TPOs - are they important?

[Mick Dempsey]

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.

 

A very good point.

[Roz]

Working for a previous (District) LA with some very large developments between 3000-10,000 units I tried to use S106 to secure planting at the onset to secure appropriate planting within the highway infrastructure at the start whereby the LPA took on the responsibility of the trees with the S106 money for a period of 12 years until a PC or Town Council were established to take on the responsibility. Thereby ensuring they were watered, pruned etc and where required replaced to ensure good establishment............I was not given any support higher up the ladder (highways were supportive).

Coming back to the 4 questions looking at why the legislation came about is a starting point, ok trees are not being felled due to timber shortages these days but as already mentioned the conflict of development and other land requirements v’s trees is a problem. Is the legislation appropriate well no law is, we all know the law is an ass in many ways? Used in the right manner for the appropriate reasons yes it is necessary to retain valuable trees for whatever their purpose, enhancing a development, context and character of an area, historic, commemorative??

2. – confidence in the system depends on the TO or officer not necessarily an arborist dealing with applications and serving of TPOs, and therein lies a problem as we are talking about humans and their characters. I have met TO’s who think they are the tree police and IMO put TO’s in a very bad light. We’re generally meant to be on the same side aren’t we ??

3. – still thinking on that one…………………………………….

4. – We all know of trees that would disappear if TPO legislation was removed, however can it not be viewed more as a management tool too ? As a LPA can condition replacement trees to ensure the treed character of an area is retained where you have significant trees in private ownership? Which will require management over the years by tree surgeons, consulting arborists??

Touching on the comment about prosecution………….this can be very difficult in respect of what is in the public best interest………..yes it costs money, there are also the hidden costs of officer time with the administrative aspect, interviews under caution etc to bring a prosecution therefore much consideration has to be given as to the alternatives that can be used e.g. replacement planting notice? In going to court the LPA must be 100% + sure.

Having moved from a rural district with land being gobbled up by development to a borough council with all the urban joys!! trees mean different things to different people and cultures so surely we should have some kind of mechanism ?? nothing in life is perfect you have to make the best of what you work with ??

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

 

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.

 

As relates to domestic land owners:

 

Failure to grasp this concept (by those in policy / enforcement positions) would be a failure to acknowledge, and a contributing factor, to the problem - in my view.

 

I'm not generally in favour of state subsidy (across s a broad range of scenarios) but, what I consider to be the fairly whimsical over use of the term "amenity value" as applied to trees with, or those with potential to have TPOs, is a direct contributing factor to removal by the land owner prior to TPO action.

 

As Jules says in an earlier post "TPOs are public sequestration of trees. The amenity provided by TPOd trees is in effect owned by the public." The shortcoming is that it's currently impossible to define the worth of that amenity and the cost of maintaining / managing them is borne by the landowner not the public.

 

If the amenity provided by the tree is a public asset, it follows that the public might be expected to maintain it - if we got down to the nuts and bolts of shaking a bucket and asking Joe Public to contribute to the maintenance costs (or through public funds) we might then really discover how valued the asset is to the public and gain a better appreciate of the amenity. It's a lot easier to spend someone else's money, but when it's your own that's a different story.

 

Supposedly, farmers are the custodian of the countryside. They only have to fart and catch the methane and theres a handout for that. Grubbing out upland vegetation to increase grazing, there's a higher level handout for that. Replant previously grubbed out vegetation to ameliorate flash flooding and soil erosion..... There's a handout for that. And so it's goes on - because they are custodians of the public asset "the countryside."

 

No solutions, just a very strong acknowledgement of the quoted post and a plea not to dismiss the reality of the situation it portrays because to do so would be to fail before there's any hint of a potential solution.

[Roz]

and there in lies conflict..........you surely cannot deny that there are fantastic trees in private ownership that contribute greatly to the character of an area urban or rural which many people either consciously or subconsciously gain pleasure from that are TPOd? and if removed there would be 'uproar' as trees are both emotive and political - bring back swampy !!

As a TO I have been asked why 'we' cant undertake works to a TPO tree in private ownership as 'we' served the TPO and yes in an ideal world wouldn't that be great, once upon a time there was money in the public pot for this but alas long since a distant dusty file. Which is why when considering planning or tree applications TOs should take this into account - we are not the tree police, but we are also human and will therefore at times disagree but do the best for the tree in its situation as each is unique. I concur no solution.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

and there in lies conflict..........you surely cannot deny that there are fantastic trees in private ownership that contribute greatly to the character of an area urban or rural which many people either consciously or subconsciously gain pleasure from that are TPOd? and if removed there would be 'uproar' as trees are both emotive and political - bring back swampy !!

