TPOs - are they important?

[daltontrees]

As Charles Mynors said in his talk, we're all much closer in the UK (in terms of actual population density), so trees cause more issues as they block more light, get in the way more, can't grow to large sizes, etc. I imagine in places like France and Spain, people are more tolerant of trees simply because they are less densely populated.

 

And the shade provided by trees over there is valued.

[Mick Dempsey]

But not protected by law. Except for publicly owned trees.

[Treemover]

As Charles Mynors said in his talk, we're all much closer in the UK (in terms of actual population density), so trees cause more issues as they block more light, get in the way more, can't grow to large sizes, etc. I imagine in places like France and Spain, people are more tolerant of trees simply because they are less densely populated.

 

TPO's are closely linked to planning; this is why in Ireland at least I find what planners allow to be such a joke, especially seeing what planners allowed and caused with tree decline.

 

I don't agree that TPO'S are the solution along with bs 5837 in that it's a great bandaid. I think the framework is there, which is the difficult part; but it's how it implemented that's key; and how issues can be addressed.

 

Hearing people say tree officers are next impossible to locate and their points are not accurate or adopting common sense is a huge worry.

 

My take is that appeals should be easier to make, and rules should take into account the difference between those that live by a tree to those flipping property.

 

I totally agree that there has to be a safeguard in place. I will always act in my clients best interest. Sadly the tree comes second.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Question maybe the TOs might be able to answer:

 

S106 (community infrastructure levy), is that an appropriate mechanism for integrating planting stock into new developments? Get the right tree, in the right place and (hopefully) preempt & avoid tree / neighbour / landowner conflicts of the future whilst attempting to off set losses from the development and create a net gain?

 

Anyone know of an example of S106 being utilised for planting?

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Poundbury seems on the surface to be a good example of the art of the possible.

 

Poundbury

 

Only visited once, briefly, a while back, but it left a good impression in many respects....

[Kveldssanger]

Question maybe the TOs might be able to answer:

 

S106 (community infrastructure levy), is that an appropriate mechanism for integrating planting stock into new developments? Get the right tree, in the right place and (hopefully) preempt & avoid tree / neighbour / landowner conflicts of the future whilst attempting to off set losses from the development and create a net gain?

 

Anyone know of an example of S106 being utilised for planting?

 

I'd like to think my involvement with future adoptions would be of use for sites in terms of stocking them up with trees, though unfortunately it seems developers offer an almost 'take it or leave it' situation. The last one I looked at had woeful maintenance - heck, a cherry was still staked, a good five or six years after it was probably planted. By this point the top had snapped out and it was practically dead. Don't get me started on all the red robins...

 

I also had what will likely be a future S106 case late last year. A large area, with plenty of space for trees. I pushed for lots of planting of birch, rowan and gean, which is what they said they had. They turned around and said they could only plant the rowan as there wasn't enough space to plant everything else, as it'd all be "too near to the pathway". Absolute madness. I don't even think the rowan whips survived. Maybe when we (likely) take it over I'll vegetate the lot properly, with stuff I'm currently growing myself.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Kveldssanger

[daltontrees]

But not protected by law. Except for publicly owned trees.

 

TPOs are public sequestration of trees. The amenity provided by TPOd trees is in effect owned by the public.

[Mick Dempsey]

Interesting fact.

[Paul Barton]

Great discussion! By the way - did you know you can create a poll within this forum instead of linking to a separate website?

 

My twopenneth - some form of legal protection is essential to safeguard trees that are under some kind of threat. TPOs generally seem to do a pretty good job of that but often the way they are handled could be improved (in my opinion).

 

Overall, I would like to see less TPOs served in a reactive manner as this takes up alot of tree officer time which could perhaps be better spent investing in enhancing the existing urban forest. I also think that the cat and mouse dynamic between developers and tree officers is unfortunate and leads to ill-feeling on both sides instead of promoting a collaborative approach to development.

 

It would be good if tree/landscape officers were able to appraise trees proactively and serve TPOs to protect important* trees without their needing to be a perceived threat. Just look at listed buildings - they are not listed because they are in danger, they are listed for their heritage and conservation value.

 

If a more strategic approach could be taken to tree protection, there would be less time and money wasted on reactionary TPOs and the ensuing appeals.

 

*important needs definition of course - perhaps amenity value is too narrow and importance needs to assessed by environmental, ecological and heritage value.

 

My hope is that studies of tree benefits (such as iTree Eco) will provide LAs with better evidence of the importance of trees and therefore lead to more targeted tree protection as well as planting.

[skyhuck]

Trees produce oxygen. No trees, no animal life on earth.

 

Is 98% of the earths oxygen not produced by algae in the sea??

 

I wonder how many trees are felled because the owner is concerned that they may be TPO's in the future.

 

I also think that TPO'd trees should be maintained by the state, it just seems wrong to me that people are made to keep trees they not like for the sake of others and stand the cost of their maintenance.