kevinjohnsonmbe

Jules, the point was well made with the link Tony Sorenson posted above, and acknowledged as such. No ambiguity, no room to misinterpret, no point missed... The original gist of the thread, as I read it, was 'are TOs requesting too much specific detail (each individual branch) in TPO applications.' If we acknowledge that conscientious arb professionals are generally well versed in the best practice (BS, industry best practice, training, certification and experience) is it really necessary, appropriate and, ultimately, in the best interest of the future health and vitality of the tree, satisfactory to the client and 'workable' for the contractor to over engineer the TPO application process? Where frustration reaches an untenable point, is it not inevitable that client, contractor or (in my current case) neighbours will take unilateral action which is damaging to the tree and a breach of planning law? That lead me to wonder, who, when and how many people have even been cautioned for pruning a TPO tree. In the case I have for example, the TO has visited the site, viewed the tree and it is blatantly obvious that the neighbours are hacking at will. Has he taken any action....? Of course not but is he demanding a pedantic level of detail in the formal application from an experienced, trained professional that wants to achieve the best possible compromise for tree and client....? I'll bank in an FOI I think, see how many cases have been reported and of those how many led to formal or informal action. Lively debate, keeps you thinking!! Maybe I'll take it up with FSB...

Happy with the link though, that does take away my perceived ambiguity of the previous quotes.... They must have finally found someone with a half decent command of the English language to write the legislation.

The challenge remains extant.... Find an example of a prosecution for 'pruning' a TPO tree without prior consent. Not felling for construction sites or to improve the view. Just plain simple PRUNING, that which may, in any other circumstance, be considered 'tree management.' After all, the point of the discussion thread is the perception that TOs are requiring too much detail and red tape in order to 'do the right thing.' My (theoretical) question is.... Why bother with the TPO app, I can't find an example of any prosecution (deterrent) to just crack-on! I do have a vested interest (and a shared frustration) with the originator of the thread. I have an outstanding app awaiting determination which has been the subject of a number of back-and-forth emails, a site visit etc etc. The neighbours either side of the homeowner have already given up on the 'authorised' route and are simply hacking the tree from both sides. It won't be long before the home owner gives up on the local government system and I lose interest in the job as simply being too much hassle. Ultimately, the tree will be hacked from both sides, probably attacked by the homeowner and ultimately wither and die. How does that serve 'amenity value?'

Any help welcome for a dullard that can't work out how to insert a picture from a MacBook into a message????

PS. page 56 http://www.magistrates-association-temp.org.uk/dox/Costing%20the%20Earth%20for%20MA%20with%20cover.pdf

There’s quite a lengthy document from the Magistrates Association here: http://www.magistrates-association-temp.org.uk/dox/Costing%20the%20Earth%20for%20MA%20with%20cover.pdf And an extract from Section 210 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990) which provides that: (1) If any person, in contravention of a tree preservation order- (a) cuts down, uproots or wilfully destroys a tree, or (b) wilfully damages, tops or lops a tree in such a manner as to be likely to destroy it, he shall be guilty of an offence. I still see the ‘…in such a manner as likely to destroy it….’ As the key phrase. Can anyone example case history to the contrary? I’m still looking….

For treequip, here's an extract from a Salford council case history where trees were FELLED in contradiction to a TPO: THE LEGAL BACKGROUND The consequences of breach of a tree preservation order are set out in sections 206 and 210 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Section 206 provides for the replacement of trees, which have been cut down, uprooted or removed in contravention of a TPO. It is the duty of the landowner to plant another tree of an appropriate size and species at the same place as soon as he reasonably can, and the TPO will apply to the replacement tree(s) in the same way as it did to the original one(s). If it appears to the local authority that this duty has not been complied with, it may serve a notice on the landowner requiring him to replace the tree(s) within a specified period, and if the landowner fails to do so the local authority can enter the land and carry out the planting and recover the cost from the landowner. So far as other penalties are concerned, section 210 states that anyone who, in contravention of a TPO, cuts down any tree or tops, lops or wilfully damages it in a way that is likely to destroy it, commits an offence, the penalty for which is a fine of up to £20,000 in the Magistrates Court. In the most serious cases a person may be committed for trial in the Crown Court and, if convicted, is liable to an unlimited fine. There is also a lesser penalty for “other” breaches of a TPO – this would cover the situation where someone has not actually cut down the tree themselves, but has caused or permitted it to be cut down. In this instance the person/organisation that have given permission for the trees to be felled can be liable for a fine of up to £2,500. A prosecution for that offence needs to be commenced within 6 months from the date of the offence. When considering any potential prosecution, the Council takes account of the Crown Prosecution Service guidelines and general advice regarding prosecutions. The Council needs to be satisfied that it is in the public interest to take proceedings, and it should be borne in mind that a prosecution does not in itself resolve the breach of planning control. This is why charges are generally brought where there has been a flagrant, deliberate act in breach of the TPO. The CPS code states that the first stage of the decision whether or not to prosecute is consideration of the evidence and what any possible defence may be, and how that is likely to affect the prosecution case. The advice of the Attorney-General was that it has never been the rule that suspected offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution. Perhaps worthy of note, this discussion thread is based upon the question of that which is considered excessive pedantry in the application for PRUNING TPO trees. Best to keep a sense of perspective.... PS, if you can reference a case history of an arb contractor actually being prosecuted for PRUNING, I'll be impressed...

