evidence to support any action.  Using a brushcutter to clear the verges could (probably would), technically, be a breach....  We'me all outlaws, bandits and vagabonds!!  ?