TPOs - are they important?

[Kveldssanger]

Here's a poll to vote on.

 

In light of this comment chain in this thread, inspired by a comment at the recent Charles Mynors seminar where it was asked "are TPOs really worth it?", I am interested in the opinion of everyone here with regards to TPOs.

 

 

Questions:

 

1. Is current TPO legislation necessary / appropriate?

 

2. Do you have confidence in the TPO system (from the serving of Orders to approval of works, and through to the overall administration by LPAs)?

 

3. How would you change the TPO system? (if at all)

 

4. If the TPO legislation were to be entirely removed, what do you think would happen to tree populations across the UK?

 

 

I cannot think of any more questions, though by all means just post your thoughts. Hopefully a good discussion will ensue.

Edited June 27, 2015 by Kveldssanger

[Mick Dempsey]

I'll give my opinion on 3 and 4

3: reduce the number of trees with TPOs by 95%

4: not very much if my experience here is anything to go by.

[Starscream]

I'm no authority on the subject, but if TPO legislation were removed, some magnificent trees would be slaughtered. I know of a lady down my road who wants her massive oak removed outright. Fortunately, it has a TPO. I know of another guy whose tree I pruned under TPO Conditions, who would have his removed also if allowed. I'm one arborist and if I know at least 2 people who would get rid, there must be thousands across the UK. TPO's stop cowboy arborists and chancers, in their tracks. I think TPO's are a good thing. I get pruning work from TPO trees every couple of years (same customer) yet if I had removed it, that would be it, job done. No more tree, no more work.

[Paul Cleaver]

we have a housing shortage - when we get a building boom - look at all the trees that would be felled

[Kveldssanger]

we have a housing shortage - when we get a building boom - look at all the trees that would be felled

 

At the same time, would one not expect for trees to be preserved in conjunction with development?

 

What about urban woodland Orders - are they important? If urban infill is desired, how would one value the area Order for the woodland?

 

 

To add to the discussions, taken from Trees and Towns II:

 

A total of 96,342 individual TPOs were identified as currently being administered by those LAs that stated they administered some TPOs. This gave an average of 423 TPOs per LA. However, some 7% of the LAs had more than 1,000 TPOs each. The average number of new TPOs made by these LAs in the financial year 2003/04 was nearly 17.

 

I wonder how it fares today... TiT2 is 10 years old now...

Edited June 27, 2015 by Kveldssanger

[Gary Prentice]

At the same time, would one not expect for trees to be preserved in conjunction with development?

IME The requirement to attain target numbers of providing new housing usually over-rides tree preservation. Coupled with mitigation planting of small species or shrubs like Amelanchia, there is a net loss of large species trees

 

 

What about urban woodland Orders - are they important? If urban infill is desired, how would one value the area Order for the woodland?

I suspect woodland orders are under-utilised and area orders are more commonly implemented.

 

To add to the discussions, taken from Trees and Towns II:

 

A total of 96,342 individual TPOs were identified as currently being administered by those LAs that stated they administered some TPOs. This gave an average of 423 TPOs per LA. However, some 7% of the LAs had more than 1,000 TPOs each. The average number of new TPOs made by these LAs in the financial year 2003/04 was nearly 17.

 

I wonder how it fares today... TiT2 is 10 years old now...

Again I suspect it is a great deal lower. The authorities I deal with claim that everything worth protecting is already protected, either by a TPO or by inclusion in a CA. From personal experience, where trees are under threat due to complaints by neighbours, the LA appears reluctant to support requests for statutory protection

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

You beat me to it! I was just sitting down to start a similar thread after a message exchange with Gary!

 

I'd been thinking of the caveats I would have included to try and quantify / balance the responses (mindful of how the voting changed when defined by "LA employee / non LA employee" in the seminar.)

 

I was thinking of a similar question but qualified by the respondents stating if they were:

 

A tree officer

 

A contractor

 

An interested party on the forum but not professionally engaged

 

And then sub sets of the above:

 

Urban

 

Rural

 

Then for those that think there should be more TPOs, how many new applications have you personally submitted (excluding in the course of your work for TO's)

[Kveldssanger]

Again I suspect it is a great deal lower. The authorities I deal with claim that everything worth protecting is already protected, either by a TPO or by inclusion in a CA. From personal experience, where trees are under threat due to complaints by neighbours, the LA appears reluctant to support requests for statutory protection

 

I can relate to the last part of your comment, in particular. It seems that the importance of clearly mature oaks does not rank highly on the 'to do' list.

 

Trees in CA aren't so much of an issue where I work. I think some of the planners are aware of the need for safeguarding the trees within the CA.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

It's just my interpretation of why the question was asked / suggestion made that abolition of the TPO process might be appropriate (and I may have a totally different interpretation to others) but could it be the case that the amount of admin / regulation is disproportionate to the number of infringements / prosecutions associated with TPO regs? For example, in comparison with speeding / shop lifting / disorder etc etc.... there's a law, it's applied, there are prosecutions. Or is it that the suitability of TPO legislation is the very reason that there are (comparatively) so few prosecutions?

[Kveldssanger]

You beat me to it! I was just sitting down to start a similar thread after a message exchange with Gary!

 

I'd been thinking of the caveats I would have included to try and quantify / balance the responses (mindful of how the voting changed when defined by "LA employee / non LA employee" in the seminar.)

 

I was thinking of a similar question but qualified by the respondents stating if they were:

 

A tree officer

 

A contractor

 

An interested party on the forum but not professionally engaged

 

And then sub sets of the above:

 

Urban

 

Rural

 

Then for those that think there should be more TPOs, how many new applications have you personally submitted (excluding in the course of your work for TO's)

 

I did rush this a little - been reading a book all day, so my brain was functioning like a car would when trying to pull away in third gear. If you can make a better set of questions, it'd be great to do (perhaps even a more formal) survey.