TPOs - are they important?

[Joe Newton]

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.

 

 

Interesting viewpoint!

[Kveldssanger]

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

 

Glad you appreciate the discussion. Hopefully this topic really does take off. As for making a poll via the website, I now know!

 

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).

 

Agreed. I'd like to see more pre-emptive TPO'ing, rather than in response to a threat (sometimes it's too late as the tree is gone before you can even react!). I also think, at times, there is an inherent bias to permit works, and a certain lack of follow-up inspections on approved works.

 

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.

 

As I stated above, I much agree. As for the comment about developers, I again am in agreement. How could one ensure developers truly care less for their bottom line and more for the environment however, without including Tree Preservation within the National Planning Policy Framework as a mainstay of the document, as well as introducing legislation to (unfortunately) force developers to retain a certain percentage of trees.

 

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.

 

I have TEMPO'd stuff proactively, though it has never gained much traction beyond me. Lethargy? Maybe. Lack of time? Definitely.

 

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.

 

Absolutely.

 

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.

 

If budgets allow!

[Kveldssanger]

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.

 

One hectare of trees produces enough oxygen for ~40 (normal) people per year.

 

As for felling because of the risk of a TPO being served, it's a possibility.

 

Perhaps the legislation is draconian, though would it work any other way? Would people really care that much about the silly tree in their rear garden?

[skyhuck]

One hectare of trees produces enough oxygen for ~40 (normal) people per year.

 

As for felling because of the risk of a TPO being served, it's a possibility.

 

Perhaps the legislation is draconian, though would it work any other way? Would people really care that much about the silly tree in their rear garden?

 

Its not a "possibility" its a reality, I've felled 1000's for this very reason.

[Gary Prentice]

Its not a "possibility" its a reality, I've felled 1000's for this very reason.

 

This suggests that maybe more trees should be protected than already are.

[Johny Walker]

This suggests that maybe more trees should be protected than already are.

 

:thumbup1:

[skyhuck]

This suggests that maybe more trees should be protected than already are.

 

Or that more trees would be left alone if the owners knew they would always have the right to remove them in the future if they so wished.

[Gary Prentice]

Or that more trees would be left alone if the owners knew they would always have the right to remove them in the future if they so wished.

 

This goes back to the earlier posts from France. High population density and limited space exerts too much pressure to remove trees. Do you honestly believe that a builder won't squeeze as many houses on a site as possible to capitalize on his investment in purchasing it?

 

Pre-emptive felling is always carried out to to remove barriers implemented by planning departments and to make money.

[skyhuck]

This goes back to the earlier posts from France. High population density and limited space exerts too much pressure to remove trees. Do you honestly believe that a builder won't squeeze as many houses on a site as possible to capitalize on his investment in purchasing it?

 

Pre-emptive felling is always carried out to to remove barriers implemented by planning departments and to make money.

 

Most trees that are retained on development sites die within 20 years of the building work any way. Would be far better to insist on planting a high replacement ratio IMO.

[Kveldssanger]

Most trees that are retained on development sites die within 20 years of the building work any way. Would be far better to insist on planting a high replacement ratio IMO.

 

But aftercare is never a planning condition.

 

Further, one must ask why the trees fail. Is it because the trees are pre-destined to fail anyway, or because of poor adherence to BS5837, a general lack of care by developers, and over-zealous clearance of surrounding scrub that obliterates the root zones of trees that are to be retained.

 

I visited a site recently where retained oaks and pears had been (1) damaged within their crown / on their trunk, (2) had large anchorage roots absolutely smashed and, to top it all off (3) would be situated within 2m of the entrance road. How would one expect such trees to feasibly survive?

 

The system is as fault for trees not surviving.

Edited June 29, 2015 by Kveldssanger