kevinjohnsonmbe

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.

Carry on as you are Rob! The service expediency and single point of contact are well worth the ticket price. I prefer that to trudging around the internet for hours looking to save the price of a pint.

Cornwall council is held in such universally low regard (within Cornwall at least) that I wouldn't consider "endorsed by the LA" to be something to shout about / aspire to!

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....

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 like all of that! Can't understand why anyone wouldn't. It's easier work & enviro positive. What's not to like?

On reflection, Para 1 is an organisational problem Para 2 is somewhat different

Para 1 spot on! (not in the public interest - maybe because the public ain't interested?) Para 2 spot on! (see brackets above!)

I've been pondering it throughout the day today! Just didn't get chance to sit down and do it! I'm not sure, how ever the questions are constructed, it'll get as much interest as a thread where someone bashes their gums about getting an infraction..... I think there would (should) be a difference in opinion between urban / rural contributors, the environments / challenges are so different. I'd like to see greater focus on protecting trees that have the potential to become veteran / ancient (I've got a few in mind, very rural, in farmland, and I'm considering 'testing' the system and submitting applications for TPO status - I think there may be an acid test situation then. And I also think the challenge is yet to come with a predicted uplift in housing demand.

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?

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)

That's totally unacceptable! Muscadet with no grilled sardines, well out of line!

I thought it was rather commercially sensitive for public consumption. Just my thought?

All understood Roz and yes, I recognise the job with many hats scenario after 29.5 years in the public sector myself! Thanks for the feedback. How did you vote when Dr Mynors asked the question "more or less TPO's?" I'm glad he split the question to take account of those that are LA employees as compared to those that are not LA employees given the number of LA employees in the room. It's good to hear your area is carrying out a review (can you say which area?) I've been working on a site where the group TPO was established in the '60s and there is no record of amendment or approval for works since then so (although only a single example) it's frustrating when there's a fairly blaze "we're too busy for reviews" type response when it's plain to see there is clearly a need for one. I was in the non LA employee group and had a wishy/washy neither for nor against more TPOs vote on the basis that (and I think we can all agree) resources are currently stretched, so how can adding more "task" without more ability to manage it be a sensible option.

Thanks for all the comments above, appreciate the feedback!

I've tried the informal/ verbal approach Gary, pretty much laughed at as you forecast! Guess it'll have to be a formal written submission to planning then!

I'm not sure I understand why you might want to do that. If there was a situation where tension existed between neighbours as a consequence of encroachment / nuisance, wouldn't it be better to facilitate a "release valve" for the tension which would surely escalate with the passing of time? You could say, there's no need to "facilitate" the "release valve" since it appears there would be no requirement to seek any "approval" for abatement of nuisance from a tree subject to TPO, the person seeking the abatement could just carry on under their right in common law (23.6.5) So rather than asking if, or not, it ought to be "kept quiet", I guess I'm asking what would you do if the question was asked by somebody seeking to cut back an encroaching TPO tree? Would you: (A) tell them there's no need to seek approval (but there are restrictions on the nature & extent of the abatement (B) grant a TPO work approval with conditions © refuse a TPO application? Interested to hear what you (and others) think....

Barchams hospitality was first class! Food & beverage on the day was spot on. The opportunity to meet the team the day before, tour the nursery and an invitation to join Dr Mynors, Keith and Stephanie for dinner was an unexpected bonus! During the seminar I sat next to a lady from a local volunteer woodland group. At the end, after listening intently and taking many notes throughout the day, she said "He doesn't like trees does he?" I thought it was a really strange observation so pressed a bit further, she had formed the view that the main thrust of the briefing was ways in which trees can "legally" be cut down / back. I think she may have missed the point that legalities are important when trees and people come into conflict and, although there was much talk and many examples of cutting / felling, sometimes that course of action is entirely appropriate and we need to appreciate the restrictions and opportunities that are available within the bounds of good practice, cooperation and, ultimately, the law. Not quite sure what her expectation was but surely if you go to a seminar delivered by a legal professional, you might expect to hear examples of where trees and humans (or humans / humans with a tree as a sub text) come into conflict? Nice lady all the same and useful to consider the content of the day from her perspective, not something I would have done otherwise. It's also interesting to see people suggesting more TPOs. I guess that too is a matter of "perspective." Are there any LAs conducting reviews of existing TPOs?

I did Glastonbury Tor for Summer solstice a few years back, never seen so many wizards in one place!

It may have been lost in the 2 dimensional nature of forum chat, but it was a rhetorical question really. It will always be the owner of the tree that gains consent for TPO approved work. They can engage an agent to submit the paperwork on their behalf but its still the tree owner, not the TO, that gets to allocate the task. (Unless there's some serious collusion / corruption going on!?!)

Never mind the car, is that your pad?? Nicely, nicely! Was it a renovation?

Thanks for posting the link, interesting read. I had a (good natured but animated) discussion with a farming mate who was bemoaning the onerous administrative burden of all the regulations which "prevent" him from operating his business and making a profit and of course the unfairness of being "fined" for non compliance. He really couldn't accept that a good many of the regulations / restrictions are, by definition, self imposed and that they are voluntarily accepted by the agricultural community. So far as I can tell (happy to be corrected) some rules & regs are compulsory but many of the cross compliance criteria are tied to grant funding but there is no compulsion to take the grant funding? Doesn't it follow then that if the compliance criteria are overly cumbersome or onerous, don't do it and don't take the free money? Failure to comply or ignorance of the criteria doesn't result in a "fine" which might necessitate a judge & jury, it's simply a matter of not qualifying for grant funding - perhaps similar to someone being censured in regard of benefit payments for not attending an appointment or job interview?

Does the TO give permission to the firm or to the tree owner who then selects the firm? (assuming it's private / domestic)

Seems odd that, just a wild guess but could it be a pen error where 12m should read 1.2m?? Just thinking out loud

Subjective v Objective.....? I vaguely remember a thread which tried to unravel this a while back. From memory, I think the suggestion was something like - the arb reports should be an objective record of that which is observed on the day and the subjective interpretation of that report falls to the TO who makes recommendations which are further subjectively interpreted by the planning case officer. I'm not entirely sure I know if the arb reports are technically subjective or objective?