TPO trees and Livestock

[Nick Harrison]

As was mentioned in old posts since removed, the article doesn't necessarily paint a clear and accurate picture of what went on. Newspapers notoriously omit facts if it isn't entertaining or detracts from the view their trying to promote.

 

As for the courts, just because the judge said so doesn't mean that's a representation of the reality of the situation....remember O J Simpson??

 

Unfortunately, much attention is paid to how the courts will view a potential prosecution, and obviously for good reason, it's not cheap if you lose. Gathering adequate evidence is sound advise, I've yet to stand up in court but I would like to think I had my facts right and properly recorded before being grilled by a solicitor.

[bolthole]

Except that emotion has no place in law. Stick to the facts and provide suitable evidence which will be believed by the court.

 

When the law is changed and it becomes legal to prosecute on the grounds that the LA think an offence may be committed, that is the day to shut up shop and hoist the red flag . . . kafkaesque or what.

 

I might be mistaken, but it seems like a lot of the confusion about this issue is based on the (understandable) idea that statutory bodies shouldn't in some cases (?) be allowed to influence (ultimately with legal sanction) what a landowner does with their land.

 

If I'm not being too obvious, let me just say that this is definitely not the case; I have a friend who owns land. He built a house on it and one day English Heritage turned up and (to cut a long story short) put a lot of restrictions on what he could do with his land. There's apparently quite a bit of archeology on the site... and the form of the land (ridges and butts?) had to be preserved to the extent that they made him grub up quite a few trees and he's limited as to how many horses he can keep on the land, despite the site being used as a dairy farm previously. According to him, they weren't particularly diplomatic about it.

 

Also... I've been looking at buying a property with woodland which is on an SSSI. The controlling body, with whom I've been consulting, have told me they wouldn't approve my proposed use of the land (continuous cover forestry and other eco tomfoolery!) - they want the existing softwood plantation removed and to see it revert back to it's previous state. That is unfortunately that and I'll not be buying the place. At the end of the day I understand where they're coming from and while it irks me, it is only my own personal ambitions that have been thwarted.

 

I suppose what I'm saying is that, even though people don't like it, the law is there for a purpose, and it can be enforced. But...

 

In the case of the original poster, because the harm is not gross and is only 'potential' (it's soil compaction and potential bark damage presumaby, as opposed to say running multiple trenches through the root zone) the LA may not feel that they can bring a case with any confidence because the damage is only 'likely' and with a clever barrister, the landowner could get the case kicked out. Possibly they feel that there is not yet an actual case to bring. If the new land use does damage the trees, then the LA could bring a case with more confidence but still lose against a clever barrister. If they chose this less 'heavy-handed' seeming approach, their inaction may actually allow the trees to be harmed. It is the LAs statutory duty to enforce TPOs but clearly it's just rather difficult for them to do this without upsetting people.

 

It doesn't actually matter either if the landowner is unaware of an offence, although it would be a very poor state of affairs if the LA allowed it to get to court without some sort of communication. In a weird sort of a way, the LA are doing the right thing if they communicate their misgivings about the new land use to the landowner, and remind the said landowner that it's an issue of law and not just one of tree-hugging! If it was you, what would you rather?

 

See the whole thing is a minefield for everybody. The landowner feels put upon... the LA has it's statutory duty to perform, whilst trying not to spunk too much of the taxpayers money away... people on Forums get airiated... but at the end of the day this bit of the law is to try and protect our landscape and trees which have maybe taken hundreds of years to grow, but can potentially be lost in an afternoon or over a few of years.

 

I live in a village where it seems that developers seem to have been able to ride roughshod over planning and some of the legislation that TOs might be likely to enforce so to be honest it heartens me to hear of a council actually doing something to protect our landscape. I think it's inevitable that they might not get any thanks, except from the trees... which won't happen... because they're trees.

[Nick Harrison]

You're right in assuming the LA is not looking to take action on the potential of damage occurring, only if it does. The letter sent out ticks 2 boxes, it makes the tree owner aware of the situation and will also, hopefully, help to maintain healthy trees (which is what this whole thing is about at the end of the day). I agree that some official letters can come across as quite intimidating, especially to joe public who are not always aware of tree legislation. Most times though, these types of letters are sent out to people who are deliberately pushing their luck, know how to use the system and are not the least bit intimidated by a council letter.

 

No-one relishes going to court, least not a cash strapped council. As bolthole has pointed out, the LA have been given the legal obligation by the justice system to protect the amenity of the environment for the good of all which is for the benefit of all of us, surely?

[drinksloe]

I dare say it all depends on how the letter is worded really.

Althou it also depends on the motives of the landowner, nothing wrong with a landowner trying to make some income out of a piece of land but if u think he could be a bit of a 'rogue' fair enough.

 

But livestock and trees have went together since we started having livestock, 1 of the main reasons for pollarding in the old days was so cattle can graze below ur timber product.

 

Generally pigs and cows aren't too bad at damaging trees, some conservation charities use pigs to clean undergrowth with little woodland damage.

Doubt nitrate or compaction will make any difference to trees only issue could be bark stripping, usually horses are the worst followed by sheep, yet i still know of hundreds of large trees in fields with sheep and horses in and no damage and no protection.

But like most things will depend on the indivdual site, stocking density, natural food how much additional feed being fed.