Not by intention!!!! "Lofty" just a personal 'term of endearment' in my vocabulary!!

Whooooa..... Hold on Lofty! First of all, I'm not "looking for a loop hole", I am a conscientious, professional deeply frustrated by the red tape and administration of local government. I understand, and fully appreciate, the value of planning law - when properly and consistently applied. There is an active thread here which could be taken to indicate a broader 'problem' with interpretation, application and reluctance to review TPOs by local authorities. As to the legal case history, that will be the subject of additional research which I'll happily publish.

Here's an example of council (Torbay) guidance on judging wether a tree should be considered eligible for a TPO. Not a bad read and worthwhile for anyone in a battle to either work on a TPO tree or get the TPO lifted / amended. http://www.torbay.gov.uk/index/yourbay/parks/trees/tpoevaluationinfo.pdf

Here's an extract from Department of Environment pamphlet on TPOs: What happens if I carry out works to protected trees without consent? It is a criminal offence to cut down, lop, top, uproot or wilfully damage a protected tree in a manner likely to destroy it, without the consent of the Department and on summary conviction you could be fined up to £100, 000 ( and on conviction on indictment, to an unlimited fine ). Key phrase.....? "In a manner likely to destroy it" Question.... How could it ever be proven 'beyond reasonable doubt' that the pruning (assuming it was sensible, appropriate and professionally implemented) was the direct and sole cause of destruction of the tree. Personally, I think it would be almost impossible to prove / convict (even if the LAs had sufficient funds / willpower to pursue it. I'm not advocating ignoring the current process (yet), but when the LA makes it so bloody frustrating to get an app approved, how long will it be before the tree owner and/or the arborist just say to hell with it.... I'll let you know what my address in jail is if one of my current TPO apps is declined after the 2nd request for more detail from the TO. Civil Servants: a power trip or a useful contribution to society. Discuss....

My understanding, which may be flawed, is that it is a little publicised fact that the planning officer, in granting permission for a development, is superior in authority to the tree officer. It is the TO's input that informs the PO in arriving at their decision. Logically then, if a sufficiently robust and compelling arb report is submitted, the PO may grant development permission even if it compromises an existing TPO or appears to be at odds with the TO's view. I'm working on a very similar situation today so will update when the outcome is known.

Nick, I did my PTI course with Guy couple of years ago in Cornwall. Great instructor, a testing and demanding course but of huge benefit. Enjoy!!

Right-on!

Sloth, apologies, I think your post appeared as I was typing my reply so I missed it initially but caught it after I'd finished typing. Which Guy were you referring to?? Watson by any chance?? If it was, I had a quick call with him earlier and he gave me sound and sage advice!!

Thanks all! Dean, I purposely didn't go into specific detail (a risk I know) but in an attempt to garner as broad a spread of potential responses as possible, that was a calculated risk. I recognise that specifics wouldn't be possible without clear detail but, on balance, considered it a worthwhile punt! It is a mature pine on the raised ground in the neighbour's grounds where the adjoining neighbour is seeking planning consent for a new build +/- 5m from the raised ground, stone faced wall upon which the tree grows. There is no sign of heave or swell in the face of the stone wall and I'm making the 'assumption' that compression roots have formed on the inner face of the bank to compensate. Trial digs to 600mm planned for tomorrow to try and ascertain if, or the extent of, the root spread into the potential RPA for the new build. The 'process' is a bit arsed about face already! I'm a late entry on the Arb report which should have been conducted prior to the planning submission. Both the client, and planning consultant acting for them, AND the LA planning officer missed the requirement for an Arb survey / method statement so I'm playing catch-up. Think that's funny? It's TPO'd as well! Happy days.... Tony, nice picture! Looks a hedgerow tree in open agricultural land, maybe even arable....? Low traffic, (relatively) low risk.... My situation is retirement home grounds bordering comprehensive school, both high pedestrian traffic, potential new construction of permanent buildings within 10m of tree. Think I'll have to word this report very carefully! Maybe there's the potential for a new thread (or I could look and see if one has already been created) Amenity value as justification for a TPO - discuss... Paul, wise words! Thanks for your comments, appreciated.

54 "views", no comments.... I guess the axiomatic logic must apply, we'll see if the LA TO agrees......

Which council is it?

Here's the situation.... a tree grows on a raised bank or stone hedge, the ground is level with the top of the hedge on one side (so we could assume 180 degree availability of sound anchorage on that side in the absence of any other significant factors) and 1 - 1.5 metres lower on the other side - does it follow then that the anchorage is NOT available on the lower side? Struggling to find any definitive answer or research to support what I think is a reasonable assumption. Any thoughts out there in the ether?