 

As a TO I have been asked why 'we' cant undertake works to a TPO tree in private ownership as 'we' served the TPO and yes in an ideal world wouldn't that be great, once upon a time there was money in the public pot for this but alas long since a distant dusty file. Which is why when considering planning or tree applications TOs should take this into account - we are not the tree police, but we are also human and will therefore at times disagree but do the best for the tree in its situation as each is unique. I concur no solution.

 

I absolutely DO agree Roz that there are fantastic trees in private ownership that are subject to TPO and society should be grateful to the people that bear the cost and responsibility of that.

 

I see 2 problems with TPO regs (as they currently exist) which could be improved upon (however distant and unrealistic that prospect may be.)

 

1. Whilst requiring consent for proposed works, there is nothing in the regs that can be enforced to ensure proactive maintenance / management. Recent example: a row of 10 x TPO'd lapsed pollard Lime. The re-pollard cycle neglected for +/- 30 years resulted in unsafe re-growth that had to be pollarded back to original head - not ideal but the only sensible solution (sanctioned by TO as a pragmatic approach to a problem not of our making). The the shortfall in TPO regs (in this case) would be the inability to highlight and enforce the pollard cycle at an earlier point in time (to the benefit of the tree and the wider public.)

 

2. If the tree is to be considered a public asset, who should pay for maintenance - the public or the owner? A distant, impossible aspiration but I'd suggest there'd be less antipathy towards TPOs from private owners if they weren't required to bear the financial burden and that, as described in 1, greater ability to manage important trees in a timely and effective manner would be achieved. A private land owner will always have a higher priority for their (usually) limited financial resources over and above maintaining a tree for the benefit of the public. That situation where resources are limited and demand is high will be recognised in both public and private sector - it just gives the impression of hypocrisy to expect it from one party whilst using it as an excuse for ever decreasing output in the other.

 

The question is, the uproar we've all seen / heard / been involved in is passionately expressed whilst spending somebody else's money. I rather doubt it would be quite so enthusiastic if those who were shouting loudest were paying most.

 

Maybe highlighting the (perceived) problems is the necessary path to trying to agree the possible solutions? I wouldn't expect there to be any realistic possibility of actually changing anything but it's a thought provoking exercise.

[Roz]

I don't disagree at all but I feel the ideal world is a long way off................................

[Mick Dempsey]

Scrap it, scrap the whole damn system.

 

Let the LAs look after the trees on public property, otherwise people should do what they want. I can't understand this punishment of developers and developments by making them jump through hoops to keep a couple of oaks on new developments.

Better planting schemes, replace forest trees with more property friendly species, ones that can be trimmed regularly, removed and replaced with less issues.

[Kveldssanger]

Scrap it, scrap the whole damn system.

 

Let the LAs look after the trees on public property, otherwise people should do what they want. I can't understand this punishment of developers and developments by making them jump through hoops to keep a couple of oaks on new developments.

Better planting schemes, replace forest trees with more property friendly species, ones that can be trimmed regularly, removed and replaced with less issues.

 

The issue that arises here is that LAs are looking to sell-off their land for development, or to private house-owners who want to buy land and are ready to pay large sums for it.

 

As I have stated, the issue with planting schemes is they don't tend to work that well. Developers seem to neglect the trees once they are planted, and at times leave bare-rooted stock in a shed for months on end.

 

Property friendly species? Come on now, we can't have a monoculture of Prunus x subhirtella or Chamaecyparis lawsoniana now, can we! I consider it very foolish to assume laymen will (1) know what's best and (2) do what's best.

 

Why must nature fit our needs? Why can't we fit its needs? The constant need to skew everything for our short-term, amenity-based, practicality-based benefit astounds me, quite frankly.

 

As an side, I have no qualms, in theory, with looking after privately-owned, TPOd trees, in response to the suggestion that TPOd trees on private land should be maintained by LAs.

[Gary Prentice]

 

 

Better planting schemes, replace forest trees with more property friendly species, ones that can be trimmed regularly, removed and replaced with less issues.

 

Why on earth plant trees that need trimming regularly?

 

Large species trees provide the highest benefits, planting schemes generally consist of small species, with short lifespans, often poorly stored and planted, normally in not much more than builders rubble and then left to fend, unsuccessfully, for themselves. Certainly not a replacement for what's been felled.

 

Arb methods statements need to be followed, and robustly policed, to ensure survival. There's no reason at all why big trees can't be incorporated into new developments successfully, all the info the architects and planners need should be in the BS5837 survey and used.

[Mick Dempsey]

Ones that CAN be trimmed regularly and hard. Ie pollarding, keeps the shade, keep the tree manageable.