TPO trees on government owned land

[Jonas]

some advice and/or interpreation of the regs would be gratefully received on a sensitive issue relating to LAs serving TPOs on government department owned land.

 

I wont go into details however is it feasible for a gov dept to refuse a TPO?

 

a collegue seems to think is correct however i am doubtful

 

if the hive mind can help i would be very grateful!

 

many thanks in advance

[Andy Clark]

It "sort of" depends on which bit of the Govt owns the land and for what reason the TPO is being served.

 

In all cases, PPGuidance advises that the LA should consult with the relevant body prior to serving the TPO.

 

In which case, if the LA have followed the guidance properly, all the niggles and/or disputes should have been sorted out prior to the TPO even being served.

 

Hope that helps?

[Jonas]

thanks for the guarded clarification.......a supplementary question would be if there was a dispute or if the niggles couldnt be worked out then would the recipient have to accept?

[Andy Clark]

thanks for the guarded clarification.......a supplementary question would be if there was a dispute or if the niggles couldnt be worked out then would the recipient have to accept?

 

The response wasn't meant to be guarded, so my apologies if it came across that way.

 

 

The problem with answering is that it is difficult to pinpoint a specific "XYZ" outcome, without knowing more details. I mean, the Govt is a BIG organisation.... with hundreds of varied and diverse departments which cover an equally diverse and varied spread of land types and uses.

 

I mean, we could be talking here about some top secret nuclear facility under the MOD, Woodland under the Forestry Commission, or the car park of the local job centre under the DWP.

 

So I tried to give a "general" answer that would cover the original question - in which you didn't want to go into detail.

 

To answer your next question -

 

I think the thing to best bear in mind is that it has to be in the public interest in order to serve the TPO in the first place. LA's generally don't dish out TPO's like sweeties. So it would be possible to assume a scenario whereby the Govt dept wanted to do something that flew in the face of public interest, to which the LA wanted to try and put a stop to.

 

Sorry but again, without knowing more details, it's difficult to give a definitive answer.

[ReubenHayes]

The TPO guidance only makes reference to Crown land and that they 'should be' informed prior to making a TPO.

 

Tree Preservation Orders and trees in conservation areas | Planning Practice Guidance

 

On that basis, I would say that you could make a TPO without consulting the gov bodies first. As said in the previous thread, it depends on what land and who the gov body is. I don't think legally they can refuse the TPO, as guidance says you can place trees under a TPO on gov land. It may well be that the body where the trees are is in close communication to the CEO at the LA, that may change the internal workings or if there is a political backing. Legally they can not stop it, but the TO may be asked to reconsider etc.

[crawley park]

Don't know about TPO but you do not need planning permission on crown land, yes permission is often sort but only as a lip service as the crown does not need the LA to approve building regs, this may also apply to TPO in that the local LA may apply a TPO but the crown may ignore this.

[Andy Clark]

The TPO guidance only makes reference to Crown land and that they 'should be' informed prior to making a TPO.

 

Not really. The guidance also makes reference to FC land, Aerodromes, and scheduled monuments. All of which come under the remit of a different Govt dept/quango.

 

And the guidance for all those is the same..... that the LA should consult prior to serving - meaning I think it's fair to extrapolate that that would be the same across most Govt dept managed/owned land.

[Jonas]

Many thanks everyone for the replies, I think it's fair to say that it's a somewhat difficult task given my vagueness! Apologies for that but I appreciate the discussion and it has helped me with providing guidance to a client